Search for: All records

In this work-in-progress paper, we continue investigation into the propagation of the Concept Warehouse within mechanical engineering (Friedrichsen et al., 2017; Koretsky et al., 2019a). Even before the pandemic forced most instruction online, educational technology was a growing element in classroom culture (Koretsky & Magana, 2019b). However, adoption of technology tools for widespread use is often conceived from a turn-key lens, with professional development focused on procedural competencies and fidelity of implementation as the goal (Mills & Ragan, 2000; O’Donnell, 2008). Educators are given the tool with initial operating instructions, then left on their own to implement it in particular instructional contexts. There is little emphasis on the inevitable instructional decisions around incorporating the tool (Hodge, 2019) or on sustainable incorporation of technologies into existing instructional practice (Forkosh-Baruch et al., 2021). We consider the take-up of a technology tool as an emergent, rather than a prescribed process (Henderson et al., 2011). In this WIP paper, we examine how two instructors who we call Al and Joe reason through their adoption of a technology tool, focusing on interactions among instructors, tool, and students within and across contexts. The Concept Warehouse (CW) is a widely-available, web-based, open educational technology tool used to facilitate concept-based active learning in different contexts (Friedrichsen et al., 2017; Koretsky et al., 2014). Development of the CW is ongoing and collaboration-driven, where user-instructors from different institutions and disciplines can develop conceptual questions (called ConcepTests) and other learning and assessment tools that can be shared with other users. Currently there are around 3,500 ConcepTests, 1,500 faculty users, and 36,000 student users. About 700 ConcepTests have been developed for mechanics (statics and dynamics). The tool’s spectrum of affordances allows different entry points for instructor engagement, but also allows their use to grow and change as they become familiar with the tool and take up ideas from the contexts around them. Part of a larger study of propagation and use across five diverse institutions (Nolen & Koretsky, 2020), instructors were introduced to the tool, offered an introductory workshop and opportunity to participate in a community of practice (CoP), then interviewed early and later in their adoption. For this paper, we explore a bounded case study of the two instructors, Al and Joe, who took up the CW to teach Introductory Statics. Al and Joe were experienced instructors, committed to active learning, who presented examples from their ongoing adaptation of the tool for discussion in the community of practice. However, their decisions about how to integrate the tool fundamentally differed, including the aspects of the tool they took up and the ways they made sense of their use. In analyzing these two cases, we begin to uncover how these instructors navigated the dynamic nature of pedagogical decision making in and across contexts.