Evolution of a socio-technical activity tool for ICT in education

The socio-technical activity tool was developed while traveling back and forth between various European destinations. It started as a partially sketched exploration into the factors that impact our decision-making processes when we come to choose, or indeed evaluate, what might consider as appropriate technologies for enhancing learning and teaching. At the beginning the aims were 'simple', asking myself straightforward questions regarding the major factors or dimensions that we should consider in these decision-making processes.

 

The tool has now developed beyond these initial doodlings to something far more concrete ... forming the centre piece in the first session of a double workshop at the October 2007 Open Classroom Conference hosted in Stockholm. It was held up for public scrutiny alongside a number of other tools (see Prism(lab) and esphères identitaires) that have been developed with Margarita for exploring  the relationships within educationally orientated socio-technological systems. The current version comprises three triangles representing the key dimensions of technology, literacy and pedagogical approach that converge on the central notion of a decision activity which could be, for example, assessing the appropriateness of a particular tool in a particular educational setting. Each triangle is surrounded by a neighbourhood of descriptive sub-factors or variables:

1. Technology {Functionality, Cost, Infrastructure}
2. Literacy {Knowledge, Skills and Competencies}
3. Pedagogical approach {Context, Policy and Strategy, Purpose}

What I like most about the diagram is that as a visualisation tool it seems to work. It must be conceded that there is no simple solution to describing all of the actors and interwoven nuances that converge on decision making processes for ICTs in education but the diagram leaves open multiple interpretations and I think holds enough flexibility to be read in several ways. The key though is activity and the critical central tenet is being able to move oneself towards a position of making reflexive decisions while at the same time providing a balance between pragmatism and the naturally ecological or organic framework within which these decisions exist. More often than not our technological choice-making processes are driven by the ideal of finding good 'fitness for purpose' and yet through a set of these often complex and sometimes unacknowledged factors we can find ourselves making choices that are skewed by instinctual understandings. Here then, the socio-technical activity tool provides a reflective device for interpreting our actions.

An occasional paper detailing this and other tools developed for the workshop will be published shortly on the Prism(lab) research site and include complementary work from Margarita Perez-Garcia. And just for the record I am also including a snapshot of those early doodlings.

 

Comments

[Lawrie]

Hi Steve,
this look really interesting. I wonder if/when you build some case studies around it, it can help interpret social technologies for the e-framework?

[Professor Steven Warburton]

yes i think this might work as an approach to understanding social technologies around the e-framework. the case study i have at the moment is looking at MUVEs and if this proves a productive exercise then i will look for others. i will also be putting up two more tools that have been developed here on the blog which work in conjunction with this overarching framing device.

[Alec Couros]

I like this Steve, but when thinking "functional", I'm not sure about the way you've numbered these. Maybe I'm viewing this differently than you, but I'd number the decision activity as #1 if I was building it from the ground. I'd rather have my activities push the others, rather than have my existing world push my decisions.

[Professor Steven Warburton]

Thanks Alec. The numbering is, as you have spotted, is rather ad hoc and not at the moment designed as 'functionally' sequential but more as tags for the supporting documentation that I have been developing to add more detail to the factors/variables surrounding each of the central dimensions. When I have used the tool in a workshop setting I started at number 4 (decision activity) and in one example placed MUVEs (multi-user virtual environments) effectively at the centre and then analysed each triangle (1 to 3) and used the tool essentially for evaluating the applicability and indeed feasibility of MUVEs for educational purposes. The other way round would be to start with pedagogy (3) and then each of the other triangles (2 and 1) before making decisions (4) about suitable technologies using the specifications that are built from this exercise. I will revisit the numbering in light of your comments.