ED256 Seminar in Teaching and Learning Fall 2018

Seminar in Teaching and Learning: Technology and Learning Contexts Fall 2018

Instructor: Danielle Boyd Harlow EDUC 3105 Office (805)893-8139 dharlow@.ucsb.edu Class meets on Thursdays 9am-11:50am in EDUC 4205

Introduction What has not yet been fully understood is that computer-based technologies can be powerful pedagogical tools—not just rich sources of information, but also extensions of human capabilities and contexts for social interactions supporting learning. The process of using technology to improve learning is never solely a technical matter, concerned only with properties of educational hardware and software. Like a textbook or any other cultural object, technology resources for education…function in a social environment, mediated by learning conversations with peers and teachers (NRC, How People Learn, p. 218).

In this class we will have the opportunity to critically consider how technology changes the learning context and how current and future technologies may be used to facilitate student learning. Together we will explore the technology that currently exists, the technology that is on the horizon, think about how technology has changed and will continue to change how children interact with information and what they need to learn to succeed in the world that will be theirs. Following is a tentative schedule of readings and assignments. The readings and topics are subject to change based on students’ interest. Changes will be noted on GauchoSpace.

The design of the course is based on the tenants of constructivism and constructionism. According to constructivism, learners make sense of the world by constructing, testing and revising their own mental models. This is an active process. This means that instruction should strive to provide opportunities and experiences to help students develop ideas rather than provide information to memorize. Constructionism is a related theory of instruction and learning. Seymour Papert posited that individuals learn “especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert, 1991, p. 1). Constructionism provides guidance for the types of experiences that learners engage in within a constructivist course. In our course, we will be designing innovative solutions that use technology to solve challenges in education.

ED256 Seminar in Teaching and Learning Fall 2018 Assignments

Class Participation (30% of grade) Actively participating in class discussions and activities

Blog/Discussion (15% of grade) Create a blog. This may be specifically for this class or a blog that you already have created. Free blog spaces are available at blogger.com and wordpress.com. Each week you should write an entry reacting to the readings. The blogs are due by 8am of the day of class.

Course Project (35% of grade) Your primary project in this class is to select an educational challenge and design an innovative solution to this problem using technology. You can select any challenge you can think of related to education. In the past students have developed solutions for teaching particular content areas, helping students collaborate across distances, encouraging girls to study engineering. Your challenge may apply to students of any age, teachers, administrators, or the school system as a whole. It may relate to schools or to informal learning contexts (museums, etc) or to learning that people might do on their own at home or on a computer. Once you have identified a challenge, you will research the current technologies that have been used to address these challenges and ways that related challenges have been addressed by technology. In groups, you will design a solution. Your solution might be the invention of hardware (machinery) or software (programs, apps) or some combination of the two. You will create storyboards and a video prototype and write a final paper. You do not have to actually build/program the solution, only to develop the idea.

Your final project should consist of 1) A multi-media presentation describing the need for the idea and the details of the idea. This should have a permanent component also (e.g., a YouTube video, multimedia blog, etc.) 2) A written report on the need and the feasibility (a “white paper”). This will be a research report on the educational need for such a product and the research that convinces you that it is a feasible design (e.g., examples of similar ideas used to solve other problems).

Mini Projects (individual/group) (20% of grade) Throughout the course, there will be a series of mini-projects that will contribute to the development of your final course project. These mini projects will be completed in a combination of time in class and out of class. These projects will combine group and individual work. Milestone 1: Defining the challenge: short paper. Milestone 2: Possibilities: Multiple Design Ideas. Milestone 3: Paper Story Board. Milestone 4: Rapid Prototype

ED256 Seminar in Teaching and Learning Fall 2018

Week /Topic Readings (read before class) Assignments/In class Sept 27 – Who is • Horizon reports (K-12, Higher Scratch intro tomorrow’s Learning, Museum) d.school approach to design student? What (http://www.nmc.org/publication- (https://dschool.stanford.edu/resourc technology is on the type/horizon-report/) es/virtual-crash-course-video) Horizon? • Brown (2005)

Oct 4 – • TBA - GauchoSpace D.School Design Challenge Constructivism, Brainstorm challenges facing constructionism, education. Form teams. and the design process

Oct 11 - Using • TBA - Gauchospace Assign 1 due technology for Wednesday Oct 10 OR specific purposes Wednesday Oct 17: (build common language, collect Paragraph describing educational new types of data, challenge PLUS 1 power point connect people) slide to present in class.

In-class brainstorming I

Oct 18 • Dow et al (2010) - Parallel Read everyone else’s challenge In class prototyping papers before class. brainstorming II • All challenge papers written by classmates. Each group will have a chance to Oct 25 Bevan (2017) presentAssign 2their due challenge 10/25: Multiple to the group. TheDesign class Ideas will brainstorm solutions. Nov 1 • TBA - GauchoSpace Nov 8 No Readings Assign 3 due 11/8: Paper Story Board of User Experience Lecture on value of multiple Nov 15 • Mabry & Snow (2007) designs.Assignment 4 due 11/15: Rapid • Blumenfeld et al (2000) CreatePrototype inspiration board (use • Breslow (2005) pinterest?) • Hooper & Rieber (1995) Nov 22 NO CLASS Thanksgiving

Nov 29 No Readings Working meeting Dec 6 Final Projects Due Final projects Final Presentations

ED256 Seminar in Teaching and Learning Fall 2018 A Partial List of Readings (* Starred readings appear in schedule, non-starred readings are optional additional resources)

*Barab, S., & Dede, C., (2007) Games and Immersive Participatory Simulations for Science Education: An Emerging Type of Curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 1, 1-3.

*Bronwyn Bevan (2017): The promise and the promises of Making in science education, Studies in Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

*Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., (2000) Creating Usable Innovations in Systemic Reform: Scaling Up Technology-Embedded Project-Based Science in Urban Schools, Educational , 35(3) 149-164

*Breslow, L. (2007). Lessons Learned: Findings from MIT Initiatives in (2000-2005), Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 4, 283-297.

*Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R., (Ed) (1999). How People Learn, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6160

*Brown, J. (2005). New Learning Environments for the 21st Century. Available at www.johnseelybrown.com/newlearning.pdf

*Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning systems, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 436-451.

*Dow, S., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D., & Klemmer, S., (2010). Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 4.

*Hooper, S., Rieber, L., (1995) Teaching with Technology, In A. C., Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into Practice, (pp. 154-170) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. http://www.nowherereoad.com/twt

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D., (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 2, 174-196.

*Howard, T., Culley, S., Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive literature. Design Studies, 29, 160- 180.

*Ikpeze, C., (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: an analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383-407.

Mayer, R., Multimedia Learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist 31(1), 1-19.

ED256 Seminar in Teaching and Learning Fall 2018 *McGonigal, J., (2008). Why I love bees: A case study in collective intelligence gaming. In The Ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning, edited by K. Salen and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Media Press, 199-228.

*Moreno R., & Mayer, R., (1999) Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity, Journal of , 91(2), 358-368.

*Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., Ram, J., (2000) Web supported emergent-collaborationin higher education courses, Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 94-104.

*National Science Foundation (NSF), (2008). Cyberlearning report. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/index.jsp

*New Media Consortium, 2010 Horizon Report. Available at http://www.nmc.org/horizon/

*Neulight, N., Kafai, Y., Kao, L., Foley, B., Galas, C., (2007). Children’s Participation in a Virtual Epidemic in the Science Classroom: Making Connections to Natural Infectious Diseases, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 1, 47-59.

*Otero, V., (2004). Cognitive Processes and the Learning of Physics Part II: Mediated Actions. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, Italian Physical Society, (E.F. Redish & M. Vicentini, Eds) Amsterdam: IOS Press, 446-471

*Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating Constructivism, available at http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html

Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., & Perry, J., (2007). On Location Learning: Authentic Applied Science with Networked Augmented Realities, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 1, 31-45.

Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik (2000). Constructing Extended Inquiry Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform, Educational Psychologist, 35(3) 165-178.

*Squire, K., & Jan, M., (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing Scientific Argumentation Skills with a Place-based Augmented Reality Game on Handheld Computers, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 1, 5-29.