Dorina Gnaur
4. Towards a digital pedagogical signature, DPS
The learning design was developed co-creatively with mainly two teachers from the particular program, but the process was informed more widely by data collected by the researcher across the department for further and continuing education at the UC. The design process went through several iterations, each focusing on a specific stage, corresponding to Heskett’s prescription: "Design is to design a design to produce a design" (quoted: in Dohn 2016, p 50).
The first level was one of actively constructing a conceptual learning design that represented a digitally enhanced signature pedagogy according to the prevailing educational philosophy. In this way, the original signature pedagogy of integrating learning and work was made possible by digital mediations between the two contexts.
At the second level, the conceptual learning design materialized in a so-called Hybrid Interaction Model. The hybrid mode provided continuous digital pedagogical support throughout the learning course across various environments and situations promoting active collaboration and creative learning in context. This particular design, too, build on a pre-exiting pedagogical model, the so-called study-activity model (see below), providing active support to maintaining the learning momentum.
Thus, the hybrid learning environment design consisted of physically and digitally mediated resources and interactions that coexisted and complemented each other in both physical and virtual environments promoting continuity, timeliness and presence. The pedagogy changed from being teacher and institution-centered to being work / life-based and learning-centered.
At the third level, the Hybrid Interaction Model was used to produce a particular learning design, i.e. adapted to serve the purposes of a specific education, namely the Co-creation module in Process Leadership.
The conceptual design of a digitally enhanced learning space was called the digital pedagogical signature (DPS) stressing the tight link to the prevalent signature pedagogy, which would guide the design of various UC programs in a digitally expanded learning environment. The DPS design was informed by interviews with educational and leading staff in the department. I found that, besides foundational pedagogical claims of close adherence to practice, the educational philosophy that informed most pedagogical actions in this particular UC was based on a set of semi-formal values relating to four types of approaches to teaching – all aimed at qualifying the learners to act competently in their practice. These were respectively the reflective, the knowledge-based, the experience-based and the relational approach to teaching. Learning aimed at the development of action competences in practice and involved the interaction between experiential work, systematic reflection and theoretical inspiration, as well as by creating rapport and collaboration. A meaningful interaction between these dimensions would result in enhanced competences for action.
This philosophy echoes the qualifying, the social and the subjective functions of education mentioned by Biesta (2015) – the latter in the strong emphasis on the unitive value of action competence. The teaching focuses on deep learning through active learning and focus on application, problem solving, relation to practice, and not least on processing new and difficult knowledge through dialogue and reflection. Subsequently, the new experiences must be integrated into the professional context of the participants and help qualify and develop their practices. However, this is far from easy to realize, partly due to efficiency constraints on class time and partly due to the division between school and work.
Another actively used tool to guide teachers organize their courses in the UC was the so-called study-activity model. It was a structuring model marking the division of learning activities taking place respectively in- and outside class, individually- or in groups; and whether they were student- or teacher-initiated. The main concern being to qualify student learning outside classes and supervision meetings, which were teacher-centered, and thus stimulate students’ independent learning and the ways they interacted with the learning material on their own and with peers. Despite the effort to promote a full-cycle learning experience, the model remained an ideal in lack of a comprehensive learning platform to mediate between various spaces.
Dorina Gnaur
It could this far be assessed that the flexible online medium combined with digitized learning materials proved a viable extension of current pedagogical practices. With reference to the research question, one precondition for the coming into existence of the new learning design was that it reflected and enhanced the specific educational philosophy and the pedagogical signature of the UC programs, all aimed very specifically at the professions.
4.1 A hybrid interaction model for learning with praxis
Digital pedagogical design has been defined as process design for learning (Jahnke 2016), where the design dimension triggers a greater creative potential for configuring pedagogical structures that support learning.
When pedagogical design unfolds in a digital environment, the learning affordances are significantly enriched and innovative pedagogical thinking takes shape. The digital is not just an addition, but changes the design perspective towards a new paradigm expressed through digitally mediated designs for learning. These unfold in hybrid, multimodal and multiple locations, and the learning from being teacher and institution-centered to being student and learning centered, i.e. follows the student's learning process in the potential learning situations that can be activated in the student's own life and work context.
In our work with the digital pedagogical signature (DPS), we focused on designing for learning through digitally mediated social interaction in three different learning spaces; the aim being to promote fluid mutual relations between knowledge dissemination, knowledge processing and production of knowledge in close relation to practice. This was guided by the Hybrid Interaction Model (fig.1), to emphasize the integration of digital and physiological presence modalities across learning and action spaces. The model was - internally at the UC- also referred to as DPS as it supported its signature pedagogy and the strategic intention to provide practice relevant education through new learning methods.
DPS realized this intention by expanding the participants' affordances of learning through digitally mediated dynamic interactions between the pedagogical components, where knowledge building and application in practice were continuously integrated and supported by the learning design. Following the Hybrid Interaction Model, learning activities were structured at three levels. These corresponded to the three dimensions of signature pedagogies (SP):
Figure1: Hybrid interaction model
Dorina Gnaur
1. At the first level of interaction, we find the content oriented platform aimed at accessing knowledge using digital learning materials to introduce concepts, methods, etc. as well as feedback on common tasks. One example of such technology is the use of educational podcasts (Gnaur and Hüttel 2016). Podcasts allow educators to share information via prerecorded transmission of disciplinary content and processes. A podcast can guide a student through a process, preparing for practice and understanding of a concept at her own pace in an on-demand format, replacing tutor centered contact. This counts as surface learning because it demonstrates how instructors frame and deliver information and processual knowledge. This transmission or guidance is an operational act of teaching and learning.
2. The second level of interaction is based on digitally supported collaboration for processing knowledge in context. Network groups can meet physically and/or virtually and perform various problem solving tasks and inquiry based activities related to practice. The focus here is on knowledge and skills training, where the teacher has a facilitative function. This type of interaction promotes the deep structures of problem solving, higher order thinking and collaboration among students, who connect in a hybrid space around common issues.
3. The third level of interaction pertains to co-creation of knowledge, where students identify and learn from engaging with real life problems in their respective work contexts. Problem based learning (PBL) and action learning are used to promote learning through interaction with participants' respective workplaces, which they investigate applying prior knowledge in co-creative ways, that generate new practice related knowledge. This knowledge is mediated digitally in the form of (video) reality case stories in the first common learning space, thus shared with all. The focus here is on action competences and blending one's own and others’ competences.
The role of the teacher is as that of a mentor and co-creative action researcher.
This level of interaction corresponds to the implicit or hidden structure, containing more complex elements of SP as they involve questioning, judgement and morality. Discussing professional attitudes and engaging in formative assessments of their work-in-progress has been found effective in online environments, as well as incorporating peer feedback - including coaching in how to give effective peer feedback - in order to cultivate a sense of what is considered valuable (Eaton et al. 2017).
The Hybrid Interaction Model triggers a number of dialectical, iterative and creative processes. These relate to the ongoing balancing of the digital possibilities and limitations, as well as the consequences that cross-action and learning space-activities have for learning. For how will the learners make use of the digital learning tools and activities and how will they act in digitally mediated social relationships and roles? How does the teacher design for learning in changing action spaces and social constellations, which is beyond the reach of teaching?
Which forms of communication are best in the various learning spaces? How to design for building functional knowledge in relation to the learners' practices? How to create engaging activities and social interaction and networks? And how is learning designed in relation to the participants' professional contexts to generate new, practice-based knowledge that can develop and possibly transform practice? Such questions can only be answered in the context of a concrete case constituting "the set of practices involved in constructing representations of how to support learning in a particular case" and where design id different from development, being "the practice of turning these representations into real support for learning (Goodyear, 2005, p 82). The learning design requires the continuous creative involvement of the teacher as designer of learning (Laurillard, 2013). Invoking creative thinking and co-creative engagement in the design team with respect to satisfying the signature pedagogy at both surface, deep and implicit levels, are the main considerations at this stage, i.e., when adapting a design prototype to a specific educational design.
4.2 A co-creative design for learning
The third stage in the design-based research project - after the initial conceptual design (DPS) and its concretization in the Hybrid Interaction Model - has been to employ the learning design in a particular educational program, the Co-creation-oriented Process Leadership module. Together with the program teachers, we considered the learning goals of the program against the participants' learning needs and expectations as the backbone of the intended learning objectives as "[w]ithout clearly defined goals, educational design becomes more exposition" (Laurillard 2002). In this case, the program aimed at action competences and creativity, and so the emphasis was on designing for learning through action and reflection. Co-creation was of particular interest to the target learner group, public sector professionals. Co-creation refers to a new welfare paradigm co-involving the stakeholders, across administrative and professional divides (Sørensen and Torfing,
Dorina Gnaur
2011). The future process leaders were expected to develop competencies to identify and mobilize potentiality for co-creation, which required complex skills and the ability to spot innovation opportunities.
In order to cultivate this type of implicit capacities, the hybrid learning design has been enriched with a reflexivity component that supports self-reflection and self-assessment as well as other forms of continuous, shared reflection and process evaluation. Thus, the design contains an individual reflection tool in the form of an electronic process portfolio with supportive reflection tasks. Students are organized in groups and provide peer feedback on each other’s activities. Main learning points can be reflected upon, in an electronic logbook, alongside other forms of group activities, such as assignments, activity logs, cases from practice, etc. Reflection supports the innovative and creative forms of learning and the implicit judgements underlying decisions.
The co-designing team has been particularly aware of promoting participation through communicative activities, where participants are presented with easily accessible content, such as daily short video reports to create a living communication platform; then gradually starting to contribute, guided through structured initial e-tivities (Salmon 2012) to establish an online identity, both as an individual and as a group. Communication in the first learning space is teacher initiated in the form of shared information, content and task instructions. As the learners participate in activities of applying knowledge and problem-solving, communication becomes gradually more participant initiated, with the teacher providing feedback. To stimulate the interest and engagement we favor multimodality, for example, there is particular focus on video dissemination such as video podcasts for various purposes, sometimes also produced by participants, as stories from the field.
The hybrid learning design has subsequently undergone further adaptations with regard to the degree of blended learning involved. It can thus be varied from mainly digitally supported to mainly physical seminars. The latter seems to be the preferred one by the participants, which may be due to reciprocal expectations when formal learning is involved.
However, the design has maintained its structure and distinctive elements, which alternate between face-to- face meetings preceded by preparatory online learning, and are likewise followed up by online ‘action tasks’ for application in practice. The learning design is described with a journey metaphor. As we go through various learning stations – online or class-based - we collect knowledge and tools for the journey, often as online learning units. At each of the two bootcamps, i.e. weekend seminars, we all gather to appoint group missions, which cover targeted learning expeditions aimed at data collection, analysis, action and reflection in authentic work contexts. The product can be a written report or brief video accounts, 'stories from the field', so-called reality case stories. Along the way, participants communicate with fellow students and the teacher as a learning partner. The course ends with a third and last bootcamp, which is an open exam conference day, where participants present their learning results using various digital formats.
Designs are and should not be static, yet they will confront the status quo and habitual patterns of activity in any context of practice. Designing for learning in close adherence to the underlying pedagogical rationale can be a way to make innovations stick. Nevertheless, designs need to be continually re-created in order to remain innovative and evolve practice.