library.gito.de


WI2020
2020

Designing a Sandpit- and Co-Design-informed Innovation Process for Scaling TEL Research in Higher Education

Sebastian Dennerlein, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Markus Ebner, Günter Getzinger & Martin Ebner

Graz University of Technology, Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology, Educational Technology, Austria, Graz University of Technology, Science and Technology Studies, Austria


✉ Kontakt zum Autor

https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_s4-dennerlein

Sustainably digitalizing higher education requires a human-centred approach. To address actual problems in teaching as well as learning and increase acceptance, the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) solution(s) must be co-designed with affected researchers, teachers, students and administrative staff. We present research-in-progress about a sandpit-informed innovation process with a f2f-marketplace of TEL research and problemmapping as well team formation alongside a competitive call phase, which is followed by a cooperative phase of funded interdisciplinary pilot teams codesigning and implementing TEL innovations. Pilot teams are supported by a University Innovation Canvas to document and reflect on their TEL innovation from multiple viewpoints.

Keywords: higher education, sandpit, co-design, innovation, TEL


1. Stagars, M.: University Startups and Spin-Offs. Apress, Berkeley, CA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0623-2.
2. DBRC, (Design-Based Research Collective): Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educ. Res. 32, 5–8 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005.
3. Maxwell, K., Benneworth, P.: The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges. Palgrave Commun. 4, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0105-9.
4. Ebner, M., Hell, T., Ebner, M.: How to Foster Technology-Enhanced Learning in Higher Education. In: Elçi, A., Beith, L., and Elçi, A. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Faculty Development for Digital Teaching and Learning. pp. 402–416. Hershey, PA: IGI Global (2019). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8476-6.ch020.
5. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J.: Portfolio Management for New Products: Picking The Winners. Prod. Innov. Best Pract. Ser. 1–16 (2008).
6. Brunckhorst, J.: Behind the Dartboard - Explore the Dartboard Dimensions, and Discover Tools to Strengthen Your Team across Each Dimension, https://productdartboard.com/behind-the-dartboard, last accessed 2020/01/10.
7. Brunckhorst, J.: The Product Dartboard - Product Management, https://blog.carbonfive.com/2015/07/29/the-product-dartboard/, last accessed 2020/01/10.
8. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Ceneration. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0307-10.2010.
9. Maurya, A.: Running lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works (Lean Series). (2012).
10. Krogstie, B.R.: A Model of Retrospective Reflection in Project Based Learning Utilizing Historical Data in Collaborative Tools. Learning. 418–432 (2009).
11. Zott, C., Amit, R.: Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Plann. 43, 216–226 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004.
12. Engeström, Y.: Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work. 14, 133–156 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080123238.
13. Barab, S.A., Evans, M.A., Baek, E.-O.: Activity Theory As a Lens for Characterizing the Participatory Unit. In: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.). (2004).
14. Dennerlein, S., Gutounig, R., Kraker, P., Kaiser, R., Ausserhofer, J.: Assessing Barcamps : Incentives for Participation in Ad-Hoc Conferences and the Role of Social Media. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (2013).
15. Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Clark-Wilson, A.: Creating the golden triangle of evidence-informed education technology with EDUCATE. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 490–504 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12727.

 

Beitrag herunterladen