For a better integration of the user in the design and evaluation processes of TELOS’s tools.

1. For a better integration of the user in the design and evaluation processes of TELOS’s tools. France Henri, Marcelo Maina LICEF research center, TÉLUQ/UQAM henri.france@teluq.uqam.ca mmaina@licef.ca

2. Presentation Plan • Research problem • Solution tracks • Research objectives • Theoretical background • Design approach methodology • A priori analysis : the ARTEFACT • In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT • Conclusion

3. Research problem TELOS system will introduce important transformation of professional and organizational practice • Significant effort of appropriation • Resistance to change • Risks associated with the use of new tools in professional activities (use deviation or bypass) • How to design a tool that will be usable, acceptable and adaptable to professional tasks? • How to ensure safety in tools for professional aims? • How to facilitate the technological innovation adoption?

4. Solution tracks • Deep understanding of user activity • Context, • professional values and culture, • practice (interaction with others, rules, routines, methods, tools, etc.) • Integration of the user in the design process (co-design) • Validation of the tool “in use”

5. Research objectives • Develop a user inclusive methodology for software tool designing • Base the methodology on a coherent theoretical background: instrumental genesis and participatory design • Integrate into the methodology a tracing software to better document the user experience • Provide a detailed description of the stages of the methodology • Apply the principles of participatory design to the design of this methodology involving LORNET researchers and developers

6. Theoretical background Activity theory (Vygotski, Leont'ev, Engeström, Nardi)

7. Theoretical background Instrumental approach (Rabardel) An Instrument is a mixed entity composed of • the artefact: the tool itself • the utilization patterns developed by the user • an organized series of actions as means to reach a goal • supporting the task of managing the characteristics of the artefact The mediating instrument, a composite entity (Béguin & Rabardel, 2000).

8. Theoritical background Participatory design (Caelen, Bødker) • Participatory approach: user-design design • Attempts to actively involve the end users in the design process • End-users are invited to cooperate with researchers and developers • during the initial exploration and problem definition • during development, they help evaluate proposed solutions

9. Design approach Design approach Design “for use” Design “in use” ARTEFACT INSTRUMENT

10. A priori analysis : the ARTEFACT • Allows a detailed description of the artifact • Explain the artifact functional characteristics • Make explicit the artifact embedded operational logic that structures the task • Unveil the user presupposed knowledge for the artifact operation • Situate the artifact in context Presupposedknowledge Constituents functions The potential functional zone Envisioned insertion context Prescribed procedures

11. A priori analysis : the ARTEFACT • Analysis of the artifact’s potential functional zone What • Modeling of the intended task (procedural model) and the identification of planned use patterns • Listing of functions and procedures • Analysis of the interface (ProCope method) What for • Get a “picture” of the artifact • Make explicit how it structures the activity • Compare the artifact embedded task structure with the patterns of user activity • Judge if the gap is acceptable

12. A priori analysis : the ARTEFACT • Identification of presupposed knowledge(Folcher & Sanders, 2005) What • Development of assumptions about the user’s computer literacy and task knowledge What for • Trace the expected user profile • Anticipate the possible user lack of knowledge • Evaluate professional adequacy p. ex.

13. A priori analysis : the ARTEFACT • Organization of the artifact in families and domains of activity What • Analysis of the context of the artifact's insertion • Situation of the artifact within activity/ies categories • Integration of the artifact within an artifactual system What for • Vision of the integration of the tool in the organization • Division of labor (interaction with others) • Artifact specificities and complementarities p. ex.

14. In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT • The artifact becomes an instrument at the moment of the performance of an activity • The user then puts into play a two-way and parallel process • the instrumentation process oriented towards himself and by which the user transforms himself (the emergence and the evolution of the utilization schemes) and, • the instrumentalisation process oriented towards the artifact (selection, production and institution of functions; deviation, bypass of use) Mobilized knowledge Constituted functions The potential functional zone Identified procedures Actual insertion context

15. In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT 1. Analysis of the instrument (instrumental genesis) What • Identifypatterns applied by the user during activity performance • Identify the functions used • describe the modus operandi of the user What for • Account for the appropriation of the artifact by the user • Identification of emergent or lacking functionalities • Adjustment of the artifact affordance to users’ intentions

16. In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT 2. Analysis of the functional value of the instrument What • Reporting failures of the instrument and the impact on activity through the application of the “Method of Failures and substitution Resources” (Rabardel & Bourmaud, 2005) What for • Identify function substitution in case of failure • Establish value of the substitution (equal, partial, etc.) • Identify resources ad hoc to resolve instrument failure • Identify conditions helping resolve the failure

17. In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT 3. Identification of mobilized knowledge What • Make explicit and represent mobilized knowledge for the activity performance (inference) • Compare with the presupposed knowledge What for • Trace the actual user profile • Reorient the artifact development • Establish user’s training needs • Modify the instrument to increase its acceptability

18. In use analysis : the INSTRUMENT 4. Organization of the artifact in families and domains of activity What • Analysis of context of the artifact's insertion: • Situation of the artifact within activity/ies categories (graph) • Integration of the artifact within an artifactual system (graph) What for • Comparison with the artifact envisioned insertion context • Integration of the artifact in the organization: changes, shifts • Division of labor (interaction with others)

19. Conclusion • TELOS is a socio-technical system that transforms practices of interrelated professions • instructional designers and teachers • also multimedia producers, programmers, graphic designers, managers, etc. • The methodology • analyses their activity in context, taking account of history and culture • helps to develop adequate and high-performance tools • enables to identify organizational challenges • Our approach is not user centered, but rather envision the design in usewith and bythe user

20. At present, the methodology has the status of an artifact It is our aim that LORNET developers getinvolved and transform this artifact into an instrument Thank you!