TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS

Based on the ELYK model for conducting Educational Design Research, there is great potential in establishing a partnership between the researcher and the teachers. With the aim of joint collaboration, the initial problem identification and desk research become the tools for developing a new educational design through systematic conversion processes (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).

Educational Design Research thus shares some similarities with action research and gets some inspiration here. Common to both approaches are: 1) a collaboration between researchers and participants, 2) that the research is anchored in practice, 3) that they work systematically with theory, 4) that the goal is to improve theory and practice (Majgaard et al., 2011; Nieveen et al., 2006). Educational Design Research is collaborative through establishing cooperation with the participants from the field of practice regarding problem identification, and formulation of the characteristics of potential solutions through an experimental and iterative process (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Cobb et al., 2003).

In action research, the improvements are typically initiated by the participants’ studies where the researcher plays a facilitating role. In Educational Design Research, on the other hand, researchers and participants from practice work jointly on identifying problems, producing and improving proposed practice innovations (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). In Educational Design Research, it is entirely legitimate that the researcher occupies an “expert” role through active participation in the development process by contributing with innovative proposals to a given design (Edelson, 2006; Nieveen et al., 2006). However, despite the differences in roles, a study by Cole et al. (2005) concludes that the two methodologies, action research and Educational Design Research, share the same epistemological and thus defining characteristics as are known from pragmatism.

They therefore concluded their article by recommending the integration of the two.

They are not alone in suggesting this, as a study by Misfeldt and Nielsen (2011) also points to the benefits of combining action research and Educational Design Research (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Majgaard et al., 2011;

Nieveen et al., 2006; Purao & Rossi, 2005). However, there are some issues regarding the separation of roles between researcher and teacher when the design is tested in practice. In action research projects, participants are, as already mentioned, much more integrated into the development phase, where the researcher’s task is mainly reduced to facilitating processes. If the teachers lack motivation for creating changes, it can be problematic regarding creating the right attention to the balance between cautious changes or facing a greater risk taking when selecting the design principles.

Being able to create a disturbed and unsettled situation as a driver for the acquisition of knowledge is an essential factor when it comes to conducting a pragmatic research process (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011; Lehmann-Rommel, 2000; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Existing research on resistance towards change describes how human nature seeks a sense of stability (Lewin, 1947; Madsen, 2009, 2013; Schein, 1995). This natural response means that processes of change often produce resistance, which makes it challenging to engage in a developing process ‒ innovative solutions must often be found through impossibilities. As Decker Walker points out, risk taking in design is what creates the most significant changes (Walker, 2006). This is not the case in Educational Design Research, where the teacher typically plays a limited role in the design process (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013). Since the researcher plays an active and dominant role in the development of the learning design that forms the framework for the research design, it iscrucial that the researcher acquires knowledge about the

complexity of the educational context and culture in order to effectively create and measure the effectiveness of an intervention (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013).

The choice for this PhD project will thus be the use of a first-person perspective represented by the researcher in the design process as part of a co-creation team while the prototype is being developed through the conversion of theory into design principles (Edelson, 2006; Nieveen et al., 2006). The teachers who teach at Architectural Technology and Construction Management are thus in this PhD project consulted through workshops between each iteration (see Chapter 10). The teachers and I as a researcher are thus collaborating about balancing the theoretical aspects of gaming theory with the practical learning condition of the fourth semester.

When the design is subsequently tested in practice, the researcher then plays a spectator role through a third-person position by objectively observing the teachers’ and the students’ response to, and the use of, the design (Walker, 2006; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). The inclusion of the teachers in the design process is in accordance with the pragmatic core principles. Elkjaer and Simpson (2011) describe the significance of why a shared dimension in the process is central to pragmatism: “Dewey argued that all experience has an objective dimension but that ‘sharing experience’ must be more than a metaphor because shared objective situations are always interlaced with subjective experiences” (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011, p. 65). As a result of this, the intersubjective development processes are catalysts for the continuous development of practice and the ownership of the participants (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011). It is through interaction, co-creation, coordination, communication, etc. that humans create an intersubjective world, and thereby it becomes possible to see the situations where subjectivity becomes a problem (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010).

This argumentation leads to the question of whether it may be possible to benefit from the students as co-creators in the design process. Through participation in workshops, students can bring interesting perspectives to the prototype design principles about the problems they face in their education. However, the concept of Game-Based Learning has embedded some elements that hinder this approach in practice. One of the fundamental principles behind Game-Based Learning is the surprise element and experiences associated with moving toward something unknown. It is, therefore, impossible in practice to have an in-depth gaming experience by playing a game you are developing yourself. The excitement of not knowing what the next step is or how obstacles should be overcome will be lost. Another argument would be the conflict or contradiction between the status of the researcher and the student when it comes to an understanding of what the problem is, and where to find the solution. The understanding of learning in this PhD is very much linked to the concept of playing with impossibilities, and the pre-study revealed that the students to some extent did not acknowledge problem-based learning as a valid way of approaching teaching activities.

The concept of “change” thus becomes essential. How does one understand the idea of

change and what influence will it have on the project regarding questions such as: Does the changes have to make things better? What is the risk? Moreover, who decides what is good? Good for whom? One goal could be to find a way or learn a way to educate the students in a shared understanding of what a good learning process looks like, instead of insisting that it is the student or the teacher who should change their belief.

The idea of change must be carefully linked with the desire to create new knowledge rather than solve a problem. In this PhD thesis, the ongoing process of identifying new design principles that can inform new design schemes acts as a way to ensure that the focus is not only on problem solving. Thus, the focus of PhD projects shifts towards the development of new knowledge rather than solving a specific problem, as well as trying to establish a sensitivity towards situations where observations or dialogues with both students and teachers point to a detected change in their behaviour. The analysis of the empirical data in Chapter 9 shows that even though the teachers were able to observe changes in the students’ behaviour and they acknowledged that it was the game causing it, it was not seen entirely as a positive effect. The teachers questioned whether it is the “right” or perhaps even the most ethical way to make a change if it is based on the behaviourist traits of Game-Based Learning. Examples of these types of concerns have, therefore, been highlighted in the PhD project’s analytical chapters and the subsequent reflection and conclusion of the project’s results and contribution.

If the goal is to build new knowledge, then the process of change mediates the creation of new insights ‒ for example, through an experimental approach. The concept of change is not about whom it benefits or that it has to make something better, but rather it is the understanding of what different perspectives a given prototype can cause.

Problematic change may also be the source of new knowledge and perhaps the key to spotting something that is untapped and has some potential. Edgar H. Schein, who was inspired by Lewin’s theories, talks about processes of change as a “cognitive restructuring” (Schein, 1995). Resistance phenomena occur not only as back pressure for changes but just as much through the mediation of social factors such as empathy, feelings and attitudes towards other people (Lawrence, 1969). The basic idea behind Lewin’s theory is that the current habits and perceptions are first redefined, then a movement is organised towards something new (Gyldendahl-Jensen, 2013; Lewin, 1947; Madsen, 2009; Schein, 1995;).

3.4. THE LACK OF DESIGN PROCEDURES IN THE LITERATURE