An official website of the United States government
Abstract This paper provides an experience report on a co‐design approach with teachers to co‐create learning analytics‐based technology to support problem‐based learning in middle school science classrooms. We have mapped out a workflow for such applications and developed design narratives to investigate the implementation, modifications and temporal roles of the participants in the design process. Our results provide precedent knowledge on co‐designing with experienced and novice teachers and co‐constructing actionable insight that can help teachers engage more effectively with their students' learning and problem‐solving processes during classroom PBL implementations. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicSuccess of educational technology depends in large part on the technology's alignment with teachers' goals for their students, teaching strategies and classroom context.Teacher and researcher co‐design of educational technology and supporting curricula has proven to be an effective way for integrating teacher insight and supporting their implementation needs.Co‐designing learning analytics and support technologies with teachers is difficult due to differences in design and development goals, workplace norms, and AI‐literacy and learning analytics background of teachers.What this paper addsWe provide a co‐design workflow for middle school teachers that centres on co‐designing and developing actionable insights to support problem‐based learning (PBL) by systematic development of responsive teaching practices using AI‐generated learning analytics.We adapt established human‐computer interaction (HCI) methods to tackle the complex task of classroom PBL implementation, working with experienced and novice teachers to create a learning analytics dashboard for a PBL curriculum.We demonstrate researcher and teacher roles and needs in ensuring co‐design collaboration and the co‐construction of actionable insight to support middle school PBL.Implications for practice and/or policyLearning analytics researchers will be able to use the workflow as a tool to support their PBL co‐design processes.Learning analytics researchers will be able to apply adapted HCI methods for effective co‐design processes.Co‐design teams will be able to pre‐emptively prepare for the difficulties and needs of teachers when integrating middle school teacher feedback during the co‐design process in support of PBL technologies.
more »
« less
Constructionist co‐design: A dual approach to curriculum and professional development
Abstract This paper reports on the first iteration of the Computational Thinking Summer Institute, a month‐long programme in which high school teachers co‐designed computationally enhanced mathematics and science curricula with researchers. The co‐design process itself was a constructionist learning experience for teachers resulting in constructionist curricula to be used in their own classrooms. We present three case studies to illustrate different ways teachers and researchers divided the labour of co‐design and the implications of these different co‐design styles for teacher learning and classroom enactment. Specifically, some teachers programmed their own computational tools, while others helped to conceptualise them but left the construction to their co‐design partners. Results indicate that constructionist co‐design is a promising dual approach to curriculum and professional development but that sometimes these two goals are in tension. Most teachers gained considerable confidence and skills in computational thinking, but sometimes the pressure to finish curriculum development during the institute led teachers to leave construction of computational tools to their co‐design partners, limiting their own opportunities for computational learning. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic?Computational tools can support constructionist science and math learning by making powerful ideas tangible.Supporting teachers to learn computational thinking and to use constructionist pedagogies is challenging.What this paper adds?Constructionist co‐design is a promising approach to simultaneously support curriculum development and professional development, but there are tensions to navigate in trying to accomplish both goals simultaneously.Implications for practice and/or policyDesigners of professional development should consider constructionist co‐design as an approach but should be aware of potential tensions and prepare for them.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1842374
- PAR ID:
- 10452099
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Volume:
- 52
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 0007-1013
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1043-1059
- Size(s):
- p. 1043-1059
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract In this study, support for teaching data literacy in social studies is provided through the design of a pedagogical support system informed by participatory design sessions with both pre‐service and in‐service social studies teachers. It provides instruction on teaching and learning data literacy in social studies, examples of standards‐based lesson plans, made‐to‐purpose data visualization tools and minimal manuals that put existing online tools in a social studies context. Based on case studies of eleven practicing teachers, this study provides insight into features of technology resources that social studies teachers find usable and useful for using data visualizations as part of standards‐ and inquiry‐based social studies instruction, teaching critical analysis of data visualizations and helping students create data visualizations with online computing tools. The final result, though, is that few of our participating teachers have yet adopted the provided resources into their own classrooms, which highlights weaknesses of the technology acceptance model for describing teacher adoption. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicData literacy is an important part of social studies education in the United States.Most teachers do not teach data literacy as a part of social studies.Teachers may adopt technology to help them teach data literacy if they think it is useful and usable.What this paper addsEducational technology can help teachers learn about data literacy in social studies.Social studies teachers want simple tools that fit with their existing curricula, give them new project ideas and help students learn difficult concepts.Making tools useful and usable does not predict adoption; context plays a large role in a social studies teachers' adoption.Implications for practice and/or policyDesigning purpose‐built tools for social studies teachers will encourage them to teach data literacy in their classes.Professional learning opportunities for teachers around data literacy should include opportunities for experimentation with tools.Teachers are not likely to use tools if they are not accompanied by lesson and project ideas.more » « less
-
Abstract Data‐art inquiry is an arts‐integrated approach to data literacy learning that reflects the multidisciplinary nature of data literacy not often taught in school contexts. By layering critical reflection over conventional data inquiry processes, and by supporting creative expression about data, data‐art inquiry can support students' informal inference‐making by revealing the role of context in shaping the meaning of data, and encouraging consideration of the personal and social relevance of data. Data‐art inquiry additionally creates alternative entry points into data literacy by building on learners' non‐STEM interests. Supported by technology, it can provide accessible tools for students to reflect on and communicate about data in ways that can impact broader audiences. However, data‐art inquiry instruction faces many barriers to classroom implementation, particularly given the tendency for schools to structure learning with disciplinary silos, and to unequally prioritize mathematics and the arts. To explore the potential of data‐art inquiry in classroom contexts, we partnered with arts and mathematics teachers to co‐design and implement data‐art inquiry units. We implemented the units in four school contexts that differed in terms of the student population served, their curriculum priorities, and their technology infrastructure. We reflect on participant interviews, written reflections, and classroom data, to identify synergies and tensions between data literacy, technology, and the arts. Our findings highlight how contexts of implementation shape the possibilities and limitations for data‐art inquiry learning. To take full advantage of the potential for data‐art inquiry, curriculum design should account for and build on the opportunities and constraints of classroom contexts. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicArts‐integrated instruction has underexplored potential for promoting students' data literacy, including their appreciation for the role of context and real‐world implications of data and for the personal and social relevance of data.Arts‐integrated instruction is difficult to implement in school contexts that are constrained by disciplinary silos.What this paper addsDescriptions of four data‐art inquiry units, which take an arts‐integrated approach to data literacy.Examples of the synergies and tensions observed between data literacy, technology, and the arts during classroom implementation in four different schools.Reflections on the role of school contexts in shaping disciplinary synergies and tensions.Implications for practice and/or policyArts‐integration offers opportunities for data literacy learning.Consideration of the unique resources and constraints of classroom contexts is critical for fulfilling the promises of data‐art inquiry learning.There is a need to develop school support specific to arts‐integrated data literacy instruction.more » « less
-
In the decades since Papert published Mindstorms (1980), computation has transformed nearly every branch of scientific practice. Accordingly, there is increasing recognition that computation and computational thinking (CT) must be a core part of STEM education in a broad range of subjects. Previous work has demonstrated the efficacy of incorporating computation into STEM courses and introduced a taxonomy of CT practices in STEM. However, this work rarely involved teachers as more than implementers of units designed by researchers. In The Children’s Machine, Papert asked “What can be done to mobilize the potential force for change inherent in the position of teachers?” (Papert, 1994, pg. 79). We argue that involving teachers as co-design partners supports them to be cultural change agents in education. We report here on the first phase of a research project in which we worked with STEM educators to co-design curricular science units that incorporate computational thinking and practices. Eight high school teachers and one university professor joined nine members of our research team for a month-long Computational Thinking Summer Institute (CTSI). The co-design process was a constructionist design and learning experience for both the teachers and researchers. We focus here on understanding the co-design process and its implications for teachers by asking: (1) How did teachers shift in their attitudes and confidence regarding CT? (2) What different co-design styles emerged and did any tensions arise? Generally, we found that teachers gained confidence and skills in CT and computational tools over the course of the summer. Only one teacher reported a decrease in confidence in one aspect of CT (computational modeling), but this seemed to result from gaining a broader and more nuanced understanding of this rich area. A range of co-design styles emerged over the summer. Some teachers chose to focus on designing the curriculum and advising on the computational tools to be used in it, while leaving the construction of those tools to their co-designers. Other teachers actively participated in constructing models and computational tools themselves. The pluralism of co-design styles allowed teachers of various comfort levels with computation to meaningfully contribute to a computationally enhanced constructionist curriculum. However, it also led to a tension for some teachers between working to finish their curriculum versus gaining experience with computational tools. In the time crunch to complete their unit during CTSI, some teachers chose to save time by working on the curriculum while their co-design partners (researchers) created the supporting computational tools. These teachers still grew in their computational sophistication, but they could not devote as much time as they wanted to their own computational learning.more » « less
-
Abstract Much attention in constructionism has focused on designing tools and activities that support learners in designing fully finished and functional applications and artefacts to be shared with others. But helping students learn to debug their applications often takes on a surprisingly more instructionist stance by giving them checklists, teaching them strategies or providing them with test programmes. The idea of designing bugs for learning—ordebugging by design—makes learners agents of their own learning and, more importantly, of making and solving mistakes. In this paper, we report on our implementation of ‘Debugging by Design’ activities in a high school classroom over a period of 8 hours as part of an electronic textiles unit. Students were tasked to craft the electronic textile artefacts with problems or bugs for their peers to solve. Drawing on observations and interviews, we answer the following research questions: (1) How did students participate in making bugs for others? (2) What did students gain from designing and solving bugs for others? In the discussion, we address the opportunities and challenges that designing personally and socially meaningful failure artefacts provides for becoming objects‐to‐think‐with and objects‐to‐share‐with in student learning and promoting new directions in constructionism. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicThere is substantial evidence for the benefits of learning programming and debugging in the context of constructing personally relevant and complex artefacts, including electronic textiles.Related, work on productive failure has demonstrated that providing learners with strategically difficult problems (in which they ‘fail’) equips them to better handle subsequent challenges.What this paper addsIn this paper, we argue that designing bugs or ‘failure artefacts’ is as much a constructionist approach to learning as is designing fully functional artefacts.We consider how ‘failure artefacts’ can be both objects‐to‐learn‐with and objects‐to‐share‐with.We introduce the concept of ‘Debugging by Design’ (DbD) as a means to expand application of constructionism to the context of developing ‘failure artifacts’.Implications for practice and/or policyWe conceptualise a new way to enable and empower students in debugging—by designing creative, multimodal buggy projects for others to solve.The DbD approach may support students in near‐transfer of debugging and the beginning of a more systematic approach to debugging in later projects and should be explored in other domains beyond e‐textiles.New studies should explore learning, design and teaching that empower students to design bugs in projects in mischievous and creative ways.more » « less
