SELF-MANAGED LEARNING IN OUT-OF-SCHOOL CONTEXTS

[Study Home] [Phase 1] [Phase 2] [Phase 3]

[3.1] [3.2] [3.3] [3.4] [3.5] [3.6] [3.7]  

Researcher Notes on Phase 3

In Phase 3, I wasn't quite sure in the initial stages as to how the scaffolds came to be identified. I suspected that this happens through elaboration of the relationships/interactions identified at Phase 2. In that respect, it seems the scaffolds and adjustments may provide some potential solutions for bridging the gap in the learner’s ZPD. I also thought that there’s something in all of this that perhaps linked back to the participatory design process and the skills/knowledge gaps identified there and I wondered whether, at this point, these original examples needed to be drawn out and links made between the model, framework, scaffolds and the reality of the design activity and design needs exemplified in and through the participatory design process.

It seemed likely that the scaffolds, too, would most likely be iterative – and could, for example, be closely related to a refined design motivation/adjusted focus of attention... e.g. in the Observatory example... linking selection of available technologies to learner's existing understandings about technologies and their potentials in different contexts/for different activities... so, for example, this appeared to require some way of unearthing the learner's understanding in relation to notions of availability/awareness/experiences.

In effect, as I worked my way through Phase 3, I realised that as this study was aimed not so much at the design of specific technologies as to supporting students' awareness of the potential utility of technologies, the notion of adjustment and scaffolding was going to be slightly different than might be the case if a design team was using the EoR framework to design for a specific type of technology and context. For this reason, whilst it was possible to use the EoR Model and Design Framework to generate ideas about potential adjustments and scaffolding, either in the in situ exhibits, events and other resources at the Royal Observatory, it also became apparent that further iterations of the design process were likely be needed to put this in place. 

So, in effect, arguably this may require a pattern of (1) dialogue – with a preliminary scaffold – e.g. some form of activity designed to elucidate responses to these questions which will facilitate the construction of a learner model... in this study, for example, I engaged learners in the development of a card game about digital technologies to support identification of their existing understanding and to identify gaps in knowledge. Interestingly, there came a point in this preliminary scaffolding activity where learners began to ‘self-scaffold’. For example, by making suggestions about the design and content of the cards to facilitate memorisation of relations between different contexts (e.g. trip locations) and useful technologies. Here, for example, learners suggested the use of colour coding to facilitate card matching.

As the first iteration of this study did not produce any actual scaffolding and adjustment, I can, in this phase, only discuss the possibilities that might be considered for a range of scaffolding possibilities. In this sense, this study is not a report on a technology that has been tested and evaluated by participants but a scenario which involves a much earlier exploration of learners and their contexts.