Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
376 O. Lindwall and J. Ivarsson
tasks. One can further note that when working together on these tasks, the students
often talked about adjustments of the track, but they hardly ever used any
concepts concerning motion. The verbal communication was directed at specific
details, like the height of individual posts or the inclination of a certain section,
and it never concerned the overall character of the represented motion.
In comparison with the students’ use of probeware, the differences are striking.
These differences can be found in: (i) how graphical representations and references
to concrete movements were made; (ii) the use of conceptual distinctions; (iii) and
the progression of the students’ interpretations of the graphs. It is at this point, we
argue, that one can begin to understand the success of probeware. Although both
probeware and Graphs & Tracks have been described as having almost the same
set of characteristics, the analysis shows that there are huge differences in how the
students approach and enact kinematics in the two environments investigated.
Differences that make a difference
Originally, the oft- cited quote of Bateson states that “information is a difference
that makes a difference” (1972, p. 99). When employed by others, the quote
commonly acquires meanings not originally emphasized, or even intended, by
Bateson. According to Lehmann, for instance, several pragmatist philosophers
hold that”a difference is only interesting if it actually has practical consequences
[and, consequently, that] many differences that would count as information in
the sense of Bateson do not qualify as differences that make a difference” (2004,
p. 77). This comment echoes much of the rhetoric in design- based research. At
the beginning of this chapter, we introduced the notion of differences that make
a difference to highlight the fact that design- based research, including the project
reported here, strives to uncover, describe and analyze differences with practical
consequences for educational contexts. Of course, finding such differences is not
only, or even primarily, a concern for educational researchers. Mainly, it is something
that occupies teachers and educational designers in their everyday work
(cf. Marton & Pang, 2006). Although this work is not directly observable in our
examples, the tools that the students use and the tasks they are occupied with have
a history and an aim that is consequential to the students’ conduct. For instance,
the tasks afforded by both probeware and Graphs & Tracks have been designed
in ways that enable the students to make connections between phenomenon and
representations.
Since students are not “passive recipients of instructional treatment” (Doyle,
1979, p. 203), however, the intentions of teachers and designers do not always
result in the desired activity. It is not enough that the technology itself embodies
the possibility of approaching kinematics in certain ways. As the literature on
educational assignments repeatedly shows, it is common that students exclusively
focus on the operational aspects of the task without actually approaching the subject
matter content and, consequently, the examples provided by the teacher fail
to exemplify anything (e.g. Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Säljö & Bergqvist, 1997).