Co-designing tools for workplace learning. A method for analysing and tracing the appropriation of affordances in design-based research
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2019-0093 |
| Pages | 175-205 |
| Date | 25 April 2020 |
| Published date | 25 April 2020 |
| Author | Sebastian Maximilian Dennerlein,Vladimir Tomberg,Tamsin Treasure-Jones,Dieter Theiler,Stefanie Lindstaedt,Tobias Ley |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library & information services |
Co-designing tools for
workplace learning
A method for analysing and tracing the
appropriation of affordances in
design-based research
Sebastian Maximilian Dennerlein,Vladimir Tomberg,
Tamsin Treasure-Jones,Dieter Theiler,Stefanie Lindstaedt and
Tobias Ley
(Author affiliations can be found at the end of the article)
Abstract
Purpose –Introducing technology at work presents a special challenge as learning is tightly integrated
with workplace practices. Current design-based research (DBR) methods are focused on formal learning
context and often questionedfor a lack of yielding traceable research insights. This paper aims to proposea
method that extends DBR by understanding tools as sociocultural artefacts, co-designing affordances and
systematicallystudying their adoption in practice.
Design/methodology/approach –The iterative practice-centred method allows the co-design of
cognitivetools in DBR, makes assumptions and designdecisions traceable and builds convergentevidence by
consistently analysing how affordancesare appropriated. This is demonstrated in the context of health-care
professionals’informal learning, and how they make sense of their experiences. The authors report an 18-
month DBR casestudy of using various prototypes and testing the designswith practitioners through various
data collectionmeans.
Findings –By considering the cognitive level in the analysis of appropriation, the authors came to an
understanding of how professionals cope with pressure in the health-care domain (domain insight); a
prototype with concrete design decisions (design insight); and an understanding of how memory and
sensemaking processes interact when cognitive tools are used to elaborate representations of informal
learningneeds (theory insight).
© Sebastian Maximilian Dennerlein, Vladimir Tomberg, Tamsin Treasure-Jones, Dieter Theiler,
Stefanie Lindstaedt and Tobias Ley. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The research has been co-funded by the European Union’s 7th Research Framework project Learning
Layers (Grant agreement No. 318209; http://results.learning-layers.eu/), the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme project CEITER (Grant agreement No. 669074; http://ceiter.tlu.ee)and
the Austrian COMET Program –Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies. The Know-Center is
funded within the Austrian COMET Program under the auspices of the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Digital and Economic Affairs, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy,
Mobility, Innovation and Technology and by the State of Styria. All co-design interactions of the “Bits and
Pieces”case study were subject to ethical application and approval through the University of Leeds, School
of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (EDREC/12/009 and SoMREC/13/097) and the National Health
Service Research Governance Process (B001_30_01_13_123029 and 001_07_08_14_161142).
Co-designing
tools for
workplace
learning
175
Received12 September 2019
Revised27 February 2020
Accepted27 February 2020
Informationand Learning
Sciences
Vol.121 No. 3/4, 2020
pp. 175-205
EmeraldPublishing Limited
2398-5348
DOI 10.1108/ILS-09-2019-0093
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-5348.htm
Research limitations/implications –The method is validated in one long-term and in-depth case
study. While this was necessary to gain an understanding of stakeholder concerns, build trust and apply
methodsover several iterations, it also potentiallylimits this.
Originality/value –Besides generating traceableresearch insights, the proposed DBR method allows to
design technology-enhancedlearning support forworking domains and practices. The method is applicablein
other domainsand in formal learning.
Keywords Sensemaking, Design-based research, Workplace learning, Appropriation, Affordance,
Informal learning, Health care
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Information and communication technology is now a part of many professions, and
therefore a natural partof workplace learning (Billett and Choy, 2013). Many features of this
technology offer newopportunitiesfor workplacelearning thattakes place across a numberof
learning contexts in relation with work, such as formally organized and curriculum-based
learning programmes (e.g. trainings), but it more importantly includes informal and self-
regulated learning alongside work (Eraut, 2000). For example, this technology can help to
bridge learning across different formal and informal learning contexts (Eraut, 2000), it can help
to connect to teams or communities (Thorpe and Gordon, 2012;Ley et al., 2014;Renner et al.,
2014;Treasure-Jones et al., 2019)anditcanhelptolearnandreflect on a just in time basis by
supporting self-regulated learning at work (Eraut, 2004;Littlejohn et al., 2012;Fessl et al., 2017).
Informed by a long traditionof research into the nature of human activity as a social and
situated practice (Wenger,1998;Engeström, 2001), we understand the technology people are
using in this context as offering cultural tools that scaffold individual learning (Vygotsky,
1978), mediate individual and collaborativeknowledge building (Paavola and Hakkarainen,
2014) and inform corresponding practices. For example, a particular technology and its
features can make available cultural knowledge that may extend the capabilities of the
individual for sensemakingand problem solving (Stahl, 2013). This becomes apparent when
a tool empowers the employee to perform certain professional practices such as the patient
record system affording a general practitioner (GP) to explore medical records for
understanding the courseof disease.
Taken together, these technologiesshould guide professionals’meaningful sensemaking
in authentic work contexts.However, the increasing digitization of work life also makesthis
kind of learning more challenging. Billett and Choy (2013) suggest that in current
workplaces, a much stronger reliance on conceptual and symbolic knowledge is a result of
the introduction of digital technology,and experience of information overload is reported in
many professionstoday (Joynes et al., 2017;Ashley et al.,2018). For these reasons, we believe
a much more careful considerationof the cognitive affordances is necessary whendesigning
workplace-learningtechnology.
Such focus can be achieved with a perspective that conceptualizes workplace-learning
technology as “cognitive tools”. Cognitivetools afford distributed and situated cognition as
an interaction between internal and external representations, between members of a group
as well as over time (Hollan et al., 2000).They are tightly integrated in working and learning
practices and offer latent action possibilities, i.e. cognitive affordances that support social
and situated practices. In that case, the tools are meaningfully embedded in affordance
networks (Barab and Roth, 2006) and they align with the intentions of the activity system
(Engeström, 2001)as they are useful in fulfillingrelevant goals.
ILS
121,3/4
176
To continue reading
Request your trial