ALA 2015 Invited Research Talk: Youth Collaborative Information Practices During Guided...
-
Upload
rebecca-reynolds -
Category
Education
-
view
198 -
download
0
Transcript of ALA 2015 Invited Research Talk: Youth Collaborative Information Practices During Guided...
Youth Collaborative Information Practices
During Guided Discovery-Based
Game Design Learning
ALA Conference, 2015Rebecca Reynolds, Assistant Professor
School of Communication & InformationLibrary and Information Science
Rutgers University
Globaloria: Guided discovery-based game design program and curriculum. MS, HS teachers and students
gain experience and expertise in a range of agentive digital practices.
Constructionist, knowledge-building conditions supporting development of 6-CLAs (Reynolds & Harel Caperton 2009; Reynolds & Hmelo-Silver, 2013)
Globaloria Domains of Learning and Expertise
• Constructionist digital literacy (skills needed in knowledge economy => 6-CLAs)
• Computational thinking through game design in Flash and programming in Actionscript
• Core curricular subject matter:o When game subjects are linked to core curriculum and students deepen
knowledge about topic through online research and design
• STEM career interests: Technology & Engineering; Computer Science
• Motivation, Affect, Attitudes, Life Choices, New Possibilities and Horizons
Along come Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006): Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (Cited by 2759)
• Staunch objection to constructivist learning on basis of cognitive load research
• Basic Premise: Due to limitations in human working memory, if educators / designers have a learning objective in a knowledge domain they are trying to meet, asking learners to ALSO search for their own resources and make sense of the information is de-motivating and frustrating; detracts from learning, rather than contributing.
The Argument Against Constructivism in Education . . . . The Issue of Cognitive Load
• Over-simplifying “constructivism;” minimizing role of intervention design, scaffolding and guidance present in such interventions (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, Chinn, 2007, cited
by 808)• Rich research evidence for effectiveness of PBL, IPjBL &
IBL…(e.g., scholars such as Hmelo-Silver, Martin, Kapur & Kinzer, Blumenfeld, Eccles, Kuhlthau, Eisenberg, Chu)
• We also have a history of positive results in Constructionist contexts regarding student computational thinking, engagement, affect, meta-cognition outcomes (e.g., Harel & Papert, 1991; Harel, 1991; Kafai, 1995; Bruckman & Resnick, 1995; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Urrea, 2001, 2002; Cavallo, 2004; Kafai & Ching, 2004; Kafai, 2006; Peppler, Kafai & Chiu, 2007; Klopfer, 2008; Reynolds, 2008).
“Constructivist” learning interventions come in many shapes and sizes. . .
Counter-arguments to Kirschner, Sweller, Clark
Balancing the Guided Discovery Debates: Structure structure structure. . . .
Key Factors of Success During Guided Inquiry: Learner Expertise (Novices vs. Experts) Extent of Structure provided by systems, educators, peers,
curriculum
Key Constraint in US Education: Limited number of K-12 CS Education instructors
My research: Issues of structure and agency in educational technology design
and learner engagement – systems design; peer collaboration
Globaloria has served as a rich and complex test case in which to investigate these questions. . .
Broad, Top-Level Research Question
Are certain [generalizable] instructional design affordances employed in Globaloria the best way of teaching the given domains of knowledge to middle schoolers and high schoolers?
Difficult to answer the “best” question because comparative studies are not yet happening. Lots of exploration still of the terrain, and defining / mapping these affordances.
Existing “Effects” findings for Globaloria intervention taken as a
whole Globaloria participation increases science, social studies, and
reading WESTEST standardized test scores, compared with matched case non-participants in West Virginia Quasi-experimental research with match-case controls [Chadwick &
Gore (2010) , Chadwick & Gore (2011) , Ho, Gore & Chadwick (2012) , Ho, Gore & Chadwick (2013)
Globaloria participation increases student engagement and self-efficacy in the “6 Contemporary Learning Abilities” (a framework of 6 dimensions of digital expertise specified in Reynolds & Harel Caperton (2009), Harel Caperton (2010), and tested in non-experimental pre/post design by Reynolds (2011, 2013).
Existing “Effects” findings
Globaloria attenuates known Digital Divide effects including gender, socio-economic status, and some race categories given sample (Reynolds & Chiu, JASIST)
Existing Effects findings Conditions among factors that influence the learning, as measured
quantitatively, thus far: Intrinsic motivational disposition among students predicts successful
knowledge outcomes in Globaloria (Reynolds & Chiu, 2013, ICLS)
Self-reported uses of the learning management system features in a survey – variation in resource uses, linked to attitudes and outcomes (Reynolds & Baik, 2013, ASIST)
Inquiry Mechanisms Research Reynolds (Revise & resubmit, JIS): Data Source is over 40 hours of
observational video footage of student guided discovery among 6 student teams (18 students) Findings: Significant variation in engagement across the categories among students
was charted, and certain patterns emerged. Some categories of task appear related to some categories of students’ chosen CIS
modality for solving problems emerging from the given task. Types of processes engaged also appear to relate to incident resolution
(resolved/unresolved). Student engagement in advanced programming tasks in particular, and uses of the
LMS resources on coding, appear related to measured game design knowledge outcomes.
In Progress: Testing results in a new dataset of over 200 hours of screen capture footage of 26 students over 5 key timeframes of activity, coding data at the single minute increment-level, and quantitatively measuring relationships among Tasks, CIS Modality adopted, and inquiry incident outcomes.
Inquiry Mechanisms Research Reynolds & Goggins (In progress, JLA, CSCL): Data Source is Google Analytics
page view data, and wiki LMS trace log data on page edits, file uploads: Findings: Students in participating schools use the earlier phases of the
curriculum offerings (Units 1-3) significantly more so than latter (Units 4-6); those who get to later phases and view the information resources build better games (so the resources do help)
Student teams use different engagement modalities (distributed work evenly shared; role-based work with tasks divided)
Student teams edit wikis and upload files with variation (up front engagement, mid-year, end of year, all low, all mid, all high)
Exploring how these patterns (within-team, across-time) interoperate, and predict learning outcomes
Future possibility: If predictive, we can build diagnostic tools for educators, who can intervene early to, interrupt and re-direct less-effective patterns
Inquiry Mechanisms Research
Reynolds & Leeder (in progress, Computers & Education) In-depth case studies: What specific types of programming problems do
students aim to solve, and how do they do so using wiki-based LMS (successes and failures):
Question formulation Search strategies for the given resource Information use strategies
Analyzing failures in particular, aiming to develop better information literacy scaffolds and supports to improve blended learning:
Students: better types of questions to ask; better search strategies; better information uses relying less on trial and error, more skilled application of code;
Teachers: what teacher practices are needed? Systems: how can the information system be better designed?
Which affordances are best? Right now, understanding mechanisms, developing
improvement guidelines is key
Globaloria as test lab for self-driven guided discovery; quite a rare opportunity to investigate this in a contained, confined, semi-controlled intervention happening at a growing level of scale
Moving forward, we expect to be able to conduct comparative research; not there yet.
Img Src:http://Renovatedlearning.comhttp://www.coetail.comhttp://pierce.cc/wordpress/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackerspacehttps://vimeo.com/ppldtv
Informal, playfulCreativity, imagination
Hands-on experience, design, creationMaking rather than consumingExploration, experimentation
Problem-solvingInquiry
Critical thinkingSocial skillsTeamwork
Scaffolding from peers and adultsMath, science, language arts, technology, craftsPerseverance, effort, resilience, self-regulation
Qualities / Concepts Associated with Maker Spaces
Replace uncritical claims with evidence-based language:“Learning objectives,” “Instructional affordances,” “Outcomes”
Celebratory Claims… Evidence-Based Practices
Celebratory, uncritical language
Discerning, Explicating, MEASURING Objectives, Affordances, Outcomes
Maker spaces are great for fostering creativity.
“One learning objective in this program is for students to cultivate. . . X, Y, Z”
Students work in teams, gain social skills, and build self-esteem.
“We designed our maker space with the specific environmental conditions of X, Y, Z, each of which is known to be supportive of … [student cognition/affect/behavior]”
Students learn problem-solving skills, and critical thinking!
“I have observed/measured that in X problem scenarios, X types of students demonstrate critical thinking by solving Y issue in Z particular ways, including [dialogue; inquiry; use of expert resources, etc.]