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.

Extending the Conversation

As part of this honor, I was asked to present my course design and motivations at the Annual Sakai Conference on June 16, 2010, in Denver Colorado. You can see the actual presentation on ustream or the slides from this talk on slideshare.
You can also see an extended version of this talk that was presented at Indiana University on 5/27/2010 on the CITL website.

• Slide presentation with voice-over
• Talk as a pdf

Finally, here is a short interview of me discussing my design decisions at Sakai 2010.

ABSTRACT: All too often, designers assume that complex science and cycles of inquiry are beyond the capabilities of young children (5-8 years old). However, with carefully designed mediators, we argue that such concepts are well within their grasp. In this paper we describe two design iterations of the BeeSign simulation software that was designed to help young children learn about honeybees collect nectar from a complex systems perspective. We summarize findings from two studies that suggest that this design has been successful in teaching and motivating these young children and demonstrates how activity theory can guide design.

ABSTRACT: New technologies have enabled students to become active participants in computational simulations of dynamic and complex systems (called Participatory Simulations), providing a “first-person” perspective on complex systems. However, most existing Participatory Simulations have targeted older children, teens, and adults assuming that such concepts are too challenging for younger age groups. This paper, by contrast, presents a design for a Participatory Simulation, called BeeSim, which makes use of wearable computers and targets young children (7-8 years old) to model the behaviors of honeybee nectar collection. In our preliminary user studies, we found that BeeSim contributed to systems understanding and more easily managed group dynamics.

I use Evernote for almost everything at this point.  On the work front, I'm using it to keep track of design decisions and brainstorming (including images of the whiteboards), take notes in meetings, track my to-do lists for everything, and keep a list of readings and technologies to follow up with (to name a few).  On the personal side of things, I keep track of other to-do lists, travel information, recipes, and my grocery list.

Evernote is also Free, though there are some bonuses for those willing to get the premium account, and I find it is well worth it.

Evernote is also extensible, and a number of 3rd party developers have put together some pretty neat solutions.  My favorite at the moment is EgretList for the iPhone.  EgretList is a to-do list manager that pulls in anything that has a checkbox from your Evernote library into a set of easily organized to-do lists that can be grouped by urgency, location, project, or whatever you can think of. 

You may also want to try BeeSign 1.3 or read more about the BeeSign Project.

Context of use:

BeeSign was designed to be used in kindergarten and first grade classrooms, as part of a group inquiry process lead by a teacher. In the original BeeSign study, the teacher lead groups of around 8 students in discusing the behavior of honeybees while sitting around a shared smartboard where BeeSign was projected. The interactive whiteboard allowed everyone to see the current state of BeeSign as well as allowing students to directly control the interface. In addition, the whiteboard makes it easy for students to label the simulation window, draw their predictions of how bees will behave, and also represent the way that bees did behave in prior BeeSign runs for easy comparison and discussion.

The key thing to keep in mind is that BeeSign was not intended as a “game”, but rather a simulation where students can explore the behavior of the hive with the help of their peers and an adult. So, if you ask students to simply “play” it is likely they won’t know what to do. However, it is possible to structure the activity in many ways, including games. For example, with the “random dance game” mode, it is possible to hide the description of the hives, and randomly assign one to the behavior where bees dance, and one to the behavior where bees simply return to a flower. Then, a guessing game can be played where students vie to be the first to raise their hand to indicate that they know which hive is dancing and which was not. This game was introduced during the CCRP project and the students were not only excited to play it, but it also appeared to help them cement their understanding of the patterns in bee flight that emerge from watching the different hives collect nectar.

Getting started and changing files with the Teacher Panel:

When you first start BeeSign, it will load the default “file”. Each file specifies an initial arrangement of flowers, hives, and other variables. You don’t need to use the files as you can change each variable individually, but I have found that collecting a group of settings into one file makes it faster to change settings when engaged in a BeeSign session with the students.

To select a new file:

1. Click the Teacher Panel button in the top center of the screen .
2. Then, click the “files” button in the top of the teacher control panel.
3. If you select a file in the list on the left, a description will appear on the right.
4. Click “Open” when you have chosen a file.

Note that some of the more advanced variables that effect the entire simulation can be accessed from within the Teacher Panel. If you click the button next to one of the features within the Teacher Panel, you will see a brief description of each feature.

Simulations:

The BeeSign window displays two simulation windows side-by-side to make it easier to compare the bee behavior in two different situations. Each window consists of a hive and a background. You may then add flowers to the simulation window. When you press the play button in the bottom left corner of the screen, the bees will begin flying around the hive, and will visit any flower that they find in order to collect nectar.

Below each window is a small clock. This clock displays how much time has passed since play was pressed. If you press stop next to the clock, only that window will stop. This way, it is possible to stop one or the other window in response to an event such as the hive being full of nectar. It is then easy to compare how long it took for the hive to fill up. If you unclick the check-box next to the clock, the specified simulation will not run when you press play.

Arranging a simulation window:

To move flowers around within the simulation window:

1. First, pause the simulation.
2. Then, click on the flower and hold the mouse button down.
3. Move the mouse to move the flower.
4. Let go of the mouse button when you are done moving the flower.

Note that you can move flowers between the simulation windows. To delete a flower, go to the editor panel (described below) and click on the trash can.

To add a new flower, click on the cupboard below the left simulation window. Then, you can drag a flower from the cupboard to either simulation window.

Editing Variables:

Each of the objects (the hive, flower, background) within BeeSign has a number of variables that specify how the object behaves within the simulation. To change one of these, click on the edit button next to the item. The edit button is a small black and yellow circlethat is located at the bottom right corner of the object. If you do not see any edit buttons, they have been temporarily disabled. They can be turned back on using the drop-down menu located inside the cupboard that is used to add new flowers (see above). When you click on the edit button, an editor panel will appear. You may then change the variables, and click the x in the top right corner when you are done.

Below is an example of the edit button that you will see for a hive.

Note that you can change the number of bees in the hive, the amount of nectar that the hive requires to be full, the behavior of all of the bees in the hive, and the minimum nectar quality that the bees in the hive are willing to collect.

In addition, each editor panel also has a section labeled “Represent”. This is how you can decide what additional information might be displayed next to the object. In this case, the user has chosen to display the amount of nectar as “both” an image and words. The image is a bar-graph to the left of the hive, and the words display the exact amount of nectar. It is also possible to tell an object to represent “nothing” in which case you will see an image of the object, but no additional information regarding it.

Below is an example of a flower editor panel. Note that there is a trash can to the right of this panel. If you click this trash can, it will delete the flower from the window.

Note that the flower editor panel has tabs which make it possible to change the look of the flower, the quality and amount of nectar, and the smell of the flower. You can also change the representation that is attached to the flower, similar to the hive.

The match button:

One of the ways to use BeeSign effectively is to help students conduct experiments where they look at two simulation windows that only differ with respect to one variable. So, for example, if both windows have the same number and arrangement of flowers, but the bees in one dance, and the bees in the other do not, then it is possible to see whether the dance makes a difference in how quickly the bees will collect nectar. To make it easier to arrange the windows in this way, you can arrange either window, and then simply click the “match” button beneath it . This will automatically arrange the second window in an identical manner. You can then change the one variable that is the focus of your experiment.

Contact:

For questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact Joshua Danish.