Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This article examines conceptualisations of space in the design of hybrid learning environments. Our focus is the relationship between the task of designing a museum exhibition space and the material and conceptual tools that an inter-professional team of researchers, museum curators and exhibition designers take up, interpret and transform in order to make them serve the team’s purpose. Using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical lens, our purpose is to understand how the tools mediate the task. Understanding the relationship between the physical space and social interaction has become a central concern in the design of hybrid learning environments, i.e. spaces where digital and physical elements are combined to foster immersive learning experiences. Research has focused on exploring the ways users experience designed spaces. However, little attention has been paid to how designers negotiate conceptualisations of space in the design process.
Using video recordings of the interactions of an inter-professional team, we explore how material and conceptual tools mediate the conceptualisations of space in the design of a hybrid learning environment in a science museum. In this chapter, we discuss how the notion of transparency and the prototype of a motion-sensing device became powerful tools in the design of hybrid learning environments. We also discuss how the relationship between the tools and the task has to be understood based on the object-motives of each of the different professional practices. It is argued that a design strategy that includes an understanding of the design process as a cultural-historical process allows for innovative implementations in hybrid learning environments.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Bannon, L., Benford, S., Bowers, J., & Heath, C. (2005). Hybrid design creates innovative museum experiences. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 62–65. CrossRef
Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “Virtual Worlds”. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.jvwresearch.org/v1n1_bell.html
Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Jacucci, G., Linde, P., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding spaces as places: Extending interaction design paradigms. Cognition, Technology Work, 6(1), 37–40. CrossRef
Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. (2005). Space, place and the design of technologically-enhanced physical environments. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 217–232). Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRef
Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. (2007). Designing hybrid places: Merging interaction design, ubiquitous technologies and geographies of the museum space. CoDesign, 3(3), 159–180. CrossRef
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and a future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85. CrossRef
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dourish, P. (2006). Re-space-ing place: “Place” and “space” ten years on. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff.
Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2010). Working relationally at organisational boundaries. Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice. Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126–140). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ellis, V. (2008). Boundary transformation in a school-university teacher education partnership: The potential of developmental work research in DETAIL. Paper presented at the sociocultural perspective on teacher education and development: New directions for research, University of Oxford.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions, and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395–412. CrossRef
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39. CrossRef
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.). (2005). Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research (Vol. 13). Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
Ferguson, R., Gillen, J., Peachey, A., & Twining, P. (2013). The strength of cohesive ties: Discursive construction of an online learning community. In M. Childs & A. Peachey (Eds.), Understanding learning in virtual worlds (pp. 83–100). London: Springer.
Harrison, S., Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: The roles of space and place in collaborative systems. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’96, Boston.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.
Jahreie, C. F., & Krange, I. (2011). Learning in science education across school and science museums—Design and development work in a multiprofessional group. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3), 174–188.
Jahreie, C. F., Arnseth, H. C., Krange, I., Smørdahl, O., & Kluge, A. (2011). Designing for play-based learning of concepts in science: Technological tools for bridging school and science museum contexts. Children, Youth, and Environments, 21(2), 236–255.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. CrossRef
Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18. CrossRef
Kaptelinin, V. (2011, January 4–7). Designing technological support for meaning making in museum learning: An activity theoretical framework. Paper presented at the HICSS 44,, Hawaii.
Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 169–187). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4).
Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). “Real” presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence and virtual presence. Presence, 8(5), 540–550. CrossRef
Moher, T. (2006). Embedded phenomena: Supporting science learning with classroom-sized distributed simulations. Paper presented at the human factors in computing systems, Montreal.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2010–2011). St.mld. 22: Motivasjon—mestring—muligheter [Motivation, requirement, possibilities]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.
Peachey, A. (2008). The third place in second life: Real life community in a virtual world. In A. Peachey, J. Gillen, D. Livingstone, & S. Smith-Robbins (Eds.), Researching learning in virtual worlds (pp. 91–110). London: Springer.
Schultze, U. (2010). Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 434–449. CrossRef
Smørdal, O., Slotta, J., Krange, I., Moher, T., Novellis, F., Gnoli, A., et al. (2012). Hybrid spaces for science education. In J. van Aals, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the future of learning: 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 2, Short papers, symposia, and abstracts, pp. 9–15). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Turner, P. (2007). The international basis of presence. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on presence (pp 127–134). Barcelona: ISPR (International Society of Presence Research). ISBN: 978-0-9792217-1-2
Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2006). Place, sense of place and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(2), 204–217. CrossRef
Turner, P., Turner, S., & Carroll, F. (2005). The tourist gaze: Towards contextualised virtual environments. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (pp. 281–297). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Designing for Hybrid Learning Environments in a Science Museum: Inter-professional Conceptualisations of Space
Cecilie Flo Jahreie
- Springer London
- Chapter 3
Neuer Inhalt/© Filograph | Getty Images | iStock