I like to take a complex or “entangled” view of educational activity. A tutorial, for example, is not just a method of teaching but a lived experience, made up of multiple and, to some extent, emergent methods. The structure is, usually, followed quite loosely, and tweaked and subverted by teachers and students in the moment. A mashup of technologies intentionally and unintentionally enables and constrains forms of interaction and engagement. These elements are shaped by, but also shape, the context, conditions and environments in which the tutorial happens. The way people act before, during and after the tutorial, and how they configure their spaces, social arrangements and technologies, is also entangled in what they are trying to achieve (their purposes) and what they care about (their values), collectively and as individuals. The tutorial also does not stand alone. Whether on campus or online, it is part of a bigger mix of synchronous and asynchronous, social, material and digital activity.
It’s hard to know how to begin designing from a complex view like this. How can educators factor all of this into their designs? One thing I am pretty sure of is that designing for complexity needs to be iterative, because otherwise it’s too difficult to align each and every element that the educator wants to account for. The kind of design knowledge that is needed probably has to be built up over time too, and involves, among other things, practising this kind of alignment. For example, rather than redesigning my tutorial from scratch, I might apply a complex lens to its current form and, in so doing, notice things that could be modified for next time.
Using frameworks to support iterative design for complexity
I think Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD) is a good lens for this, because it helps me to think not just about the tasks that I want learners to do but also the social (e.g. individual, pairs, groups) and material (e.g. room layouts, technological setup) arrangements in which I think they will do them. I say “want” and “think” because none of this can be guaranteed. Students will subvert my design intentions (which, in some ways, is a very good outcome because they can help transform my design into something that works for them in practice). Also, unforeseen things can happen that require situational adaptation on the fly (e.g. the air-conditioning will fail, a website will be down, a scheduling conflict will arise, someone will release an AI application that can do the task for students).
By applying ACAD, I can see that I need to pay more attention to the material arrangements of my tutorial if I want the social arrangements to work for the task I have asked my students to do. Sometimes, I can’t set up the material environment (including technologies) in the way I want, so then I need to change the social setup and/or the tasks. I also need to keep working on these aspects until they fit together coherently. This is what I mean by iterative design.
Entangled pedagogy: remembering what’s important
The entangled pedagogy lens can also help me see if what I am designing makes sense in relation to my values (what I care about) and those of my students. Does it make sense in relation to our purposes (what we are trying to achieve) beyond just the learning outcomes? We always learn things that aren’t written down, and being a bit more expansive in our sense of purpose can help us to be intentional about those aspirations that are not in the course description. It can also help us keep a focus on what’s important when everyone is panicking about the latest disruption to education.
In all this, an entangled lens helps me to keep in mind, within the design process, who my students are, what level they are studying at, what disciplinary considerations might be important, what pressures they are under, what their access to equipment or conducive study environments is like, and so on. That’s a lot to take into account within the design process. Using lenses like ACAD and entangled pedagogy, but starting small and iteratively (e.g. modifying current approaches rather than overhauling), might help people move towards a more complex approach to design.
Thanks to my colleagues Jo Hook and Tomas Zahora for sparking some of the thinking in this post.
Associate Professor Tim Fawns, Monash Education Academy, Monash University