Areas of challenge and intervention objectives

The research approach that we follow in iCamp is in line with the design-based research approach that started to emerge in the last decade as an attempt to bridge educational theory, design and practice (Design-Based Research Collective 2003). Compared to other lines of research that have been practiced in the field of education, the deliberate blending of theory-driven design of learning environments and interventions with empirical research has already shown some very promising results.

Amongst the characteristics of this approach that are reflected in the iCamp research design is the cyclic interaction of design, enactment, analysis and redesign, the collaborative partnership between researchers and practitioners as well as the authentic settings.

From a pedagogical perspective iCamp focuses on the support of competence advancement in three areas of challenge under particular contextual constraints.

The areas of challenge have been specified as
1) self-directing and self-organising intentional learning projects,
2) collaborating
3) social-networking.

Our educational modelling efforts in iCamp are embedded in a number of particular contextual constraints:

First of all, iCamp assumes that competence advancement in the specified areas of challenge is taking place in parallel to domain-specific teaching, or that domain-specific teaching can be (re-)organised and (re-)structured in a way that makes the intended competence advancement possible.

Furthermore, iCamp deals with formal higher-educational settings in which actors are distributed over geographic locations, institutions, disciplines, language communities, and national educational systems. This brings about a considerable heterogeneity of human actors.

Communication and (inter-)action in such a setting is inevitably technologically mediated. This technological mediation is taking place in increasingly diverse landscapes of tools and services. Thus we also deal with a considerable heterogeneity of technological landscapes.

While these specific constraints certainly restrict our educational design and intervention efforts, they should also be explored from a perspective of resource or potential within our conceptual work.