ABSTRACT: Research into students’ understanding of complex systems typically ignores young children because of misinterpretations of young children’s competencies. Furthermore, studies that do recognize young children’s competencies tend to focus on what children can do in isolation. As an alternative, we propose an approach to designing for young children that is grounded in the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978) and leverages Activity Theory to design learning environments. In order to highlight the benefits of this approach, we describe our process for using Activity Theory to inform the design of new software and curricula in a way that is productive for young children to learn concepts that we might have previously considered to be “developmentally inappropriate”. As an illuminative example, we then present a discussion of the design of the BeeSign simulation software and accompanying curriculum which specifically designed from an Activity Theory perspective to engage young children in learning about complex systems (Danish 2009a, b). Furthermore, to illustrate the benefits of this approach, we will present findings from a new study where 40 first- and second-grade students participated in the BeeSign curriculum to learn about how honeybees collect nectar from a complex systems perspective. We conclude with some practical suggestions for how such an approach to using Activity Theory for research and design might be adopted by other science educators and designers.

Award Recipient: This paper received the award for the Best Design Paper at CSCL 2011!

ABSTRACT: The Semiotic Pivots and Activity Spaces for Elementary Science (SPASES) Project was implemented as a proof of concept. Our goal was to demonstrate that with the right set of technological supports, young children can start their learning trajectory in science off on the right foot by engaging in rich scientific investigations into complex science topics. The SPASES curriculum was successfully implemented in two multi-age classrooms of 43 students aged 6-8 years at a progressive elementary school in Los Angeles, CA. Pre/Post-test results show that these 6-8 year old students were able to develop a conceptual understanding of force, net force, friction and two-dimensional motion after participating in the SPASES curriculum which leveraged their prior experiences and ability to engage in embodied play as a form of scientific modeling.

ABSTRACT: One approach to promoting successful engagement of underrepresented groups in mathematics classrooms is Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP). However, it has been argued that CRP risks essentializing students or watering down academic content. We report our analysis of a case study of a group of three 6th grade students who took part in a 6-week mathematics curriculum. This curriculum used Geographical Information System (GIS) maps to engage students in designing personally meaningful research projects while learning about measures of central tendency (i.e., learning statistics). The case study was chosen as representative of how students in this urban classroom (47 total) successfully navigated the curriculum. While successful, the intervention highlights the kinds of negotiations that students engaged in with each other, the teacher, and the curriculum as they co-constructed their own meaning of relevance. The goal of our analysis is to illustrate the importance of recognizing multiple forms of relevance and supporting ongoing negotiations of these multiple forms.

ABSTRACT: A productive approach to studying the role of representations in supporting students’ learning of science content is to examine their actions from a practice perspective. The current study examines kindergarten and first-grade students’ representational practices across a consistent context—the creation of storyboards—both before and after a curricular intervention in order to highlight those aspects of their practices that changed regardless of a superficially similar task. Analysis of the students’ storyboards reveals considerable improvement in the number of included features after the intervention. Analysis of the students’ practices as they changed over time is also presented by examining the students’ discourse, with a focus on their discussions of the science content and the representations themselves. We demonstrate an increase in accuracy and relevance of the features being discussed, as well as an increase in requesting and providing assessments of students’ representations, particularly between students and their peers.

First, my stance on openness. Generally, I am a huge fan. I strive to be quite open about my teaching and research practices and processes, and certainly open up my thinking to my students whenever possible. I also am a huge fan of many open source software tools / solutions (WordPress and related plugins are powering a dozen sites for me right now). The software that I developed as part of my dissertation is sitting on my website for anyone who wants to to use in their classrooms.

However, I also have a background as a professional software developer who, at times, struggled with all of the hidden costs that free and open source software introduced into the development environment. Finally, it may surprise people / my students to know that I am a relatively private person. I never update my status in Facebook. Not because I’m worried about who will see it (though that would occur to me) but simply because I feel no need to share unless I am actually having a conversation with someone. In my professional identity, though, I’ve worked hard to do the opposite. I set up two twitter accounts, even when I still thought the whole thing was somewhat silly, and experimented. Now I tweet semi-regularly about my work, teaching, etc. I find it interesting, and I’m pretty sure it is doing some interesting things for my professional relationships. So far, so good.

Shifting perspective

What I’d really like to see us do is shift the conversation away from whether openness is good or bad, or has hidden costs, and recognize the fact that in many cases an “open” approach fundamentally changes the game. Period. That means re-thinking the entire perspective. Thinking about Don Norman’s famous descriptions of the user v/ system perspective, this speaks to me of fundamentally changing the system. When I choose to make something open, it’s not just that more people can see it, it is often that we are now engaged in very different kinds of work.

Take the issue of open courseware as an example. In principal, this is a really great idea. Sure, the idea of having whatever I say off-the-cuff living on the internet forever frightens me a little. But more importantly is the simple fact that I just don’t lecture! The learning theories that I use and develop often suggest that lecture is the worst possible way to present information. Many of my students are actually quite shocked to see me talk for more than 10 minutes straight. Rather, I present a little, ask questions, organize students into groups, throw my opinion in the mix or ask an annoying question, let them run with it, etc. What would it mean to make that open? Let’s say all my students agree and we publish it and avoid the image that is coming to my mind of a very (fortunately) unsuccessful reality show. Does anyone watching it get the same out of it as the students living it? I doubt it. I’m about to transition one of my classes online. To do it “right”, I believe requires fundamentally re-thinking my approach, not just recording the lectures. So, all questions of cost and tenure aside, I think there are far bigger questions about how it changes the entire dynamic both in and out of the classroom.

Or, let’s look at the question of software ownership since I often find myself in the role of software designer. I’ve got some ideas that I think might make money. So I’ve considered what that would mean. Here’s the most important sticking point for me: if I am making a profit off of these ideas, I don’t think I can ethically continue to research them in the same way (or at all). Ouch. Big change there, and much bigger cost to me than the profit. Let’s be honest: if it was all about the $$, I’d still be a software engineer.

Or, let’s take an example that I think is particularly interesting. What about editing a public wiki such as wikipedia? Well, here’s the thing: once a class has edited it, it should become that much harder to re-edit it in a future year. Tweaking last year’s edits anew and trying to expand them may be an incredibly valuable exercise. But it is a very different exercise than writing a fresh new wiki post. Engaging really thoughtfully in how openness impacts one’s teaching, I think, necessitates exploring these implications. We have seen some really great examples of all the feedback that folks can get from the cloud. I agree. But that’s also a lot of information to filter, and some of it may be crap or spam or both. This doesn’t mean we should avoid asking the cloud, and I certainly do on occasion. But it’s not just a cost-benefit analysis. It is, I would argue, a shift in what the activity is. (Incidentally, I hope all of the students in my theorizing class are now nodding their heads at how these ideas link to our course concepts).

On that note

I feel like this is running long, and I want to save some of my ideas for responding to everyone else. But I want to make one last point. I am pre-tenure, and I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t often thinking about tenure. But here is the other bit: I love what I do. I enjoy teaching. I enjoy sharing my ideas. I want to empower teachers and other professionals to do new and exciting things. Otherwise I wouldn’t be here. Also, I think there are all sorts of indirect benefits just as there are indirect costs. For example, spending the time to share all of these ideas does take time away from other things I might do. However, it also helps me connect with more scholars, scholars who might take up my work or might influence my work. That has all sorts of benefits for me both professionally and personally. I guess the point being that I think there are some really important and fantastic other issues balancing the scales that I’d hate for us to lose sight of in a cost-benefit analysis.