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

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
Co-configurational design 47
(2) going back to the 3 × 3 table and placing the tools in the table. A timeline was
added to the CL- layout picture right under the 3 × 3 table to point out that the
table’s tool constellation will look different in different phases of the CL process.
However, the strong agreement and sense of breakthrough did not eliminate the
design tension that also in this episode was audible in comments like “if we could
find some steps that are ‘easy’ to fill in” and “at least we get crazy ideas.”
Design dilemma of an existing tool
The third excerpt of this analysis is situated in the middle of the long episode 8.1
(time 0:35:40–0:38:16) addressing the design (by filling in the matrix) of the first
two steps in the CL process, “Charting the situation” and “Analyzing the situation.”
The question was: What kind of more structured and visualized tools are
possibly needed to carry out the start- up interviews in a virtual space compared to
the traditional face- to- face interviews An in- house developer suggested the use
of the Map- It tool, one of the promising tools introduced to the KP- Lab project
already in the planning phase. On the other hand, the design team members, the
initiator included, knew that the tool in question was not associated to carrying
out interviews. In general, the use of it had been explicated in the “Description
of Work” of the project, but the implementation had not been discussed thus far
in relation to the CL design.
Would the adoption of an existing tool represent one of the “easy” solutions
mentioned before in the design meeting Or would it require a lot of tailoring
and modification to fit this specific context It is interesting to look into a piece of
discourse on the potential of the given tool and observe a moment when existing
technology enters the design of a learning instrumentality.
From episode 8.1
01 Dev2: # . . . the reason why I suggested Map- It to interviews was that
it is in a sense mind- map- based [Res: Mm], I don’t know it
too well, it came to my mind that it might simultaneously save
the data “elegantly.”
02 Tec1: . . . that process, [would it save] the process, what is being done
Perhaps [he- he]
03 Res: Yes [he- he; expressions of insecurity.] So how did you think
that for interviewing – this kind of mind- map type
04 Dev2: For interviewing in a sense that it allows you to create a kind
of process based on which . . .
05 Res: Mm. [Doubting.]
06 Tec2: # Does it save a kind of text [# Tec1: yes- ;
Dev2: I don’t exactly–] and the image, and, the session (–)
07 Tec1: But I don’t understand, does it save how it evolves or does it
only save the outcome