The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Education
EMBODIED ENGAGEMENT: EXAMINING LEARNER INTERACTIONS WITHIN
UBILEARN EXPERIENCES FOR DESIGN-FOCUSED STEM EDUCATION
A Dissertation in
Learning, Design, and Technology
by
Fariha Hayat Salman
2018 Fariha Hayat Salman
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August, 2018
i
The dissertation of Fariha Hayat Salman was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Roy B. Clariana Professor of Education (Learning, Design, and Technology) Head of the Department (Learning and Performance Systems) Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee
Julia Plummer Associate Professor of Education (Science Education) Dissertation Co-Advisor Co -Chair of Committee
Susan Stewart
Associate Teaching Professor (Aerospace Engineering & Architectural Engineering)
Susan Land Ass ociate Professor of Education (Learning, Design, and Technology) Director of Graduate Studies for Learning and Performance Systems
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
This study examines and characterizes learner interactions to respond to a gap in the existing literature on learning processes within technologically mediated ubiquitous learning
(ubilearn) experiences. From this exploratory investigation, the study proposes three theoretically salient conjectures that help characterize learner interactions within a design- focused STEM ubilearn experience called GreenDesigners.
GreenDesigners is driven by Augmented Reality learning (ARL) platform that enables a technologically mediated tour of Penn State’s solar house to help high school students (aged 15-
18 yrs) learn about sustainable engineering design concepts. Students are guided to focus on specific engineering design concepts and to respond to assessments on a mobile application on their touch screens while observing the physical features of the solar house. This learning tour leads into a collaborative design challenge where students collaboratively create and present a prototype design solution. The learning and design activity is captured on video and reported in this investigation.
Methodologically, this study employs an exploratory approach to design based research
(DBR), in keeping with which theoretically salient conjectures are generated and revised throughout the data collection and analyses. It is a qualitative study drawing on the tradition of digital ethnography and employing multimodal interaction analysis. Data sources in this investigation primarily comprised video recordings and open ended post interviews supported by statistical data from pre-and post tests.
Findings revealed that learners coordinated their sensorimotor capacities (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content as a mutually constitutive strategy for design-focused STEM learning. Specifically, learners displayed recurring patterns,
iv multimodal choices and moves as they interacted with design concepts, rationalized and negotiated design trade-offs, contributed design improvisations, and sought confirmation from their peers. It was also found that the NGSS curricular frames of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ allowed learners to notice and uptake STEM design concepts and strategies that they later applied in joint problem spaces to produce joint prototypes.
The exploratory analyses supporting the findings were accomplished by: (1) creating a case of an AR driven ubilearn experience called GreenDesigners with design-focused curricular elements of Engineering Design standards from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),
(2) using the three-pronged theoretical lens of ‘place-embodiment-meaning making’ to examine learner interactions, and (3) investigating conceptual gains of the learners through the process frames of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’.
This study contributes to the knowledge base on learner interaction within technologically mediated ubilearn experiences. It advances literature to specify recurring patterns, multimodal choices, and moves in learner interaction that support design-focused STEM learning.
This literature points towards important considerations for designing and studying STEM ubilearn experiences. More broadly, this study adds to the growing understanding of embodied learning through its characterization of learner interactions. At another level, this study supports the use of multimodal interaction analysis in STEM research as a powerful methodological tool for studying complex, dynamic learner interactions within ubilearn experiences.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii
LIST OF TABLES ...... x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction...... 1
Ubilearn Experiences in STEM Education ...... 2 Rationale for the Learning and Research Design of this Study ...... 5 Studying learner interactions within STEM ubilearn experiences ...... 6 Embodied meaning-making as a way to understand learner interactions ...... 8 Studying design-focused ubilearn experiences for sustainable engineering design ...... 11 Overview of the Dissertation ...... 14 Research Purpose ...... 15 Research Questions ...... 15
Chapter 2 Three-Pronged Theoretical Lens ...... 17
Place ...... 19 Embodiment ...... 21 Meaning-Making ...... 24 Operationalizing the Three-Pronged Lens ...... 27
Chapter 3 Methods ...... 28
Applying Conjecture Mapping ...... 29 Embodiments ...... 33 Tools and materials…………………………………………………………………33 Activity/task structure ……………………………………………………………..36 Participant structures and discursive practices………………………………..39 Data Collection Procedures ...... 43 Setting and participants ...... 43 Data collection: first, exploratory iteration ...... 44
vi
The data set ...... 44 Data and data sources...... 44 Methods of Data Analysis ...... 47 Multimodal Interaction Analysis ...... 48 Procedures of Data Organization and Data Analysis ...... 49 Step1: Collecting and reorganizing data ...... 49 Step 2: Data viewing and reviewing sessions ...... 50 Step 3: Selection ...... 51 Step 4: Transcription ...... 52 Step 5: Selecting events, ‘critical incidents’ and segments ...... 53 Role of the Researcher ...... 55 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations ...... 55
Chapter 4 Findings ...... 57
Conjecture 1: Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in the ubilearn experience ...... 58 Situated transformation of space to place ...... 58 Situatedness as enhanced embodiment beyond physical constraints ...... 65 Summary of conjecture 1 findings ...... 70 Conjecture 2: Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning...... 71 Engagement of sensorimotor capacities as an intuitive method of meaning- making ...... 71 Learners’ interaction patterns in design-focused STEM learning ...... 75 Summary of conjecture 2 findings: ...... 83 Conjecture 3. Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in collaboration with peers through the process of analyze-design- evaluate across semiotic resources and modes in the GreenDesigners...... 84 Analyze-Design-Evaluate ...... 84 Results from pre- & post tests ...... 85 Design challenge findings-group 1: solar powered pet house ...... 90 Design challenge findings-group 2: open plan house ...... 97
vii
Summary of conjecture 3 findings ...... 102 Summary of Findings ...... 103
Chapter 5 Conclusion ...... 106
Responding to the Research Questions ...... 106 RQ-1: In what ways do learners interact with the physical, material, technological, and human resources within the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners? ...... 107 Research Question 1: claims ...... 10612 RQ-2 In what ways do the learning and assessment activities embedded in GreenDesigners enable learning of sustainable engineering design concepts? ...... 113 Research Question 2: claims ...... 10617 Contributions to the Literature ...... 118 Limitations of the Study ...... 119 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 119
References ...... 121 Appendix A: Pre-Post Test ...... 134 Appendix B: Summary of Pre-Post Test Results ...... 140 Appendix C: Events, Segments, Critical Incidents ...... 153 Appendix D: Consent Form (parents &children) ...... 155
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Conjecture Map of the study GreenDesigners…………………………….... 32
Figure 3-2: Physical Location of the Solar House………………………………………. 34
Figure 3-3: GPS-GIS view of the solar house…………………………………………... 34
Figure 3-4. Digital map with overlaid AR content...……………………………………. 35
Figure 3-5. Solar wall design-focused video & question prompt..…………………….. 38
Figure 3-6. House interior design focused video & action prompt……………..….……. 38
Figure 3-7. ARL platform: role selection………...... ……………………………………. 40
Figure 3-8. Flow diagram of the learner roles & research spots…………………………. 41
Figure 4-1. Video data-excerpt, Ev 2, ARL engagement…………………………………. 61
Figure 4-2. Video data-excerpt, Ev 3, meaning-making,pet house group………………... 62
Figure 4-3. Video data-excerpt, Ev 2, meaning-making, design challenge ……………. 63
Figure 4-4. Design-board, pet house group.……………..………………………………. 64
Figure 4-5. Video data-excerpt, Ev 3, meaning-making, pet house group………………. 67
Figure 4-6. Video data-excerpt,Ev 2, ARL engagement, South Wall……..……………. 68
Figure 4-7. Video data-excerpt, Ev 3, design challenge …………………...... 69
Figure 4-8. Action-prompt, West Wall…………………………………………………. 72
Figure 4-9. Video data-excerpt, Ev 2, interaction,West Wall……………..……………. 74
Figure 4-10.Video data-excerpt, Ev 2, West Wall, identification…..……..……………. 77
Figure 4-11. Action-prompt, Ev 2, South Wall…………………………………………. 78
Figure 4-12. Video data-excerpt, Ev 2,South Wall, reconfiguration…..…..……………. 80
Figure 4-13. Action-prompt, Ev 2, interior…………………………………………….... 81
Figure 4-14.Video data-excerpt, Ev 2, interior, SIP assembly….…..……..……………. 82
Figure 4-15. Pre-Post test data, properties of materials, Q5……………………………. 87
ix
Figure 4-16. Pre-Post test data, properties of materials, Q7…………………………… 88
Figure 4-17. Pre-Post test data, design strategies, Q9………………………………….. 89
Figure 4-18. Design Challenge,group 1 presentation, solar pet house………………..... 91
Figure 4-19. Design prototype,group 1 solar pet house………………...... 92
Figure 4-20. Design board,group 1, solar pet house………………...... 94
Figure 4-21. Open ended, post interview, group 1, solar pet house..………………….... 96
Figure 4-22. Open ended, post interview, group 1, solar pet house..………………….... 97
Figure 4-23. Design sketch,group 2, open plan house………………...... 98
Figure 4-24. Design Challenge,group 2 presentation, open plan house……………….... 99
Figure 4-25. Open ended, post interview, group 2, open plan house..………………….. 100
Figure 4-26. Open ended, post interview, group 2, open plan house..………………….. 101
Figure 4-27. Open ended, post interview, group 2, open plan house..…………………. 102
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Adapted standards from NGSS/Engineering design standards………………12
Table 2-1. Alignment of research questions, conjectures & three-pronged lens ………..18
Table 2-2. Three-pronged theoretical lens ………………………………………………18
Table 4-1. NGSS process frames 'analyze-design-evaluate……………………………..83
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Salman, my best friend, my loving husband
Thank you for joining me in this most extraordinary journey! Throughout these years, you have been the reason for my smile, my grace, my confidence. Thanks for standing by me. I couldn’t have come this far without your love and support.
Aady, my sweet son
Can’t thank you enough for being the good boy you have been throughout the times when “mama was always doing Science on her laptop!” Mama loves you, Aady!
M.M. Khatib, my grandfather
Were you alive, you would have been the happiest person to see me graduate! I’m glad I explored engineering education in my dissertation research. I miss being referred to as the ‘engineer’s granddaughter’ just as I miss our morning-walks and the long hours spent organizing and cataloging your books while chatting about science, arts, religion, and life! Your memory will always inspire me to work hard.
Family Heartfelt thanks for the love, support and prayers of all family, especially Auntie, Ammi and Abbu, Farhan, Nadyah, Adiyah, Honey & Sarah, Faysal, Mehak, Irfan & Saba.
Susan Stewart I feel so fortunate, so blessed to have met you and to have worked with you. You are the kindest amongst all I know at Penn State. I am constantly impressed by and grateful for the amount of time and energy you are willing to invest in me, professionally and personally.
Fulbright, COIL, Penn State I am sincerely grateful to Fulbright PhD scholarship, College of Education- Dean’s Graduate Research Assistantship, the COIL grant, and the Frisbey Award. I was able to dream big and accomplish the milestones I had set for myself only because of these gracious opportunities.
Dr Clariana, Julia Plummer, & Susan Land Thank you for your thoughtful feedback from the very beginning to the very end of this study. I am grateful for your expertise, as scholars and as facilitators of my learning.
Kyle Peck, Heather Zimmerman, Larry Ragan& David Riley At Penn State, my best learning experiences happened as part of my interactions with you all both in class and informally. Thank you!
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Learner interactions are an important yet an analytically neglected aspect of STEM focused ubiquitous learning experiences (e.g., Chen, Liu, & Hwang, 2015; Dourish, Graham,
Randall, & Rouncefield, 2010; Hall &Bannon, 2006; Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang, 2010;
Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2007; Sun & Looi, 2018). More than a decade’s worth of research has recognized ubiquitous learning experiences as exemplifying authentic, context-based learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Hall &Bannon,
2006; Hung, Lin, & Hwang, 2010; Hwang, Tsai, &Yang, 2008; Jones & Jo, 2004; Waller, 2009).
While the existing research has largely focused on the technological aspects and design principles, less analytic attention has been paid to the learning processes, particularly learner interactions (Chen & Hwang, 2017; Chen, et al, 2015; Dourish, 2001, 2007, 2011; Kirsh, 2013,
2001; Priestnall, Brown, Sharples & Polmear, 2010; Sharples, et al, 2007; Sun & Looi, 2018) that make authentic learning possible within ubiquitous learning environments.
As a response to this gap in the literature, my dissertation study examines and characterizes learner interactions to understand the learning processes within one STEM ubiquitous learning experience focused on sustainable engineering design education.
In defining learner interactions, my study benefits from the Human Computer Interaction
(HCI) and Social Semiotics literature where learner interactions constitute sensorimotor participation of the learners, i.e., verbal (speech & writing), gaze, touch, sound, smell, and spatial perception (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010; Bezemer & Mavers, 2011; Dourish, 2001, 2000; Kress,
2 2005; Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). For my study, this sensorimotor participation involves interaction with the space, the technology and peers.
Since ubiquitous learning experiences (ubilearn experiences; Twidale, 2009) enable learning ‘on the move’ across physical settings mediated by location-aware technology, the
STEM focused ubilearn experience in this study utilizes a location-aware, augmented reality
(AR) learning platform that digitally layers learning content on the physical space of a solar house. This research and learning design is purposed towards examining and characterizing learner interactions as the students tour the solar house to learn sustainable engineering design concepts.
Following this brief introduction to my study, the next section in this chapter discusses
STEM focused ubiquitous learning experiences and then moves towards rationalizing the learning and research design of this study based on the identified gaps in literature.
Ubilearn Experiences in STEM Education
Cope and Kalantzis (2009) introduce the term ubiquitous learning as an itinerant learning experience across multiple settings within a larger ecosystem mediated by conceptual, physical, and informational resources, technology being one such resource. Ubilearn experiences constitute physical, real-world settings that allow flexible and seamless access to learning materials across multiple locations and times. In popular terms, ubilearn is known as anytime-anyplace learning that can make use of context-aware wireless mobile technology or sensors. Burbules (2009) identifies three types of ubiquity manifested in ubilearn experiences: (1) spatial ubiquity, that involves continual access to information such that physical location does not constrain, rather mediates blurring of traditional boundaries, for example between formal and informal education, between physical and digital, so as to merge them into mixed reality, (2) portability through
3 devices that allows learning to be integrated into the activities of daily life and in turn creates new kinds of social practices, and (3) interconnectedness that affords “extensible intelligence” (p. 17) in two ways, technologically and socially, where human knowledge, memory, and processing power is enhanced through cognitive offloading and networked intelligence.
It is noteworthy that researchers designing and studying STEM focused ubilearn experiences (Hall & Bannon, 2006; Huang, Lin, & Cheng, 2010; Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang,
2010; Looi et al., 2010; Song et al.,2012) build upon the influential conceptualization of ubiquitous computing or ubicomp (Twidale, 2009) published two decades ago by Weiser (1991), where he envisions a world of tiny computers embedded into objects and spaces, networked so that they can intercommunicate with each other and also exchange information with people. The machine-to-machine intercommunication has grown into the subfield popularly known as the
Internet of Things (IoT), while machine-to-human intercommunication is referred to as ubiquitous or pervasive computing. For example, a tree could be tagged with sensors relaying information about its botanical characteristics or projecting a historic image from the time it was planted or even present a video clip describing the contribution it makes to reduce local pollution.
People could access such information on a wireless mobile device as they move within range of the sensors.
Until now, designing and deploying sensors required expertise in algorithm-based programming and expensive hardware. However, recent technological innovation in mobile applications has brought development of ubilearn experiences out of the exclusivity of research labs into the reach of educators, learners, and instructional designers. Now, applications programmed on user-friendly, visual coding platforms enable creation of digitally augmented ubilearn experiences. These are tied to mobile applications that are driven by the GPS-capability of the mobile devices. These applications are referred to as augmented reality (AR) technologies that help superimpose or ‘layer’ digital information (i.e., data, virtual objects, and characters) on a
4 person’s locative view of the real world. In recent times ubilearn experiences are more popularized as augmented reality or AR designs, a reference to the technology that drives these designs. With AR technologies being utilized in the creation of ubilearn environments, augmentation is being seen as powerful a feature of ubilearn environments as is context awareness and spatial ubiquity (Grudin, 2012). Unsurprisingly, the New Media Consortium
(NMC) Horizon Report for Higher Education (2017) identifies AR as the technology that is fast evolving from its initial popularity in 2015 revitalized by mobile technology. The NMC report ties this to the new generation of mobile devices built with natural user interfaces (NUIs) that accept input in the form of taps, swipes, gestures and voice. This adds increased fidelity to the learner’s interaction with a context-aware learning environment.
The technological ease of context aware and augmentation platforms and applications has encouraged the avant-garde to integrate pedagogical elements in ubilearn-focused research projects. These include both school-based and informal learning designs. For example, Wang et al
(2017) reviewed research from 2009-2014 that employed location-aware systems for ubiquitous language learning in museums. Similarly, Chiang et al. (2015) reviewed 130 patents from 1976 to
2013 of mobile applications that could be used in ubilearn research studies. These patents were developed for contexts categorized as “out of class for education” (p. 7) where the content was personalized, contextualized, and intelligently pushed towards the learners.
The pedagogical advantages of AR driven ubilearn designs have been recognized in
STEM informal learning to probe into the design and impact of participatory learning experiences during fieldtrips (e.g. Laru, Järvelä, & Clariana,2012; Zimmerman, Land, McClain, Mohney,
Choi, & Salman, 2015) and to teach phenomena that cannot otherwise be experienced in the real world (e.g., Dunleavy et al., 2009; Klopfer, 2008; Klopfer & Perry, 2014; O’Shea, Mitchell,
Johnston, & Dede, 2009; Rosenbaum, Klopfer & Perry, 2006; Salman, Zimmerman, & Land,
2014; Squire & Klopfer, 2007). A review of ubilearn research by Hsu et al. (2012) reveals that
5 studies in the past ten years generally utilized “non-specified” learning domains such as 21st
Century skills. Their analysis observes a drop in this trend from 2007 to 2013 where curricular domains instead became the focus of studies that used ubiquitous technologies. This development is also based on the observation by other scholars who contend that a more effective way to foreground the learning processes within ubilearn experiences is by integrating elements from specific learning domains or curricular components (Bellocchi, King, & Ritchie, 2016; Goff,
Mulvey, Irvin, & Hartstone-Rose, 2018; Sun & Looi, 2017).
Though research involving learning processes in curricular-focused STEM ubilearn experiences is sparse (Chiang et al., 2015; Goff et al., 2018; Sun & Looi, 2017), it has led to pertinent insights about gaps in this area. The next section on rationale discusses the particular gap in research literature that motivated the learning and research design of my study.
Rationale for the Learning and Research Design of this Study
Meta analyses of recent research on technology-based learning (e.g., Chiang et al., 2015;
Hsu et al., 2012; Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Hwang & Wu, 2014; Sun & Looi, 2017; Wu et al., 2012) recognize the educational value of creating and studying ubilearn designs. These reviews conclude that most research studies on ubilearn designs between the years 2001 to 2014 were geared towards understanding students’ engagement, motivation, and interest. Yet, scholars (e.g.,
Chen et al., 2015; Dourish, 2001; Dourish et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2010; Kirsh, 2010, 2013;
Sharples et al., 2007; Sun & Looi, 2017) observe the lack of analytic attention invested to understand the learning processes, particularly learner interactions within STEM ubilearn experiences. Though many studies (e.g., Hall & Bannon, 2006; Huang, Lin, & Cheng, 2010;
Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang, 2010) are considered forerunners in technological ideation of ubilearn designs (Gedik et al., 2012; Looi et al., 2010; Song et al., 2012), recent scholars lament
6 the lack of empirical information about the ways in which learners interact with the multiplicity of learning elements in a typical STEM ubilearn experience that coordinates the physical and technological aspects (e.g., Chiang et al, 2015; Sun & Looi, 2018).
Therefore, this research gap guided my study towards examining learner interactions with the intent to define the dynamics of student engagement with the physical and technological resources that influence their learning experience within STEM ubilearn experiences. The following sections elaborate upon this rationale.
Studying Learner Interactions within STEM Ubilearn Experiences
Learner interactions, as defined earlier in this chapter, constitute sensorimotor participation including verbal (speech & writing), gaze, touch, and spatial awareness involved in the moment- to-moment processes of learning (Dourish, 2000, 2001; Kress, 2010; Kress et al., 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). For Dourish (2000), who theorizes the design of digital technologies within
HCI, interaction involves human participation in any physical experience including learning. He stresses that “interaction is an embodied phenomenon. It happens in the world, and that world (a physical world and a social world) lends form, substance and meaning to the interaction.” (p. 2).
Jewitt (2013), in her discussion of methods for researching digital technologies includes visual, aural, embodied, and spatial participation as aspects of interaction with technological learning environments. Also, Sawyer (2014) states that learner interactions are an important consideration in the interdisciplinary field of the learning sciences, that concerns itself with designing deep learning that is more likely to occur in complex, social, and technological environments. He explains that this analysis of interactions involves the moment to moment unfolding of three things simultaneously:
7 (1) the relations among learners, their patterns of interaction, and how they change
over time; (2) the practices engaged in by the learners- individual and group
procedures for solving problems, and how they change over time; and (3)
individual learning- which could only be understood alongside the first two kinds
of change (p. 14)
Similarly, scholars pursuing educational technology research in STEM fields (e.g., Hall
& Bannon, 2006; Hung, Lin, & Hwang, 2010; Hwang et al., 2008; Jones & Jo, 2004; Priestnall et al., 2010; Waller, 2009) have studied ubilearn designs that utilize physical context awareness to relay digital learning content. Besides theorizing on the technological elements propelling these learning designs, they recognize the need to better understand the dynamics of learning within such designs. For example, Chen, Liu, and Hwang (2015), based on their study of a digitally augmented ubilearn fieldtrip, identify the need to study “…students’ unique interactive patterns in this new learning scenario” (p.16) as a focus for future research.
Also, there are scholars who recognize the importance of enriched theoretical perspectives to understand the nature and dynamics of learner interactions within ubilearn experiences. For example, Hwang et al. (2008) call for new theories or modifications to existing theories to interpret the dynamic student interaction in ubiquitous designs. Also, Sharples et al.
(2007) propose an agenda for drawing out a new theory of interaction where “multiple contexts, people and personal interactive technologies” (p.225) are seen as collaborative ingredients.
Moreover, scholars pursuing research in STEM ubilearn experiences refer back to the foundational definition of ubilearn to analyze the emerging research needs. For example, Dede
(2011) appreciates the vision of ubiquitous learning introduced by Cope and Kalantzis (2009) as comprised of an overarching set of assumptions but critiques the same for not explaining how ubiquitous learning could actually achieve a learner-centered itinerant design. Likewise, Dourish
8 and Bell (2011) refer to Weiser’s concept of ubiquitous computing and assert that “from the outset, ubiquitous computing was not a proposal for how the technology should be but instead how it should be purposefully experienced.” (p.116). To address this need and to move ubilearn research forward, Dourish and Bell (2011) emphasize the necessity now to focus on studying interactions that foreground the learner’s bodily engagement with their environment, as a measure of learning. Similarly, Dourish (2001, 2010) and Kirsh (2010, 2013), propose microanalyses of the learners’ interactions to find evidence of ‘meaning-making’- a term credited to Lakoff &
Johnson (1980) who conceptualized bodily interactions as a way to learn by making meaning of this world. Lakoff’s work on embodied interactions builds on Heidegger’s (1927/1990) concept of ‘being- in- the-world’ particularly his claim that meaning- making and therefore learning is at some level embodied and contextualized in the real world (Lakoff, 2015).
Since learner interactions are so closely tied to meaning-making and embodiment in literature, my study’s three pronged theoretical lens (see Chapter 2) attends to both embodiment and meaning-making. Here, I briefly capture this relationship in the following sub section.
Embodied meaning-making as a way to understand learner interactions
Meaning-making, an important concept within the sociocultural view of learning, involves the use of tools and resources to construct an individual or shared understanding of new information or experience. Meaning-making operationalizes my study’s approach to learners’ conceptual gains related to sustainable engineering design concepts within the present ubilearn experience.
Dourish (2001, 2010) and Kirsh (2010, 2013), who study and problematize interaction design for ubiquitous and tangible computing, recognize the need for an analytical lens that involves a deeper consideration of the learners’ embodied and spatial involvement with the
9 constituent tools and technologies for meaning-making. Particularly, Dourish (2001, 2010) calls for analyzing meaning (and therefore learning) as negotiated by the user at the point of interaction with technology, the world, and other people within ubiquitous and tangible context-aware systems. He introduces the term embodied interaction to emphasize the contribution of the user’s body along with the user’s mind in this negotiation of meaning-making. Building on this emphasis, Kirsh (2010, 2013) recommends embodiment as a theoretical lens to understand how interaction with external representations or tools can support meaning-making, change the nature of cognitive tasks, and/or form an intrinsic part of thinking. These recommendations are essentially built upon the idea of distributed intelligence (Hutchins, 1995; Pea, 1993, 2004) that contests the conventional understanding of intelligence as centrally located in the individual mind. It rather sees intelligence as resourced by and distributed across the social and the material
(i.e., people, objects, tools, and situations) in the environment. Within this construct, the learner interprets and co-constructs meaning as situated in the context, content, and processes of learning.
Since location-aware technology is a characteristic feature of ubilearn experiences, the meaning-making within these environments is mediated by technology. Some studies have effectively used augmentation technology in university teaching especially for subject matter that students cannot experience in the real world. For example, Shelton and Hedley (2003) studied AR use in teaching undergraduate geography students the concept of spatial inter-relationships between the earth and sun. They found that the 3D affordance of the AR experience provided the students with a superior level of cognitive access to visualize as compared to the same lesson software mediated by a conventional desktop interface. However, this design was effective perhaps due to the sophisticated interface that allowed a high degree of self control over the students’ own learning. It was found that the students freely manipulated the virtual 3D images in patterns of ‘move-examine-move again’ that helped them build new understanding. It could be
10 alternately concluded that the ‘experience’ rather than the information representation accounted for improved understanding.
Similarly, an investigation of the learners’ meaning-making process in an AR driven ubilearn experience for informal science proposed the construct of ‘collective’ (Salman,
Zimmerman, & Land, 2014) that included the concept of multiple semiotic modes (Hodge &
Kress, 1988; Kress, 2005; Kress et al., 2001; Lemke, 2002). The analyses proposed digital technology as a semiotic or meaning-making resource that combines and unfolds other semiotic resources such as position, posture, gesture, touch, and gaze in new and innovative ways (Salman et al., 2014). Therefore, this understanding of technology as a semiotic mode within ubilearn experiences represents a new phenomenon that warrants close examination.
The importance of multiple semiotic modes in learning, especially science literacy, is asserted by Lemke (2002). He emphasizes that all meaning resides in the integration of complex material systems that span across temporal, spatial scales that is separable only analytically.
Examining the use of these semiotic resources in specific contexts, particularly how people talk about them, justify them, and critique them to articulate the process of meaning-making as learning, is desired in emergent bodily interaction-based technologies (Price et al., 2009).
Thus, in my study, embodiment and meaning-making provide a critical perspective to examine and characterize learner interactions within design-focused ubilearn experiences for sustainable engineering design. This focus on engineering design in my study accounts for involving embodied meaning-making as a perspective to examine learner interactions. For example, McCullough (2006, 2014) in his research on urban architecture engineering, argues for allowing the designer multisensory interaction with the built design and proposes the use of AR technology in this connection. Barr et al (2011) apply this argument to instructional methods in architectural engineering where they propose that student engineers should work with buildings as three-dimensional (3D) textbooks that constitute the concrete, 3D curriculum. From this
11 perspective of pedagogical methods in engineering design, in the next section, I discuss examining learner interactions within the curriculum driven ubilearn experience focused on sustainable engineering design investigated in my study.
Studying Design-focused Ubilearn Experiences for Sustainable Engineering Design
Many studies in sustainable architecture (Barr, 2011; Deal & Peterson 2009; Orr, 1994;
Stephen, David, & James, 2008; Taylor, 2009) have recognized the importance of designing high- performing teaching tools that capture sustainable buildings as a design-focused solution to the contemporary environmental problems (Schiller et al., 2012). This current investigation goes back to Orr (1994) who coined the term “Architecture as Pedagogy” to emphasize the focus on the social and environmental lessons we can learn from the built environment. Rowhedder (1998) expands on this idea by stating that buildings have tremendous pedagogical power as teaching tools for sustainability education. Scholars such as Barr et al. (2011) and Taylor (2009) have proposed studying buildings as three-dimensional textbooks for innovative solutions to environmental problems. Similarly, Stephen et al. (2008) observed that the primary teaching strategy in using buildings as teaching tools is to influence the visitors’ overall experience through tactile interaction, sight, smell, and sound to create a positive and inspiring multisensory association with green design. To do this, McCullough (2006, 2014) suggests the use of pervasive computing that utilizes sensors, beacons, and augmentation components to ‘place sense’ in the learning experience of the built environment.
My study leverages this concept of buildings as teaching tools to contextualize sustainable engineering design concepts. This is achieved by integrating the design-focused concepts in the learning and assessment activities embedded in the ubilearn experience investigated in the present study. The curricular standards for this are drawn from the Next
12 Generation Science Standards or NGSS (Lead States, 2013) for high school grades which are adapted for this study using the seminal framework of Green Methodology by Mclennan (2004) presented in Table 1-1.
NGSS/Engineering Design Standards Adapted Standards, GreenDesigners (NGSS Lead States, 2013) (Mclennan, 2004) HS-ETS1-1. Analyze the global challenge of energy crisis Analyze a major global challenge to specify through related information on renewable/non- qualitative and quantitative criteria and renewable energy, fossil fuels, etc. Students constraints for solutions that account for analyze terminology, properties of materials and societal needs and wants. design strategies related to sustainable energy and solar strategies in built solar residential designs as one solution to the global challenge of energy crisis. Analysis employs the four elements framework*.
HS-ETS1-2. Design a solution to a complex real-world Design prototype of a built-solution based on solar problem by breaking it down into smaller, more design strategies by considering specific manageable problems that can be solved through sustainable engineering concepts in design engineering. solutions using the four elements framework*. HS-ETS1-3. Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world Evaluate a built solution based on prioritized problem based on prioritized criteria and trade- criteria and trade-offs specified by the four offs that account for a range of constraints, elements framework*. including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics as well as possible social, cultural, and environmental impacts. * The four elements in green methodology (Mclennan, 2004) 1. Understand Climate and Place [exemplified in solar house as geographical design considerations like position of sun and wind direction] 2. Load Reduction [exemplified in solar house as modular construction/prefabrication, heat conduction and insulation, thermal mass in the choice of materials] 3. Using Free Energy [exemplified in solar house as regionally appropriate solutions] 4. Using the most Efficient Technology[exemplified in solar house as home owner behavior; active and passive solar strategies]
Table1-1: Adapted standards from NGSS/Engineering design standards.
The design-focused curricular integration in this ubilearn experience allows learners an opportunity to study and analyze a solution (i.e., the solar house) to a real-world problem (energy
13 crisis, environmental degradation). Learners are also provided an opportunity to design a personally meaningful prototype-solution (i.e., an artifact) to make their learning visible. Within science inquiry, Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006) consider artifacts as “external representations of their (students’) constructed knowledge” (p. 327). For them, artifacts enable students to actively manipulate ideas that in turn allow deeper understanding of the concepts and their functional relationships.
With its focus on sustainable engineering design education, this study ties in with the big vision of a sustainably designed future, and draws inspiration from the USA’s national energy strategy to produce electricity solely from renewable sources by 2035. Aspiring to achieve such targets requires a generation of innovative engineers and scientists well trained in implementing innovative, sustainable solutions. With this realization, scholars such as Batterman et al. (2011) lament the current deficiencies in university curricula on sustainable education and call for an integrated energy-sustainability education. Recently, the NGSS (Lead States, 2013) has mobilized such integration by introducing Engineering Design as a core idea and a cross- cutting concept across K-12 school grade Science. Within this context, educators and practitioners are in need of learning design ideas that effectively capture the expressed focus of the NGSS on disciplinary concepts to expand youth’s interest in the newly introduced Engineering Design standards.
Therefore, this study focuses on the Engineering Design standards from NGSS and adapts these
In keeping with this intent, this study is an effort towards one such integrated sustainable education design for high school students. This effort captures Penn State’s visionary goals of
‘Learn, Live and Lead’ - enabling a comprehensive integration of sustainability into the
University’s research, teaching, outreach, and operations to prepare sustainable leaders for tomorrow.
This section has drawn upon literature to rationalize why this study is focused on learner interactions, meaning-making, and design-focused sustainable engineering design within ubilearn
14 experiences. The next sections provide a brief overview of my study, the research purpose, and research questions that guide the study’s learning and research design.
Brief Overview of the Study
Building on the recommendations from the above literature, my study sought to examine and characterize learner interactions in a contextually aware, ubilearn experience. From the data analysis, three theoretically salient conjectures emerged, (1) context-aware technological resources situate the learner in ubilearn experiences, (2) Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning, and (3) Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts through a process of analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes.
To arrive at these conjectures, I first designed and implemented one ubilearn experience called GreenDesigners that overlaid learning content on the physical location of Penn State’s solar demonstration house, the MorningStar. The learning content is design-focused, as it involves curricular concepts of sustainable engineering design. This ubilearn experience was driven by an augmented reality (AR) platform that was accessed by the learners through GPS- enabled mobile devices. High School students participated in the learning experience physically located at the Penn State University’s solar house where they used tablets that helped them access the design-focused digital content as they moved around and observed the design features of the solar house. The experience culminated in a team-based design challenge where the students designed a prototype solar house as a blueprint map (2D) or LEGO blocks (3D). The whole educational and research experience was video-recorded and the learner interactions were analyzed by means of multimodal interaction analysis (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010; Bezemer &
15 Mavers, 2011; Derry et al., 2010; Heath & Hindmarsh, 2002; Jordan & Henderson, 1995) informed by the three pronged theoretical lens described in Chapter 2.
Research Purpose of this Study
My study sought to examine and characterize learner interactions as a means to understand the learning processes within one ubilearn experience for design-focused discipline within STEM education. This purpose was accomplished through an empirical process of arriving at three conjectures that characterize the learner interactions in one ubilearn experience. For this, my study (1) created a case of an AR driven ubilearn experience called GreenDesigners with design-focused curricular elements of Engineering Design standards from the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS), (2) employed a three-pronged theoretical lens of ‘place- embodiment- meaning making’ to examine learner interactions, and (3) investigated learning gains through the process of ‘design-analyze-evaluate’. The multipronged purpose of my study was built on current research recommendations. Methodologically, my study employed digital ethnographic approach within a design based research methodology for which I used conjecture mapping (Sandoval,
2014) described in Chapter 3.
Research Questions to Examine Learner Interactions
The following questions helped narrow down the broad inquiry of learner interactions:
1. In what ways do learners interact with the physical, material, technological, and human resources as part of the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners?
2. In what ways do the learning and assessment activities embedded in GreenDesigners enable learning of sustainable engineering design concepts?
16 The first question generated microanalyses of the learners’ interactions with the context
(place), content (learning activities), and process (the learning experience in its entirety) within the ubilearn experience of GreenDesigners. Video recordings of the whole experience allowed an understanding of the interaction patterns similar to Bezemer and Mavers (2011) study on digital literacies which found that video analysis of embodied activities revealed several categories of actions. The second research question led to insights about learning gains that learners experienced about design concepts integrated in GreenDesigners through the learning and assessment content. Discussion on the learning and assessment activities is provided in the section on conjecture mapping. Also, an analysis of pre-post test, tablet screen recordings, focused group interview, and the student-generated artifacts allowed a rich understanding of learner interactions within GreenDesigners.
To ground the research questions, the study constructed a three-pronged theoretical framework based on sociocultural theories. A review of literature is provided in Chapter 2.
17 Chapter 2
Three-Pronged Theoretical Lens
This chapter reviews the theoretical literatures that contribute to the development of a three-pronged lens that informed the design of the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners.
Besides informing the design of the ubilearn experience, the three-pronged lens also supported the process of conjecture mapping where each prong corresponds to each of the three narrow conjectures and is reflected in the high-level conjecture. The high-level conjecture states that, ‘Learning of design-focused STEM concepts in ubilearn experiences requires the learner’s embodied engagement characterized by Place, Embodiment and Meaning-Making. The dynamics between high level and narrow conjectures constituting the technique of conjecture mapping
(Sandoval, 2014) employed in this study is discussed in Chapter 3.
The dynamics between the three-pronged lens, the two research questions and the three conjectures are illustrated in Table 2-1. As seen in this illustration, the first research question is aligned to the literatures on place and embodiment and these literatures paired with data findings motivated the first two conjectures. Similarly, the second research question is aligned to the literature on meaning-making and this includes the NGSS framework (see Table 1-1) that operates on the engineering design process of ‘design-analyze-evaluate’.
18
Research Questions Conjectures Informed by Theoretical Literatures & Data High level Conjecture: Learning of design-focused STEM concepts in ubilearn experiences requires the learner’s embodied engagement characterized by Place, Embodiment and Meaning-Making
Question 1: In what ways do 1. Conjecture 1 (Place) learners interact with the physical, Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in material, technological, and ubilearn experiences human resources within the 2. Conjecture 2 (Embodiment) ubilearn experience, Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, GreenDesigners? speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning Question 2: In what ways do the 3. Conjecture 3 (Meaning-Making) learning and assessment activities Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering embedded in GreenDesigners design concepts in collaboration with peers through the process of enable learning of sustainable analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes. engineering design concepts? Table 2-1: Alignment of Research Questions, Conjectures and Three-pronged lens
The three-pronged lens tabulated in Table 2-2, functioned as an analytical tool to examine the ways in which learners interacted with the built environment of the solar house, the ARL platform, and with peers. Drawing upon the interrelated literatures on place, embodiment, and meaning-making, this lens enabled the qualitative interaction analysis which in turn generated the three conjectures as my study’s contribution. Table 2-2 provides a quick overview following which each of the three prongs are discussed in detail.
Descriptor/ Literatures Prong Humans can think and act through ‘being in the world’ Place Context (Harrison & Dourish, 1996); Context-sensitive learning (Sharples,
2010); Situated learning (Lave & Wenger); Place-based learning (Ardoin, 2006; Heidegger, 1927; Sobel 2004)
Embodiment Thinking and learning happens when the embodied mind extends itself into the world
Embodied interaction (Dourish, 2001); Being in the world (Heidegger, 1927; Pfeifer & Bongard, 2007), distributed intelligence (Hutchins, 1995); extended cognition (Clark, 2003; Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Menary, 2010)
19
Meaning- Meaning-making involves the use of tools and resources to construct an making individual or shared understanding of new information or experience
Social semiotics (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress, 2005; Kress et al., 2001; Lemke, 2002) Table 2-2: Three-pronged theoretical lens
Place
Ubilearn experiences are designed around physical spaces that are augmented with digital learning content. The physical spaces are conceptualized as part of the learning experience while contextualizing the learner in the real-world. In my study, the learning experience is distributed across the physical space of a solar demonstration house that is layered with digital content allowing interaction with the embedded sustainable engineering design concepts, both physically and digitally. As such, this ubilearn experience reconfigures the physical space of the solar house into a learning Place which generates layered experiences, interpretations, and meanings and can inform our understanding of learner interactions. For example, the ‘space’ may be about temperature gradients in different areas in the house, while the bed invites interpretations of what it might be like to sleep and live in this ‘Place’, would it be comfortable, would the temperature and lighting ‘work’ for my personal tastes?
Harrison and Dourish (1996) in their discussion of the conceptual distinction between space and Place describe ‘context’ in digital technology this way, “We are located in ‘space’ but we act in ‘place’” (p. 69). This view resonates with the concept of dwelling discussed by
Heidegger (1927) in which humans have the ability to think and act only through the state of
‘being in the world’. This position invokes the sociocultural view where all experiences, actions, and therefore learning inform and are informed by being ‘Placed’ or situated in the social and
20 cultural environment. To situate learning means to create the conditions in which learners will experience the complexity and ambiguity of learning in the real world (Lave &Wenger, 1991).
Situated approaches to learning typically involve knowledge construction through the interactions of the learner with peers and the environment to solve real-world problems (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1991). Educators have suggested situating students in real world contexts that resemble the environment of disciplinary practice in order to establish a more effective learning experience (Lave &Wenger, 1991) compared to disembodied classroom-based instruction. For example, in a museum-based study, Falk and Dierking (2000) observed that place-specific situatedness impacts and influences how learners engage with and construct their understanding of new information. Also, using a real-world meaningful problem promises stronger contextualization of content that allows students to more easily relate the content to problems and situations in their own lives and thus in the real world (Rivet & Krajcik, 2008). It is important to note here that one criterion for effective STEM programs involves “first- hand experience with phenomenon and materials” (p.16) that includes situated investigations in the real world (National Research Council, 2015). Within this criterion, first-hand means providing learners direct engagement with questions, contexts, and data related to the STEM topic.
The concepts of Place, situatedness, and contextualization can take on or even require a different nomenclature within ubilearn experiences including new sorts of metaphors. For instance, Priestnall et al. (2010) use the term context-sensitive learning that affords unique interactions among people, technology, and the environment (Land & Zimmerman, 2015; Luckin,
2010; Milrad et al., 2013). It is noteworthy that for Priestnall et al. (2010) the understanding of
‘context’ is similar to the concept of ‘Place’ as discussed by Harrison and Dourish (1996).
Similarly, research on ubilearn experiences in science learning refer to place-based designs as learning experiences that are situated in the learners’ local environment such as nature settings and even buildings (Ardoin, 2006; Coulter et al., 2012; Sobel, 2004). These designs
21 afford learners a deeper understanding of their immediate settings. Ballantyne and Packer (2002) who utilize place-based learning for nature-based excursions found that students’ ability to directly experience and observe makes their environmental understandings more powerful. But
Moores (2012) notes that little attention has been paid to man-made structures or built environments as learning content within place-based learning designs. However, some scholars in sustainable architecture (e.g., Barr et al., 2011; Taylor, 2009) have proposed studying green buildings as tools for teaching and learning concepts in sustainable engineering education. This proposal of studying built environment moves place-based learning in a new direction.
The concept of ‘Place’ contributes a theoretical understanding of situatedness, context- sensitivity, and place-based learning to the three pronged lens. Place and embodiment are closely related as McCullough (2006) posits that humans are placed and situated by means of the morphological affordance of their bodies and this enables them to experience the world in an embodied manner. This relationship between Place and embodiment is an important aspect of the three pronged lens to which I turn in the next section.
Embodiment
For Dourish (2001, 2007), ‘Place’ begins with embodiment at the center of phenomenology as he conceives of body as ‘Place’ that shapes the interactions with the world. He asserts “we find the world meaningful primarily with respect to ways in which we act within it”
(Dourish, 2001, p. 125). This links back to Heidegger’s (1927) position of ‘being in the world’ that essentially argues against the traditional Cartesian position that separates acting and thinking from the context in which it occurs. This position has critical implications for the understanding of meaning-making as closely tied to embodiment.
22 In sociocultural studies (Pea, 1993; Pea & Moldonado, 2006) embodiment refers to the environment in which the body is situated. This relates to the idea of distributed intelligence
(Hutchins, 1995) that contests the conventional understanding of intelligence as ‘centrally processed’ in the individual mind. It rather sees intelligence as resourced by and distributed across the social and the material in the environment (people, objects, tools, and situations).
However, distributed intelligence has an inbuilt potential limitation since it does not fully depart from the idea of cognition as information processing and only conceptualizes the process as propagating through physical artifacts, technologies, and other minds and bodies (Marshall &
Hornecker, 2013).
Within cognitive philosophy (Clark, 2003, Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Menary, 2010;
Teske, 2013), this potential limitation is somewhat resolved with the hypothesis of ‘active externalism’ or the extended mind hypothesis that breaks away from cognition as information processing. It rather illuminates a mutually constitutive relationship involving the embodied mind and the environment (Clark 2008; Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Wilson 2004). In this way, extended mind hypothesis stipulates that external environmental elements are more than distributive, and may actually constitute a broader cognitive system. Applying ‘active externalism’ to learning, this position holds that thinking and learning happens when the mind within the body (i.e., embodied mind) extends itself into the world, as opposed to a Cartesian separation of mind and body. In this conceptualization, intelligence or thinking is not dispersed but is extended to form a unified system with one or several components in the surroundings. For Clark and Chalmers (1998), active externalism is made functional by the notion of causal coupling where “the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction, creating a coupled system that can be seen as a cognitive system in its own right” (p. 29). Building on this, Wilson (2004) observes that the basic criteria for causal coupling involves an active causal role for all components in the system and the system’s dependence on external components such that if it is
23 removed or decoupled, the performance changes. Teske (2013) observes that such insights from
‘active externalism’ have revolutionized the field of robotics research. He explains how present day robots are being built with bottom-up control that focuses on casual behavioral engagement of robots with the world. Crucially, Clark and Chalmers (1998) claim that “the external features here are just as casually relevant as typical internal features of the brain” (p. 30).
Kirsh (2010) builds upon the extended mind hypothesis (Clark & Chalmers, 1998) in his study on how external representations facilitate sense making. He frames six claims: (1)
Cognition is situated and inherently involves perception and action taking place in the real world;
(2) Cognition is time pressured and functions under the conditions of interacting within real time and a dynamic environment; (3) Cognitive work is offloaded on to the environment when possible through external structures and systems; (4) The environment is part of the cognitive system where the links between internal and external representations and processing can be considered a single unit of analysis; (5) Cognition is for action and guides interaction with a three dimensional world; and (6) Off-line cognition is body-based even when decoupled from the environment, which means that sensorimotor systems are involved in perception even when the body is not in an active condition. It is at the sixth claim of ‘off-line cognition’ that Kirsh (2010) dissents from Clark and Chalmers (1998) notion of ‘decoupling’.
The hypothesis of active externalism is applied to my study because the technologically mediated ubilearn experience forms an external system ‘coupled’ with the learner’s embodied mind for meaning-making. However, when the students move towards the capstone design challenge activity, this technological mediation is removed. From this point onwards, the related notion of offline cognition (Kirsh, 2010) provides an insightful analytical lens to understand meaning-making as relying on the embodied mind’s perceptive memory of sensorimotor engagement.
24 More important to my study is the observation that embodiment invokes the concept of bodily semiotic resources for meaning-making (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress, 2005, 2010; Kress et al., 2001; Lemke, 2002). The importance of multiple measurable semiotic modes in learning such as gaze, gesture, movement, and touch is furthered by Lemke (2002) who asserts that all meaning resides in the integration of complex material systems that span across temporal, spatial scales. Therefore, in the next section, I elaborate on the concept of meaning-making that is instrumental to the three pronged lens used in my study.
Meaning-Making
As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the literature on meaning-making formed the backbone of the third conjecture that essentially helped respond to the second research question about the learning gains.
Within the sociocultural position, an important concept is meaning-making that here involves the use of tools and resources to construct an individual or shared understanding of new information or experience. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) assert that the body and brain are where meanings arise, in and through our interactions with the environment and other people. This view of meaning-making informs the way this study approaches learning of sustainable engineering design concepts.
Sociolinguists such as Halliday (1993) define meaning-making when performed through the tool of language as “the process by which experience becomes knowledge” (Halliday, 1993, p. 94; emphasis in the original). Knowledge building when practiced as a collective enterprise can invoke what Wells (2000) defines as the principle of responsivity whereby ‘a structure of meaning is built up collaboratively over successive turns’ (Wells, 2000, p. 72). Here,
25 collaboratively does not connote group work, it rather refers to the process of meaning-making through tools or resources used over a period of time.
In my study, meaning-making is inferred using learner interactions as proxies. As such, learner interactions constitute sensorimotor participation including verbal (speech & writing), gaze, touch, and spatial perception (Dourish, 2000, 2001; Kress, 1993, 2010; Kress & van
Leeuwen, 2001). From the social semiotics perspective, interactions are conceived as semiotic resources. Van Leeuwen (2005) defines semiotic resources as “the actions, materials and artifacts used for meaning-making” (p.285) that are always at the same time a material, social, and cultural resource. Kress (2010) elaborates that semiotic resources can be produced physiologically, for example, with our vocal apparatus, or with the muscles to produce meaningful gestures, or technologically, for example, with pen or computer hardware and software. Therefore, digital technology is seen as a semiotic mode (Baldry & Thibault, 2006) that combines and unfolds other semiotic resources in new and often innovative ways (O'Halloran, 2009).
In my study, the process of meaning-making informed by learners’ embodied engagement contributed an understanding of learner interactions, i.e., how learners move across resources and modes to develop their own paths towards learning sustainable engineering design concepts. Particularly at the stage of design challenge, my study provided a descriptive understanding of learner decisions based on which concepts and resources they used and how, while tinkering through the design-focused problem. The video-based interaction analysis of modal transitions surfaced and revealed the visible paths and choices of semiotic resources that learners selected during the design activity. The technological resources in this study afforded evidence of problem analysis (e.g., the AR content embedded in the learning and assessment activities in the GreenDesigners platform). Also, the process of meaning-making revealed to some degree, learner interaction as coordinated between sensory modes (e.g., verbal, gaze, touch, spatial), mobile technologies (e.g., Android Tablets™, AR) and learners’ conceptual
26 understanding (e.g. the design-focused concepts embedded in the learning experience).This also helped operationalize my study’s approach to learners’ conceptual understanding as contextualized meaning-making through the NGSS Engineering Design process standards of analyze-design-evaluate. These standards are rooted in the intent to provide learning of STEM concepts through a process of problem-solving (National Research Council, 2012) and technology-mediated situated learning designs are suggested for productive STEM programs
(National Research Council, 2015). With reference to STEM disciplines, problem-solving is emphasized as the most critical competency (Park & Jang, 2008). Problem solving can be defined as “a person’s ability to engage in cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations where a method to solve the problem is not immediately available” (Shute, Wang,
Greiff, Zhao, & Moore, 2016, p. 106). Phumeechanya and Wannapiroon (2013), through their implementation of a problem-based learning design within a ubilearn experience, found that problem-solving in an authentic context provides opportunities for students to engage in deep learning. This is further confirmed by Vos, van der Meijden, and Denessen (2011) who observe that problem-solving in authentic, real-world contexts affords analysis of new ideas while making connections to concepts acquired in situ which further helps in retaining concepts for later use to solve new problems.
This lens of meaning-making thus looked into problem-solving representing deep learning of the sustainable engineering design concepts through the frames of analyze-design- evaluate within the AR driven ubilearn experience of GreenDesigners. It helped evaluate the learning gains related to sustainable engineering design concepts as learners situated their interactions within the ubilearn experience.
27
Operationalizing the Three-Pronged Lens
The three pronged lens informed by the data, was used to generate and refine the initial conjectures in the way that Sandoval (2014) defines conjecture mapping as “…a means of specifying theoretically salient features of a learning environment design and mapping out how they are predicted to work together to produce the desired outcome” (p.3). I used the three literatures on Place, Embodiment and Meaning-Making as a lens to operationalize multimodal interaction analysis to examine the interaction of learners with the solar house, the ARL platform, the artifacts, and their peers. Since in my study, Meaning-Making happened within the disciplinary confines of sustainability engineering design (see Table 1-1), the lens of Meaning-
Making was informed by the NGSS engineering design frames of analyze-design-evaluate that are undergirded by the intent to provide learning of STEM concepts through a process of problem-solving (National Research Council, 2015).
In this chapter, I articulated the theoretical basis that encompasses the three pronged lens of place, embodiment, and meaning-making that was used in my study to examine learner interactions. This lens informed by the data, helped in generating the three conjectures that form the findings of my study. In the next chapter, I describe the methodological framework and specific methods used in my study.
28
Chapter 3
Methods
This chapter describes the methodological framework and specific techniques employed to capture and analyze data in my study. First, I discuss the methodological technique that informed my learning and research design. Then, I describe the data sources and collection methods followed by methods used to generate and analyze data. I conclude this chapter on considerations of confidentiality and ethical issues.
Since my study is focused on studying a phenomenon that needs to be first designed, it benefits methodologically from design based research or DBR (Sandoval, 2014; Sandoval & Bell,
2004). The characteristics of DBR provide the foundation for my research design: (1) situating the design and data collection within the designed learning environment that is meant to be improved; (2) the enactment of a theoretical, research-driven design; and (3) procedural iterative cycles of design-enact-analyze-revise (Puntambekar & Sandoval, 2014).
This present DBR dissertation study, however, is positioned as the exploratory first iteration that generates conjectures through the DBR technique of conjecture mapping (Sandoval,
2014). Sandoval (2014) defines conjecture mapping as a form of logic model that conveys the complex interactions between and among multiple theories and design principles that are intended to be studied over time within the context of a learning environment. The next section discusses how conjecture mapping was applied within the context of my study.
29 Applying Conjecture Mapping
In this section, I elaborate upon my study’s conjecture map (see Figure 3-1), which includes the broad conjecture, embodiments, mediating processes, the conjectured outcomes and the theoretically salient conjectures.
Following Sandoval (2014), I drew upon the three pronged lens of ‘place-embodiment- meaning making’ (see Chapter two) for formulating the high-level conjecture. High level conjectures are ‘‘theoretically principled idea of how to support some desired form of learning articulated in general terms’’ (Sandoval, 2014, p. 22). For my study, the high level conjecture statement was: “Learning of design-focused STEM concepts in ubilearn experiences requires the learner’s embodied engagement characterized by place, embodiment and meaning-making”. This broad conjecture guided the design components or embodiments of my study.
The conjecture map in Figure 3-1 shows the learning design of my study operationalized by embodiments and mediating processes. According to Sandoval (2014), embodiments constitute the core learning design components while the mediating processes form the observed learning practices.
My study’s embodiments included tools, activity/task structure, participant structures, and discursive practices and these interacted with each other to achieve a learning design. I elaborate upon the embodiments of my study in the next section.
The mediating processes in the ubilearn experience were evident as observable interactions amongst the learners, and the learners’ interaction with the solar house, the ARL platform and the designed artifacts. Since the interactions were captured on video, both video data and learner artifacts formed an effective means to trace the mediating processes back to designed elements. As shown in Figure 3-1, the mediating processes included: (1) learners’ experience of the contextualized interaction with the built structure of the solar house, (2) learners’ interaction
30 with the contextualized and augmented design-focused concepts in real world setting, (3) learners’ make meaning of sustainable engineering design concepts individually and collaboratively, and (4) learners’ engage in digital apprenticeship whereby they learn about design decisions from real-life architectural engineers.
As shown in Figure 3-1, the dynamics between the embodiments and mediating processes were expressed as five conjectured outcomes, (1) embodied engagement, (2) engineering disposition, (3) design-focused collaborative STEM meaning-making, (4) learning design concepts through embodied presence, and (5) digital apprenticeship. These outcomes were iteratively refined by the data during the data analysis to generate the three theoretically salient conjectures. The three conjectures are each focused on place (conjecture 1), embodiment
(conjecture 2), and meaning-making (conjecture 3).
As mapped in Figure 3-1, the three theoretically salient conjectures are: (1) context-aware technological resources situates the learner in ubilearn experiences, (2) learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning, and (3) learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in collaboration with peers through the process of analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes. These three conjectures function as the response statements to my study’s two research questions.
It is important to note that the relationship between the broad and specific conjectures is dynamic and dialogic where each feeds back into the other. In keeping with Sandoval (2014), it is anticipated that these conjectures would go through further evolution and refinement when they are tested in this study’s next iterations.
I have conceptualized my study as a first iteration conjecture mapping. It is purposed towards generating theoretically salient conjectures to characterize learner interactions based on data from the students’ embodied engagement with the solar house, the ARL platform, and their
31 peers. My study does not test these conjectures in keeping with the advice from Sandoval (2014) to follow “conjecture mapping as a method for articulating the joint design and theoretical ideas embodied in a learning environment in a way that supports choices about the means for later testing them” (p.20). He suggests that the intricate process of conjecture mapping can guide a
DBR researcher about the methods best suited for testing the conjectures at a later point. Also, his advice to separate design from testing is in effect a response to the critique by Phillips & Dole
(2006) that DBR cannot actually meet its basic commitment of the simultaneous evaluation of designs and testing of theory.
In this section, I discussed the way conjecture mapping was operationalized in the context of my study. In the next section, I detail the embodiments of tools/materials, task/activity structure, participant structures, and discursive practices that constitute the learning design of my study.
32
Figure 3-1: Conjecture Map for the study GreenDesigners (Adapted from Sandoval, 2014)
33
Embodiments
The ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners comprised of the learning and assessment activities both at the physical ‘Place’ of the solar house and the digital infrastructure of the AR learning and analytics platform. Since these form the core embodiments of the ubilearn experience, I discuss these next in the Tools and Materials section.
Tools and Materials
1. MorningStar solar house:
The 700 sq ft. built-space of the MorningStar solar house (Fig 3-2) located at the Penn
State Sustainability Experience Center (SEC) is represented as a digital GPS-GIS map with red location-markers within the AR learning and analytics platform (Fig 3-3). A digital map (Fig 3-4) was created and utilized as representing the ‘space’ of the solar house that is reconfigured as
‘Place’ through the AR information overlaid on the physical space. The digital map (Figure 3-4) functioned as a reference for the learners to move back and forth through the learning and assessment activities. This is in keeping with Dourish (2001) emphasis of a ‘Place’ as a location that has the potential of experiences, interpretations and meaning. Enriched by the AR information, this digitally reconfigured space of the solar house allowed the learners active engagement with the sustainable engineering design concepts embedded in the solar house. An influence for this design is Barr et al. (2011) who proposed to conceive buildings as 3D textbooks in architectural engineering education. For Barr et al (2011), 3D refers to the three dimensional physical presence of the building itself. My study’s design steps ahead of this proposal by integrating AR technology as a mediating element.
34
Figure 3-2: Physical location of the solar house.
Figure 3-3: GPS-GIS view of the solar house.
35
Figure 3-4: Digital map for overlaid AR content.
2. AR Learning Platform (ARL):
In this platform, integration of two separate technologies: a location-based AR platform and a video-based learning analytics platform was purposed towards: (1) leveraging context- aware technological affordances, and (2) enabling learners to connect with the design-focused
STEM concepts through contextualized learning videos and assessments. This allowed a direct and more powerful experience for students’ place-based understandings (Ballantyne & Packer,
2002). While the AR learning platform provided technological contextualization, the video content and assessments aligned with the physical design features of the solar house. In this manner, contextualization or place-based experience was achieved by these two aspects working in harmony to produce a holistic contextualized learning experience.
36 Activity/Task Structure
Activity/task structure refers to the expectation from learners in terms of goals, criteria, learner tasks, etc. (Sandoval, 2014). In GreenDesigners, learners’ tasks were structured as video- lessons, embedded with assessments in the form of design-prompts (Figure 3-5) and action- prompts (Figure 3-6).
1. Design-focused Video Lessons and Assessments
Video-lessons embedded with assessments enabled contextualization of the ubilearn experience that involved design-focused sustainable engineering design concepts. The video- lessons operationalized intentional connections to the location-based curriculum, i.e., the design features of the solar house and the subject-based curriculum of sustainable engineering design.
This was achieved by conceptualizing the learning and assessment design on three specific
Engineering Design standards from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for high school grades (Lead States, 2013). These standards based on the engineering design process of analyze-design-evaluate were adapted for GreenDesigners using Mclennan’s (2004) seminal work on green design methodology focused on built structures (see Table 1-1). This adapted framework guided the creation of design-focused videos and assessments and also the design challenge that forms the capstone activity of my study.
The sustainable engineering design concepts provided in the videos and assessments are also based on recommendations from Mclennan (2004) after iterative discussions with two architectural engineers and three engineering students interning at the solar house. One of the architectural engineers who participated in these discussions had been the lead-faculty of the
Penn State Solar House Design Team at the Solar Decathlon 2007 in Washington D.C. He identified these concepts as critical for engineering design practices of sustainable residential housing. These concepts include: (a) active and passive solar strategies, (b) heat conduction and
37 insulation, (c) thermal mass in the choice of materials, (d) modular construction/prefabrication,
(e) geographical design considerations, i.e. position of sun/natural light and wind direction, (f) regionally appropriate solutions, and (g) home owner behavior. The assessments on these concepts were designed in the form of multiple-choice, fill in the blanks, and check all that apply type questions along with some design-prompts and action-prompts.
These concepts were integrated in the ARL platform in the form of videos, images, and embedded assessments that were overlaid as digitally augmented content on the physical design features of the solar house. The underlying principle for this integration was to present the solar house as one possible solution to the problem of energy crisis. In keeping with this intent, concepts were explained through videos with an expressed focus on sustainable engineering design strategies. These videos featured practising architectural engineers explaining the concepts integrated in the design features of the solar house. They also explained the decisions and trade- offs that went into the unique design of the solar house. These elements prepared the students for the ill-structured joint problem space of the Design Challenge.
For example, at the South wall of the solar house, a design feature related to the concept of ‘passive solar strategy’ was introduced through overlaying a design-focused video that featured an architectural engineer explaining how that wall manifested design considerations like the south-facing window-wall and wall insulation in the form of Structural Insulated panels (SIPs).
Through the assessments embedded in the videos, learners were guided to observe this concept in the physical design of the wall at the solar house. These formative assessments as design-prompts
(Figure 3-5) and action-prompts (Figure 3-6) afforded a deeper understanding of how the concept of passive solar strategy functioned within the design of sustainably engineered residential housing. Moreover, at the tail end of the learning experience, when the learners participated in the design challenge, this concept was a prominently discussed design feature in the collaborative prototype-design and the group post interviews.
38
Figure 3-5: South wall design-focused video and question-prompt.
Figure 3-6: House interior design-focused video and action-prompt.
Participant Structures and Discursive Practices
Participant structure in conjecture mapping refers to how participants, including students and teachers, are expected to participate in terms of roles and responsibilities. Discursive
39 practices included the opportunities for learner discussion and interaction integrated in the learning design. In GreenDesigners, students were expected to perform three roles that involved varied discursive practices, such as (1) participate in the activities prompted by the ARL platform that essentially required them to initiate and complete the role-based learning and assessment activities, (2) participate in artifact making/prototype at the design challenge, and (3) participate in individual and group concept mapping. These are discussed next.
ARL Platform-based activities:
For the platform prompted activities, students began with role selection. Each learner chose one role from the given four roles. These roles were assigned four names from amongst the most popular, gender-neutral names (Skyler, Peyton, Justice, Kendall) in the United States. Each role was defined by a specific interest in the design features of the solar house (Figure 3-7) that I gathered from my communication with the professors and interns working on site at the
MorningStar solar house.
40
Figure 3-7: ARL Platform: Role Selection
These design features include: (1) walls and windows, (2) floor and interior, (3) technical core (4) solar panels, and (5) carport. As illustrated in the flow-diagram (Fig 3-8), after the role selection, the learner was taken to the specific role-screen that invited them to watch a video while interacting with concepts and important terminology in the form of assessments. All students viewed two videos on core concepts: (1) ‘active and passive solar heat’ and (2)
‘conductors and insulators’ that introduced the foundational design concepts and provided the students a lens to understand the way these concepts are applied in the design of the solar house.
Also, all students, irrespective of their selected role, got the opportunity to interact with the learning and assessment content of these two videos.
Then depending on the chosen role, each learner progressed through a defined path based on the information made accessible for each role (Fig 3-8). For example, if a learner selected
“Peyton (technical core)”, they were guided to physically move to the mechanical room at the
41 solar house while accessing the digital “Peyton map” on their tablets. They were prompted to observe the components that enable the ‘active solar strategy’ in the physical design of the solar house.
Figure 3-8: Flow-diagram of the learner roles and research spots.
In this manner, students received information through video lessons about the six components that made up the technical core of the solar house: (a) heat recovery ventilator, (b) inverters, (c) geothermal heat pump, (d) electrical water boiler, (e) heat pump water heater, and
(f) solar thermal heater. For the learner to progress through the video content of these six components, they were required to respond to the questions embedded in each video. These questions had a two-fold objective: (1) to assess the learners’ current level of awareness about related concepts and terminology, and (2) to equip the learners with some awareness about related
42 concepts and terminology. Data illustrates that the augmented video content enabled learners to make meaning of the concepts and terminology related to sustainable engineering design which they applied in the design challenge.
2. Design Challenge:
The overall conceptualization of the capstone design challenge as ‘analyze-design- evaluate’ is based on the NGSS Engineering Design standards (Lead States, 2013) that were adapted using Mclennan’s (2004) recommendations of the four elements of green methodology
(see Figure 1-1). For this design task, students were expected to work in small design groups such that each group contained all the possible design-based roles (e.g., an interdependent hidden profile group approach that is also a jigsaw strategy). This was to ensure all information provided to each participant was represented on each capstone design group. This also enabled all participants in a group to contribute their newly acquired ‘expertise’ to the capstone design. For this first iteration, participants were allowed to come up with their own design challenge collaboratively. For example, one group discussed three options (1) solar carport (2) solar pet house, and (3) solar cat carrier, of which they chose to work on the design of a solar pet house.
Participants had access to a pool of resources that they could use to design and present their design artifacts. These included non-tech resources including paper, pencil, markers, LEGO™ creative, hard board, etc., and digital resources including sketch-pad with stylus, design software, etc. Each design group nominated a spokesperson to present their design and to explain the features of their design. Each presentation was guided by three questions: 1) What did you choose? (2) Why did you choose this? (3) What sustainable design features did you implement?
43 For embodiments, artifact construction was conceptualized as the culminating participant structure while the design presentation was the final discursive practice as illustrated in the conjecture mapping (Figure 3-1).
In this section, I elaborated on the components and dynamics of conjecture mapping for my study. The next sections describe the data collection procedures, followed by a description of data sources, methods for data analysis, and confidentiality and ethical issues.
Data Collection Procedures
Setting and Participants
The ubilearn experience GreenDesigners is physically located at the MorningStar solar house at the Penn State Sustainability Experience Center (SEC). Ten (10) High school students
(15-18 years) were recruited following IRB protocols of consent from participants and their parents. After consent procedures, participants were invited to the solar house to engage in a hybrid indoor-outdoor immersive learning experience totaling 3 hrs/180 mins on a single day.
Students were provided GPS enabled Android™ tablets through which they received location- based prompts about the AR content as they spent 1.5 hrs/90 mins observing the sustainable design features of the solar house augmented by digital learning and assessment content. This itinerant experience culminated in a 45 min design challenge where students were reorganized into design groups and worked on producing a prototype design solution. The learning and research design took approx 140 minutes; however, students were engaged for another 45 minutes in other activities that generated data about student learning e.g. pre- and post-tests and open ended post interviews.
44 Data Collection: First, exploratory iteration
This dissertation study discusses findings from the first iteration of data collection for this
DBR study. Data collection and analysis procedures followed the design-enact-analyze-revise
(Puntambekar & Sandoval, 2009) process. This dissertation provides recommendations for future iterations based on the data analysis and findings of this exploratory iteration.
The Data Set
The first iteration on June 2nd, 2017, included 10 high school students. Primary data set was based on the video recordings that included 12 hrs of video footage, 221 photographs, 46 single-spaced, double-sided paged transcription of selected video footage, approx 50 minutes of audio recordings of the group presentations. Supportive data included 10 pre-tests and 10 post- tests, 2 collaborative design prototypes (flipchart and LEGO™ creative), and one design board. In the next sections, I provide details of the data sources that generated the data set for my study.
Data and Data Sources
Video and Audio Recordings
Since the study is focused on examining learner interactions within a designed experience, video and audio recordings provided the primary data in accordance with digital ethnographic methods used in qualitative DBR studies (Horst, 2015; Horst & Hjorth, 2013; Pink et al, 2016; Salman, Zimmerman, & Land, 2014). Video recordings captured both speech and physical interaction during the entire learning experience including the ARL platform engagement, the Design Challenge, and the Open Ended Post Interviews.
45 ARL Platform Engagement
Students were equipped with slightly obtrusive microphones in order for the researchers to record the conversations while interacting with the hybrid learning space across physical (solar house) and digital (on tablets). Each of the four role-based spots at the solar house (see Figure 3-
8) had a videographer with a handy cam to capture the learners’ interaction with the solar house, the touch screen tablets, and with their peers. For the capstone design challenge activity, two cameras with unidirectional microphones were stationed on tripods for each design group.
Cameras were placed so as to capture all participants in the frame; however, videographers moved the camera back and forth and zoomed in/out as necessary with the change in the group’s configuration. In capturing the video, every effort was made to focus on the actions, particularly on how students interacted with the tablet-screens, the physical design features of the solar house, and their peers on site. To present this dynamic data in the static, textual space of this dissertation study, I extracted stills from the video footage and from the 221 stills that I had captured on site during the data collection.
Group Design Presentations
Students were reorganized into two groups where each group chose a spokesperson from amongst the group members to present their designs. Each presentation was guided by three questions: 1) What did you choose?, (2) Why did you choose this?, and (3) What sustainable design features did you implement. The presentations were captured on video and audio and were also transcribed. Group artifacts created by students in the design challenge included one design discussion board and two design prototypes. The artifacts were not primary data and were considered in the analysis as visual extension of the design presented by the student-group.
46 Open Ended Post Interviews
These group interviews were conceptualized as different from the Design Challenge group presentations in two ways: (a) these interviews comprised of open ended questions that were not pre-determined, and (b) the questions and probes were based on my observation and field notes of the dynamic discussion of the collaborative design process. These interviews were originally designed as 10-15 minutes session of open ended group interviews but stretched to approx 30 minute discussion with each group. In these, I probed into the design process and the discussion amongst the group members during the Design Challenge activity. These interviews were recorded both as video and audio data.
In capturing the Design Challenge and Open Ended Post Interviews, I provided clip-on mini-microphones to each of the two groups’ presenters at the onset of each group’s design presentation so that I could get clearer audio recording of the group presentations. Additional audio recorders were placed on the working tables to optimize the audio quality and to provide redundancy in case of technical issues. Both audio and video data was anonymized, transcribed, and coded for multimodal interaction analysis. This is explained in detail in the section on methods of data analysis.
Transcribed Data:
I transcribed video footage of the selected data that I present in this study. I did not plan to transcribe a huge amount of video data following advice from Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) and
Norris (2004) to select critical episodes for a fine-grained multimodal interaction analysis. This came to 46 single spaced, double sided pages of transcribed data that makes note of multimodal features such as students’ positioning, movement, gaze, gesture, pointing, attention and silence.
Despite attending to the multimodal features along with speech, this transcribed data is not stand-
47 alone for the purposes of multimodal analysis and had to be juxtaposed with the video footage.
Details are provided in the section on data analysis.
Pre-test and Post-test
Data from pre- and post-tests supported video-based data and helped avoid unwarranted partiality through data-triangulation (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The same test
(Appendix C) was used as pre- and post test for capturing students’ progress (if any) towards understanding the selective sustainability engineering design concepts. The test had four sections:
(1) Learning and Interaction, (2) Terminology, (3) Design strategies, and (4) Properties of materials. The first two questions in Section 1 probed into students’ perceptions about the role of body and space in learning. Sections 2-4 included questions refering to sustainable engineering design concepts based on Mclennan (2004) recommendations combined with the NGSS focus on
‘analyze-design-evaluate’.
Methods of Data Analysis
In my study, the unit of analysis is learner interactions-the analysis of which is informed by the three literatures on place, embodiment and meaning-making as explained in Chapter 2.
Data comprising video footage and photographs from the ARL Platform engagement was analyzed through multimodal interaction analysis and used the three pronged lens to extract events, segments and critical incidents. For the videos and audio footage along with the transcribed data from the Design Challenge and Group Open Ended Post Interviews, the analytical method was multimodal interaction analysis; however, the analysis focused more on
48 the process framework of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ from the third prong, ‘Meaning-Making’.
The pre- and post-tests were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Multimodal Interaction Analysis
Since GreenDesigners draws on digital ethnographic procedures for data collection and analysis, I primarily used multimodal interaction analysis (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010; Bezemer
&Mavers, 2011; Derry et al, 2010; Heath & Hindmarsh, 2002; Heath, Knoblauch, &Luff, 2000;
Horst, 2015; Jewitt, 2013; Jones, 2009; Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Kress, 1993, 2010; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Norris, 2004; Pink et al, 2016) to gain insights into the extensive video based data. Scholars observe that multimodal interaction analysis is best suited to digital ethnographic approaches (Bezemer &Jewitt, 2010; Heath & Hindmarsh, 2002; Pink et al, 2016) as this method has been effectively used to collect and analyze researcher generated (Horst, 2015; Jones, 2009) and naturally occurring (e.g. Holsonova, 2012; Norris, 2004; Salman, Zimmerman, Land, 2014) video data. Intimately guided by the study’s research questions, multimodal interaction analysis seeks to “investigate human activities such as talk, nonverbal interaction and the use of artifacts and technologies identifying routine practices and problems and the resources for their solutions.”
(Derry et al., 2010, p.1). Related to my study’s interest in examining interactions in ubilearn experiences, multimodal interaction analysis provides tools for mapping and analyzing the visual, embodied, and spatial features of interaction with digitally mediated learning experiences (Jewitt,
2013; Kress, 1993, 2010; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Pink et al., 2016).
Moreover, multimodal interaction analysis lends itself not only to video data, rather this analytical method has been used to examine texts, field notes, photographs, materials, and student artifacts related to the video data (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010; Bezemer & Mavers, 2011). Within the context of multimodal methods, Jewitt (2013) refers to such non-video data as modal
49 resources that provide a nuanced picture of the interaction being studied. However, it is important to note that this method is centered on video footage as the primary data source to gain insights into interactions within learning experiences (Pink et al., 2016).
Procedures of Data Organization and Data Analysis
I uploaded all data to the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA (version 12.3.5). I digitized the material (i.e. LEGO) and paper-based data (design boards, and student artifacts) and uploaded that to the software environment. This digitization process of data is in fact the first step towards preparing data for the analytical method of multimodal interaction analysis which I explain in the next sub section.
Moreover, procedures of multimodal interaction analysis allow for capturing the complexity of interaction in its various steps including: collecting and reorganizing data, video review sessions, extracting events, segments and critical incidents from the video footage and transcription of selected video data. I elaborate on these steps below.
Step1: Collecting and Reorganizing Data
Video recordings were carried out by four videographers who had different cameras with various output options. Additional footage and stills were captured by me. Even before organizing and reorganizing, videos were converted to a uniform output format. All raw footage was saved on external drives which were retrieved and secured on the same day of the data collection activity. This was a strategy to ensure that access to data remained only with the researcher. Videographers were given instructions on how to sort and sample useful footage. This helped sort around 16 hours of useful footage that had (1) good to moderate video quality, (2)
50 good to moderate sound quality, and (3) varied camera movements, angles, and zoom variation.
The footage was further organized to align with the data collection phases: (1) Pre-activities (2)
ARL Engagement (3) Design Challenge, and (4) Post activities. This process also involved clipping off abrupt beginnings and endings which further reduced the footage to approx 12 hours of video. Along with all this cleaned and sorted video footage, I secured the total raw footage on a separate external drive.
Translocation of this video footage to the MAXQDA environment required a different organizing principle as this software’s environment splits between a ‘document system’ and
‘coding system’. All data files were uploaded to the document system that could be further categorized into separate folders for textual documents, images, and videos. I initially uploaded the data files into the document system organized as the four data collection phases mentioned above. However, later I switched to a system of nine document folders to demarcate the data from each separate activity and design-spots at the solar house: (1) Pre-Post Test, (2) ARL Core Videos
(4) Design Challenge, (5) South Wall, (6) West Wall, (7) Carport, (8) Technical Core, and (9)
House Interior. For the ‘coding system’ that worked across Events, Segments and Critical
Incidents (move forward to Step 4 of the Procedures), I organized the code-folders as Event- labels (see Appendix C). This allowed the segments and critical incidents to be organized and analyzed under each event by default. Throughout this process of reorganizing data, I documented my uptake of the data and my insights in relation to the three pronged lens of Place,
Embodiment, and Meaning-Making.
Step 2: Data Viewing & Reviewing Sessions
The extensive digital data set predisposed me to view the data several times in order to find the starting point for the analysis. Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) emphasize repeated viewing of
51 data in keeping with the vigorous procedures of multimodal interaction analysis. My data viewing exercise included varied combinations to make sense of the interactions, e.g. viewing with both sound and image, with image only, sound only, fast forward, in slow motion. This exercise was purposed towards different ways of seeing the data. It also helped me hone in on excerpts to recognize patterns in the participatory actions for example, learners’ spatial repositioning of their bodies at the point of observing a design feature at the solar house. It further helped me to juxtapose insights from video data with information from the descriptive statistical analysis of the pre- & post tests. On a few days of video viewing, I was joined in by some members of the research team from my COIL project to watch the video data. This helped me tap into differentiated insights and perspectives. It mostly validated my view of the data and supported my self-confidence as a researcher.
Step 3: Selection
At the outset of the analysis process, I recognized that if I analyzed the data from each activity phase separately, it would generate an incomplete picture. After multiple passes through the data, I arrived at a procedure of selection mentioned by Norris (2004) that helped me present a well-rounded understanding based on data that most clearly demonstrated the students’ embodied engagement as they interacted with the place, the learning technology, and with peers.
Norris (2004), in her discussion of video-based multimodal interaction analysis, observes selection as an important step of identifying the data that foregrounds the most informative instances about the phenomenon under study. For my selection procedure, I decided to begin with videos of Design Challenge group presentations followed by the Open Ended Post Interviews.
In my study, the group presentations combined with the open ended post interviews from the Design Challenge formed cumulative data elements that foregrounded valuable information
52 about the whole ubilearn experience. This data thus enabled me to selectively include and move across episodes that students mentioned in their presentations and interviews. It also allowed me to access specific critical points in the ubilearn experience from the perspective of the students instead of the way I had conceptualized it. Hence, the analysis was guided by how the students experienced the meaning-making process. For example, in the second group’s post interview, when a student’s response mentioned the critical incident of the milk bottles at the South Wall- design spot, I traced it back to the specific episode where this interaction happened. Similarly, data from the group presentations helped me identify those data-instances that established how the augmented content supported students’ meaning-making in the absence or non-visibility of certain design features.
Step 4: Transcription
Since MAXQDA affords direct coding and analysis of video, visual and textual data, I initially did not plan for transcribing the video data. This was also in keeping with recommendations from researchers experienced in multimodal analytical methods, for example,
Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) advise against transcribing a huge amount of video data. Instead, similar to Norris (2004), they recommend sampling the video data to select episodes that highlight informative data about the phenomenon under study. For my study, this involved transcribing the selected episodes into multimodal transcripts (Kress et al., 2001), which included video-stills and also descriptive dimensions of the sensory modes like gaze, speech, body posture, repositioning, attention, and silence. Reorganizing the transcripts to highlight both verbal and nonverbal elements allowed analytical insights related to learner interactions. Both verbal and nonverbal aspects were documented with time stamps. This allowed for keeping the interactional
53 sequence intact (e.g., if the action preceded the verbal or if the technology was being used in conjunction with a sensory mode such as talk or touch).
Step 5: Selecting Events, ‘Critical Incidents’ and Segments
Events and segments were selected using the established principles of multimodal interaction analysis. Following advice from Jordan and Henderson (1995), I selected events on the criteria that they presented “coherence in some manner” along with “official beginnings and ending” (p. 20). Therefore, in my analysis, I identified five events where four comprised the pre- defined activities for my study, specifically: (1) ARL Engagement (core concept videos), (2)
Design-focused Interaction (student roles), (3) Meaning-Making (design challenge), (4) Pre-
&Post Activities. The fifth event i.e. (5) Presence (‘in place’) is an overarching event comprising all instances where students recognize their presence, movement, and transitions at the solar house. The third event, i.e. (3) Meaning-Making (design challenge) includes the segment of conceptual understanding that was further partitioned to account for the NGSS process standards of analyze-design-evaluate adapted in the light of Mclennan (2004) green methodology framework (see Table 1-1).
For extracting segments, Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) suggest focusing on micro- interactions that respond to some kind of a framework being used to investigate the phenomenon.
For example, in their study, Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) selected segments based on their theoretical framework of ‘ability’ to show how teaching ability was realized in the classroom. In another study that used a mobile app within an informal field tour (Salman, Zimmerman & Land.,
2014), segments were identified based on the scientific concepts focused in the study. Similarly, my study identified 51 segments based on the three-pronged lens of place, embodiment and meaning-making to focus on students’ interaction with the solar house, the ARL platform, and
54 their peers. Each segment-label represents a micro-interaction, for example, the 18th segment,
‘spatial repositioning towards’ within Event 2: Design-focused interaction (student roles), identifies 51 instances each of spatial repositioning by the students towards a design features while responding to a design-prompt on their tablets. The sub-segment of ‘analyze’ comprised interaction data from all design-spots of the solar house while the sub-segments of ‘design’ and
‘evaluate’ focused on interaction data from the group presentations and post interviews juxtaposed with the results from the pre- &post-tests.
Beyond event selection and segmentation, Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) and Bezemer and
Mavers (2011) suggest identifying episodes that contain ‘critical incidents’ from within the events. Bezemer and Jewitt (2010), in using multimodal interaction analysis for their classroom- based research on multiliteracies, clearly label certain episodes as ‘critical incidents’ (p. 191) and differentiate these from events and segments as comprising an interesting yet critical narrative related to the phenomenon under study. Critical incidents could therefore be seen as what Heath et al. (2000) defined as instances for “enabling retrieval of critical information” (p. 313). For my study, I identified nine ‘critical incidents’ across the five events (see Appendix C).
These procedures of multimodal interaction analysis helped in pattern identification of students’ interaction within the ubilearn experience of GreenDesigners. The interaction patterns formed the basis of the three conjectures that constitute the outcome of this study. Now I turn to the role of the researcher and confidentiality measures employed in my study.
55 Role of the Researcher
The degree of my involvement in the study’s data collection phase varied between my role as a facilitator and that of a passive participant observer. Specifically, I listened to, watched, and took notes about the interactions of the group, but did not speak or attempt to engage in any kind of interaction with the participants unless someone reported a technological glitch with the platform or needed directions. I wanted to have as little influence as possible on the learners’ interactions. I recognized that my mere presence in the space, along with the video cameras and the participants’ knowledge that it was a research study, undoubtedly impacted the students’ interaction to some degree. Only in the Design Challenge group presentations, particularly at the point of post interviews, I chose to actively engage with the students through questions that probed into the trade-offs and design decisions they considered in the Design Challenge activity.
Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations
Under the IRB approved protocol (IRB id#: 3171), my study acknowledged the rights of the researched by taking permissions from them for video recordings and by ensuring anonymity.
Students and their parents filled in and signed the IRB approved consent forms (Appendix D). I arranged for the consent forms to be sent to student homes through their teachers. Along with the mandatory student signature, there was requirement for at least one parent/guardian to approve and sign the consent form. Though students handed in the signed consent forms at the research site, as a formal procedure, consenting was video-recorded where I explained the video-recording procedures as part of the data collection process. Also, I made it explicit to the participants that they could opt out of any activity at any stage and allowed them time to ask questions or share concerns or opt out of the study.
56 Participants were ensured that only I, the researcher will have access to the video recordings, images, and interview data. Through these guarantees of privacy in accordance with standard research ethics, I also ensured the students that I will not reveal any information or interpretations generated through the research to any of the students, or to their teachers or school. I also explained to my participants that the ethical standards of research prevent me from revealing anything to others (or even to them), even if that results in positive benefits.
Data is being kept strictly confidential. A list that matches students’ names with their code number/pseudonym is kept in a password protected file in a secure external drive. Moreover, all software and apps used in this study underwent a stringent 6-month vetting process by Penn State’s department of Risk Management. This was to ensure that any identifiable student data is protected from public access.
In consideration of ethical issues arising from potential harm to the participants and from maintaining the integrity of the research, I took several steps. First, I ensured that all data, dynamic and static is retrieved and secured on the day of data collection. The videographers I hired were through Penn State’s Dept of Mass Communications who had the required clearances to be around minors. All videographers filled in a data confidentiality statement. As an additional measure, the videographers were hired for a single day of on-site work which ensured that all the cleaning and organization of raw footage and stills was completed in my presence on-site at the solar house. This was a strategy ensured protection of my study’s data.
In this chapter, I described the research design, the methods of data collection and the procedures of data analysis employed to respond to the research questions. In the next chapter, I discuss the findings of my study.
57
Chapter 4
Findings
In this chapter, I present the findings of my analyses. These findings address the central research questions in my study:
1. In what ways do learners interact with the physical, material, technological, and human resources
within the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners?
2. In what ways do the learning and assessment activities embedded in GreenDesigners enable
learning of sustainable engineering design concepts?
The method of multimodal interaction analysis described in Chapter 3 generated three theoretically salient conjectures that were motivated by data informed by the three literatures on Place,
Embodiment and Meaning-Making. The three conjectures are:
1. Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in ubilearn experiences,
2. Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and
technological content supports design focused STEM learning, and
3. Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in collaboration
with peers through a process of analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes.
Though the three literatures influenced the formulation of each of the three conjectures, the literature on Place and Embodiment motivated the first two conjectures respectively. Similarly, the
58 literature on Meaning-Making was an overarching influence over each of the three conjectures; however, it defined the third conjecture more holistically.
In addressing the research questions, findings related to the first question revealed the patterns and characterizations of learner interactions that contributed to the first and second conjectures. In a similar manner, findings related to the second question revealed the conceptual gains as formulated in the third conjecture that ties in with the literature on Meaning-Making.
In this chapter, I use the conjectures as my section headings to organize my study’s findings.
Conjecture 1: Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in the ubilearn experience
From the analyses of data using the method of multimodal interaction analysis that I described in
Chapter 3, the first conjecture was generated that characterizes learner situatedness enabled by the context-aware technology in ubilearn experiences. The two characterizations of learner situatedness are:
(1) situated transformation of space to place, and (2) situatedness as enhanced embodied perspective beyond physical constraints. I present data to illustrate these two characterizations of situatedness achieved through augmented technology. For each analytical description, I mention the events, the segments and the critical incidents that guided me towards these characterizations. I introduce these two characterizations using direct quotes from the data.
Situated Transformation of Space to Place
“It’s not the way it looks. Sometimes it’s good to know what’s inside”
This is a direct quote (line 97; Figure 4-1) from an interaction that constitutes a critical incident in the second event i.e. Design Focused Interaction (Roles). This incident exemplifies how the learners’
59 situatedness was augmented through the technological transformation of space to ‘place’ that generated experiences and meanings the students found personally relevant. It also reveals how students experienced the technologically enabled layered meanings that generated an alternate view of reality.
In this excerpt (Figure 4-1), Marcy and Bela are interacting with the interior of the solar house in their chosen role, ‘Justice’, based on their interest of learning about the sustainable design features embedded in the house’s interior. This interaction (lines 83-98) happens right after their engagement with the augmented videos and assessments based on two design features. Here, I will discuss the first design feature which is the structural insulated panels-SIPs that are used to construct the walls of the solar house.
Marcy and Bela had watched the video and responded to an action-prompt (see Figure 3-6) that asked them to interact with the two SIP panels placed inside the house by opening, closing and locking them. In this excerpt, they share their experience of being ‘in place’ at the solar house and draw upon their encounter with two realities to make meaning of the experience- first is the technologically created reality and second is the reality based on their embodied experience.
Marcy (line 83) starts off with a claim that ‘this house is not tough enough’. Her claim is based on her interaction with the SIP panels that differs from her embodied experience of the space and the information she received from the augmented content. She refers to her embodied experience of being ‘in place’ at the solar house through words like ‘inside’, ‘feels’, ‘looks’, “Like we are standing inside and it feels tough and it is holding up for years and all (line 85). Her situatedness makes her conscious of her unease with the conflicting relationship between the augmented content and her interaction with the SIP models “…but look at these panels. They are foam. That’s what the video said but you can see these right here. They are so light” (lines 85-86). She expresses the incongruity in what she experiences through her embodied interaction of ‘feel’ and ‘look’ and ‘they are so light’ with what she thought was different when watching the augmented video, ‘That’s what the video said but you can see these right here’. She is clearly trying to make meaning of the information she has received from three sources- her first embodied impression of the ‘tough feel’ of the house, the video content where the information supported her first impression, and her interaction with the SIP models as ‘they are foam’ and ‘light’ in response to the
60 action-prompt. In this process of meaning-making supported by her embodied interaction, she replaced her first embodied impression of the house as being ‘tough’ with’ it’s not the way it looks’. Bela, the other student, affirms to this pattern of gathering information from both sources- the embodied experience of the solar house and the video content. However, unlike Marcy, Bela (lines 87-91) does not appear to find a conflict with how the physical solar house feels or looks to her in comparison with the features that are revealed in the augmented video combined with her interaction with the actual models of SIP panels inside the solar house as ‘it is polyutherene, still feels tough to me, like the floor feels heavy’ and that
‘nothing looks broken...I mean the walls’ (lines 87-88). She relies on her ‘feel’ of the place and her tactile interaction where she taps the floor to check the sturdiness (line 87). The knowledge that the SIP paneled walls were made of polyurethane, were ‘light’ and ‘foam-like’ did not change her impression that the house was tough. However, this led her to a thought intensive process of synthesizing the two pieces of information as later in the design group, she says “I was watching the video with Marcy and the real SIP bricks that looked like hard foam but very light to hold”. Analysis of the learning or meaning-making process of the two students within this interaction with the house vis a vis the augmented content reveals how the design of overlaying digitally rich information transformed the space into a ‘place’ that made the students recognize their situatedness in that space by drawing upon the multiple interpretations of reality.
61
Figure 4-1: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, ARL Engagement Roles
This characterization of embodied situatedness is supported by data from the post interview after the Design Challenge presentation. For example, Figure 4-2 excerpts Marcy’s proposed contribution of the SIP walls in the collaborative open plan house design (lines 39-40). These lines indicate that Marcy was still in the process of meaning-making of what she experienced through her body (walls feels tough, solid) with what she saw in the video and experienced as interaction with the SIP panels in the action- prompt task (Figure3-7). She further qualifies her design contribution with, “…are very light made of foam just like the walls in this solar house” (line 40). This qualifier looks meaningful only when compared with the interaction from the earlier discussed Event 2 (lines 85-89) as it gives insights into how the learner’s situatedness enabled by her body coupled with her experience of the building overlaid with digital information, made her understand the solar house as a ‘place’ that generates experiences, interpretations, and meanings with which she could relate.
62
Figure 4-2: Video data-excerpt from Event 3, Meaning-Making (Design Challenge), Open House Design Group
Event 3: Design Challenge data (Figure 4-3, below) from the transition point between the group presentation and the group post interview reveals similar insights for the other student, Bela. In lines 40-
43, Bela talks about how the walls in the solar house “look like normal walls, like everyday walls” (line
41), but look different in the video as “I was watching the video with Marcy and the real SIP bricks that looked like hard foam but very light to hold” (lines 41-42). She thus expresses incongruity between her sensory experience of the SIPs where the ‘look’ did not match the tactile interaction as in ‘…but very light to hold’ (line 42).
63
Figure 4-3: Video data-excerpt from Event 3, Meaning-Making (Design Challenge), Pet house design group
Bela’s articulation suggests that she conflated the information from the augmented video and her own tactile experience of holding the SIP bricks. To her, it is the ‘normal look’ of the walls that creates a deception such that the other group members are not convinced and “parked the idea” (Figure 4-3 line
45). This is supported by the group design board where this idea is parked (highlighted in yellow under
‘Walls’ Figure 4-4).
64
Figure 4-4: Design-board (Pet House Group)
As a learner, Bela recognizes her holistic experience of the SIPs-design feature and her access to another interpretation of the reality of the walls. Moreover, she rationalizes the apparent information gap where the other students (except Marcy and her) see it as ‘normal walls’ since they had not seen nor interacted with the SIP-bricks. In the current situation when Bela was working with her design group and was disengaged from her interaction with the house, her sensorimotor experiences still influenced her design contribution. This illustrates how important it is to understand learner interactions within ubilearn experiences that coordinate physical and digital realities.
65
This dataset indicates that the students’ situated interaction of seeing the actual SIP bricks, holding them in their hands to feel its light weight and to stand in a house with walls made of SIPs enriched their understanding of the passive solar design. The augmented video allowed mediation between their embodied situatedness and the house. Marcy’s quote “sometimes it’s good to know what’s inside” sums it up aptly. This affirms how place-specific situatedness impacts and influences learners engagement with and construction of their conceptual meaning-making.
Situatedness as Enhanced Embodiment beyond Physical Constraints
The findings for this characterization are collated from data generated by two separate sources since they made sense only when combined. The first source is the post interviews and the second is the interaction data from the specific design-spot of South Wall. The following direct quote from one student reveals how the time-constrained situatedness was mediated by technologically augmented information that made a non-existent design feature come alive at the design-table.
“I was trying to explain about those water jugs but it is not easy coz you can't see them now”
The above direct quote, (lines 58-59; Figure 4-5) is from the third event (Event 3, Meaning-
Making) of the Open House design group. It refers to a critical incident that captures the experience at the design-spot of South Wall (Figure 4-6). In the short excerpt (lines 54-62), two students Clara and Zen enter into a conversation about one passive design feature i.e. ‘glass milk bottles’ when Clara doesn’t see them at the South Wall and shares that she had seen those at her earlier visit to the solar house . Though this design feature is not included in her design-role of ‘Skyler’ that focuses on walls and windows, Clara chooses to contribute this ‘glass milk bottle’ design feature when working with her design group.
66
In lines 58-59 (Figure 4-5), Clara expresses her disappointment at not being able to explain to her peers a particular design feature (she calls it ‘water jugs’) because it is not physically present as a demonstrable design feature at the solar house. She talks about her prior experience of visiting the solar house, “when I was here last year, I saw a lot of water jugs on a rack” (line 50).
In her design-group, she struggles to get her peers to appreciate the feature as a convincing passive design feature for the Open Plan House design. Her passionate stance could be better understood in the context that their group was focused exclusively on passive solar strategy and she wanted to contribute this feature to the group design. She gets support from Marcy, another design group member, who was one of the two students, engaged with the design-role ‘Justice’ that focused on the house’s interior. Since the design feature was no more at display, Marcy shares that “I didn’t see those bottles inside but they are in the video, I saw those milk bottles on the moving rack and that looked like a cool passive idea, but they are not placed on the rack anymore” (lines 60-61).
This critical incident illustrates how the digitally augmented content about the milk bottle-design compensated for the physical absence of that design feature. In so doing, the digitally augmented content enhanced the embodied situatedness experienced by Marcy (lines 61-62). This explains how Marcy’s embodied situatedness where seeing “the rack now too” (line 61) in that space “near the window” (line
62) was enhanced after watching the video that “got me (her) thinking” (line 62) of extending that design feature by “paint(ing) the bottles in dark color to keep the heat in for winters as passive strategy” (line
63). This revealed how the AR content allowed for a complete picture of the milk-bottle passive design feature through Marcy’s enhanced situatedness that compensated for Clara’s time-constrained situatedness. This had direct implications for the design contributions by both group members where unlike the SIPs critical incident, the design-feature was not “parked” rather it was integrated in its extended form in the group design of the Open Plan House.
67
Figure 4-5: Video data-excerpt from Event 3, Meaning-Making, Pet house design group
It was observed that both Clara and Marcy showed an embodied association similar to Bela’s with the design feature of SIPs. Both strategized their ‘presence’ or situatedness in the space of the solar house to project their understanding of how the non-existent design features worked by using similar design features (e.g., the rack and the wooden screen) currently available in that space. While Marcy was able to project the design-extension of ‘painted bottles’ based off the empty rack and augmented information, Clara used the ‘wooden screens’ outside at the South Wall to demonstrate how the bottle rack moved and functioned as a passive strategy design.
This excerpt from Clara’s earlier conversation with Zen (Event 2, ARL Engagement) at the South
Wall (Figure 4-6) shows how she uses her present embodied experience of “these screens that we are moving” (line 54) to explain the design specifics of “the rack could be moved” (line 54). She uses her body, specifically her hands and spatial repositioning to explain how that passive design system of jugs and “holes on the rack” (Figure, 4-5 line 56) worked. She explains how those glass jugs were filled with
68 water and were placed on a rack as part of passive solar design as in “…there were holes on the rack and the jugs go into the holes (gestures with her hand shaped like a jug sliding into a hole). You fill them with water” (lines 59-60, Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-6: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, ARL Engagement, South Wall
This characterization of technologically enhanced embodied situatedness gets reinforced by another data-illustration from Event 3, Meaning-Making, Design Challenge (Figure 4-7). Here, the design feature being discussed is the concealed radiant flooring system (invisible) under the slate floor (visible) of the solar house.
In Figure 4-7, lines 90-95, Kevin mentions the awareness he gained from the video about the concealed design feature of the radiant floor heating (lines 90-95). In his appreciation of the design as
“beneath the floor in this house and you cannot really see it” (line 92), he acknowledges his sense of situatedness as he triangulates the information from two separate sources. The first source is Bela who had engaged with the radiant floor augmented content as part of the house’s interior (line 93) and second is Kevin’s personal interaction with the video content “in the mechanical room” (line 94). His physical presence at the mechanical room, especially his experience of seeing the equipment augmented by the digital video content, gives him this confirmation that “the pipes are connected to the water heater” (lines
94-95). This shows how the augmented video created a proxy for the embodied exposure that enabled him
69 to visualize a non-visible design feature with the confidence that, “it’s hidden from sight but keeps the house warm” (line 95).
Figure 4-7: Video data-excerpt from Event 3, Design Challenge
Kevin’s mentioning Bela as a peer who had watched the radiant floor video (line 93) was reason enough to probe further into the data from the design-role “Justice”. Referring back to Figure 4-1, where
Marcy and Bela interacted with the house’s interior in the second event (Event 2: Design focused
Interaction), Bela reveals a similar experience of enhanced situatedness as she likes “how” (line 91) the video showed the radiant system “that you can’t see but it’s there to keep the house warm” (91). Data from both students’ experience of a hidden or concealed design-feature revealed that the augmented information took on a personally relevant meaning due to their physical presence at the solar house.
Kevin had chosen the role Peyton that placed him at the mechanical room while Bela was placed in the house interior with the role ‘Justice’. However, what helped them convince their group members about this concealed design features was that both had accessed this information separately as a visual demonstration at two different design spots. The radiant floor design, though concealed, was accepted by their group as evident from the design board (Figure 4-4, highlighted under ‘Heating/Cooling’)
70
Summary of Conjecture 1 Findings:
The first conjecture, ‘Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in the ubilearn experience’ states that the embodied situatedness afforded by ubilearn experiences is driven by context- aware AR technologies. From the analyses of data using the method of multimodal interaction analysis that I described in Chapter 3, it was found that situatedness was recognized by the learners as they operated across the physical setting of the solar house and the digital ARL platform within the design- focused STEM ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners. Driven by context-aware AR technology, situatedness was seen to operate in the GreenDesigners at two levels:
(1) Space was transformed into ‘place’ where the technologically augmented content afforded a holistic meaning based on the learners’ embodied situatedness. Learners were able to recognize their presence through embodied engagement with the information that the ‘place’ presented. This recognition helped them make meaning of the concepts as they collated multiple interpretations of reality sourced by their first impressions, by their multisensory interaction with the specific design features and by the technologically augmented content in the videos.
(2) Enhanced embodied perspective was achieved by learners to move beyond physical constraints of time and perception. The learners recognized and strategized their physical, embodied presence at the solar house to create a holistic understanding of design features that were either non- existent at the current time (time constraint) or were hidden from sight (perception constraint). Also, the technologically augmented video being a visual demonstration served to bring out both the concealed designs and the non-existent designs to the learners’ active imagination. This provided a sense of technologically enhanced embodied situatedness that made the learners confident contributors to their group designs.
71
Conjecture 2: Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial
positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning
Data analysis revealed that the students coordinated their interactions between the sensorimotor modes (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content, moving back and forth across them. Two observations for the learners’ sensorimotor participation emerged: (1) engagement of sensorimotor capacities as an intuitive method of meaning-making, and (2) interaction patterns as learners participated in design-focused STEM learning. I use interaction data to elaborate upon these two observations for which I refer to the specific Events, Segments and Critical Incidents. Where relevant, I refer to supportive data from the pre-post descriptive statistics.
Engagement of sensorimotor capacities as an intuitive method of meaning-making
This critical incident appears in the second event (Event 2: Design-Focused Interaction) where students are engaged in their role “Skyler” that is focused on walls and windows. This incident happens at the point of an action-prompt at the design-spot of ‘West Wall’. Here, two students Clara and Zen are engaged with the design feature of ‘solar slates’ at the West Wall.
Data reveals the learners engaging their whole bodies to respond to the action prompt (Figure 4-
7). This action- prompt was embedded in the West Wall AR video and asked about the conductor integrated in the solar slates. There were five options to choose from: (1) iron, (2) copper, (3) aluminum,
(4) steel, and (4) lead. This was the second question out of a total of 4 questions for a video running 2 minutes and 3 seconds. This was the only action-prompt at the West Wall design-spot.
72
Figure 4-8: Action-prompt, west wall
The incident (Figure 4-9, lines 49-73) begins with two students, Clara and Zen looking at the
West Wall from a distance as they move on to the second question (line 49). Grasping that they will need to get a closer look at the wall to identify the ‘conductor’, Clara moves towards the wall and invites Zen to get closer to the wall, “Let’s check out the wall” (line 52). It is evident that both students understand the task as requiring embodied engagement (gaze, touch, spatial repositioning). However, the data shows both students access the information using a different sensory capacity. For example, Zen suggests that they work with their visual capacity, specifically color distinction, “all metals feel the same. If we can tell the color, we’ll know what it is” (line 54) and “it is greyish, not silver, so not steel and I know copper, this is not it, it’s aluminum” (line 56). By this point, Zen has already eliminated two of the five pre-given choices based on her understanding of color as one of the identifiable physical properties of metals.
Anticipating Clara’s move to identify the conductor through the physical property of texture, Zen excludes the idea of identifying the conductor through texture, “all metals feel the same” (line 54). Clara explores the texture by “touching the tiny wires in the solar bricks” (line 57) and recognizes the limitation as “it is like any metal, I mean to touch” (line 57). This makes Clara shift to the physical property of color
73 and to mentally downsize her choices to two metals, “lead or aluminum” (line 59). Both students are confused about lead being a conductor as visible from their silent look at each other (line 61). This makes them decide on splitting their response between aluminum (Zen) and lead (Clara) which suggests that
Clara has assumed lead to be a conductor (line 62).
The climax of this critical incident occurs when Clara takes a look at the whole wall and realizes that “these metallic wires are inserted in these solar slates” (line 64). This makes her decide aluminum as her choice for the conductor in the solar slates on the basis that “lead is a thick metal; it won’t bend that easily to go into these brick walls” (line 70). This shows the movement in her embodied thinking not only in terms of choice, rather in terms of exploring another physical property i.e. ductility of metals which is the ability of a metal to be pulled into a wire.
This data supports learners’ engagement of sensorimotor capacities and technological content as an intuitive method of problem solving. The whole process of meaning-making and analyzing the prompt/question (involving task deconstruction, use of elimination principles to reduce mental load across the five pre-given choices, and applying the knowledge of physical properties of metals to rationalize choices) happened simultaneously aided by a coordinated engagement of technology and sensorimotor modes i.e. gaze, touch, speech, spatial perception and bodily repositioning.
Similarly, results from the pre-post tests also confirm a progression in conceptual understanding of students particularly related to conductors. In part ii of Q-5 of the pre-post test (Appendix A) students had to choose the property that does not apply to conductors. Figure 4-11 presents learner progression in identifying conductors based on its properties where in the pre-test condition, only 4 out 10 students had correctly responded while in the post-test condition, 9 out of 10 students responded correctly. One student did not attempt the pre-test (n=9) but she responded to the post-test.
74
Figure 4-9: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, Design Focused Interaction, West Wall
75
Therefore, the data observations about the function of sensorimotor semiotic resources for meaning-making in design-focused ubilearn experiences support an intuitive process where learners move across multiple semiotic resources in automated ways to make meaning.
Learner’ interaction patterns in design-focused STEM learning
Since my study was purposed towards examining learner interactions within a design-focused
STEM ubilearn experience, action-prompts were embedded as assessments in the augmented videos.
These prompts were embedded to help learners understand ‘design’ as functionality beyond mere appearance. These prompts were created to allow guided interaction with specific design features of the solar house. For these prompts, extracting patterns from interactions involved analyzing visual dynamic data on a moment-by-moment spectrum and presenting the best possible representations of those patterns.
Findings presented here include still images extracted from the videos combined with textual transcription.
Learners’ response to the action-prompts revealed insightful patterns about the embodied interaction in this design-focused STEM ubilearn experience. To illustrate the patterns, I use data from three action-prompts that involved: (1) Identification (2) Reconfiguration, and (3) Assembling.
Action-prompt: Identification:
Figure 4-10 provides a nine-frame pattern organizer that represents the patterns or moves emerging from sensorimotor interaction specifically for this action-prompt from Event2. Design focused
Interaction at the West Wall. The textual transcription for this episode could be accessed in Figure 4-9 where Clara and Zen are responding to the action prompt of identifying the conductor in the solar slates.
Microanalyses of the interaction revealed a pattern of nine broad-stroke sequential moves visually presented in Figure 4-10 and listed out as follows:
76
Move 1: Gaze Interaction (wall& tablet screen);
Move 2: Spatial Positioning towards wall;
Move 3: Tactile interaction (wall &tablet screen);
Move 4: Tactile Interaction & Peer talk;
Move 5: Constructing the ‘big’ picture;
Move 6: Spatial Repositioning& Peer Talk;
Move 7: Gaze Interaction (wall + tablet screen);
Move 8: Gaze Interaction + Peer Confirmation;
Move 9: Identification (gaze on screen)
Description of Moves:
Corresponding to nine moves listed above, data revealed gaze interaction as the most dominant sensory engagement. Both Clara and Zen relied on gaze interaction, distributing their gaze across the design feature i.e. the solar slates in the West Wall and the tablet screen i.e. the interface of the technology content. At this point in the video, the students could access a magnified image of the solar slates embedded in the wall. With their gaze moving on-screen and off screen, Clara and Zen crosschecked the physical solar slates with the magnified image multiple times.
Another interaction pattern that students displayed was spatial positioning and repositioning towards and away from the design feature i.e. solar slates in the West Wall. Students’ positioning
‘towards’ the design feature was particularly intended to improve their gaze interaction or to achieve tactile interaction with the design feature embedded in the wall.
Peer talk brought another consistent pattern to this interaction. Data illustrated that the actions or embodiment nearly always preceded the talk, for example, Clara moved to get down before she invited
Zen with ‘Let’s check out the wall’ (lines 51-52; Figure 4-9); Clara touched the wall before she verbalized that she is using texture as a way to identify the conductor, ‘it’s like any metal, I mean to touch’ (lines 58-
77
59; Figure 4-9). Also, talk followed all embodied interaction (gaze, touch, spatial positioning) indicating that the body guides the speech, for example when Clara and Zen are exploring the pre-given options for identifying the conductor till they reach the point of identification (lines 61-73 Figure 4-9)
Move 1: Gaze Interaction Move 2: Spatial Positioning Move 3: Tactile Interaction (wall + tablet screen) towards wall (wall + tablet screen)
Move 5: Constructing the Move 6: Spatial Repositioning Move 4: Tactile Interaction ‘big’ picture + Peer Talk +Peer Talk
Move 7: Gaze Interaction Move 8: Gaze Interaction+ Move 9: Identification (wall +tablet screen) Peer Confirmation (gaze + touch on screen)
Figure 4-10: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, Design-focused Interaction, West Wall, Identification.
78
Action-prompt: Reconfiguration
Figure 4-12 represents the patterns emerging from sensorimotor interaction specifically for the action-prompt on reconfiguration from Event2. Design focused Interaction at the South Wall. The textual transcription for this episode is available with the representative images in Figure 4-12. The action prompt asks the students to reconfigure the wooden screens at the South Wall such that the house gets a balanced combination of natural light and heat (Figure 4-11). This task was meant to reinforce the reconfiguration principles demonstrated by the architectural engineer in the video. Conceptually, this prompt demanded application of the principles in view of the sun’s position and the students’ spatial position with reference to the South Wall.
Figure 4-11: Action-prompt, Event 2, South Wall.
Clara and Zen’s interaction in reconfiguring the wooden screens (Figure 4-12) generates a pattern of sensorimotor interactions that is similar to the identification prompt. However, the reconfiguration interaction was different as the students attempted to understand the prompt as Zen asked, “What is re- configure?” (line 25). Again, when Clara reconfigures the wooden screen, she is unsure and the moment
79
Zen mentions the video (line 31), Clara takes the opportunity to “check that (the video) out” (line 32).
Their uncertainty with the task resulted in the long stretch of time they took to complete it with a realization at multiple points that “it seems we can do more” (line 78).
The engagement involved repetitive moves of gaze interaction with the wooden screens and the technological content on the tablets, spatial positioning towards and away from the wall, and multiple rounds of tactile interaction with the wooden screens.
One noticeable interaction was that here talk either preceded the actions or occurred simultaneously. For example, Clara says “I guess we need to change the way they are right now, like slide them this way” (line 26, Figure 4-12) at the onset of interacting with the wooden screens (lines 27-28,
Figure 4-12). Another interaction was where spatial repositioning was used by students to get ‘the big picture’ of what needs to be accomplished and of what more is needed (lines 74-75 and lines 78-80).
Specifically, this involved distancing spatially with the gaze focused on the design feature in a pattern of zooming in and out to understand the departing point for the next move. This pattern of spatial repositioning was also observed at the West Wall, Identification prompt.
80
Figure 4-12: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, South Wall; Reconfiguration
81
Action-prompt: Assembling
This action-prompt occurs at the role Justice focused on the house interior and requires students to assemble the SIP bricks (Figure 4-13). This prompt was designed to allow students to have a tactile and functional understanding of the SIP bricks. This prompt was embedded in a video that explained about the
SIPs being made from polyurethane. Here, two students Bela and Marcy are engaged in the task.
Figure 4-14 shows that the actions were guided by peer talk as when Bela takes one of the panels she says “hold it there and I’ll hold from here” (line 73). Later in line 75, Bela points out that ‘there’s a gap, they are not coming together’. When they are able to bring the two panels together, Marcy guides
Bela to turn the key after hearing the click sound, “now this green thing” (line 76).
In response to the way the prompt was designed, the students employed gaze interaction, tactile engagement preceded and guided by talk. Therefore, in the assembly task, talk was the dominant form of interaction as both students assumed an instructional role for each other.
Figure 4-13: Action-prompt, Event 2: Design-focused interaction, Interior
82
Figure 4-14: Video data-excerpt from Event 2, Design-focused Interaction, Interior SIP, Assembly
83
Summary of Conjecture 2 Findings:
The second conjecture, ‘Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning’, captures the dynamic relationship between multiple semiotic resources that helped learners in the meaning-making process. From the microanalyses of visual dynamic data, it was found that:
(1) Sensorimotor capacities afforded learners an intuitive method of meaning-making where learners coordinated their interactions between the sensorimotor modes (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content as an intuitive method of meaning-making. The process of meaning-making included several steps such as, task deconstruction, use of elimination principles, and applying prior knowledge in combination with augmented information to rationalize choices. This process was supported by a coordinated engagement of technology and sensorimotor modes i.e. gaze, touch, speech, spatial perception and bodily repositioning.
(2) Learners displayed certain patterns and interaction-moves in design-focused action prompts that involved gaze interaction, spatial repositioning, tactile interaction and constructing the ‘big picture’.
These interaction-moves appeared in the observed action prompts of identification, reconfiguration and assembling. It was found that the students intuitively strategized the sequence of these moves to address the specific requirements of each task. In this way, learners’ embodied engagement was exemplified throughout the learning experience; however, it was the learner response to the specific action-prompts that determined how learning took place at the point of sensorimotor engagement.
The findings discussed in the above sections on conjecture 1 and 2 pertained to the first research question. Next, I move towards findings from data analysis for the second research question of my study that I organize through the lens of conjecture 3.
84
Conjecture 3: Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in
collaboration with peers through the process of analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources
and modes in the GreenDesigners.
This conjecture refers to the NGSS Engineering Design process frames of analyze-design- evaluate that I adapted using Mclennan (2004) as explained in Chapter 1 (see Table 1-1). Findings that informed this conjecture also answered the second research question of my study. Findings are based on data from the ARL platform engagement, Design Challenge presentation, Post interview and also results from the pre-post tests as supportive evidence.
Analyze-Design-Evaluate
Table 4-1 defines each of these three process frames as operationalized for the design-focused ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners. For my study, the ‘Analyze’ frame involved students’ design- focused interaction with the solar house where the solar house exemplified a solution to the global issue of energy crisis. Students essentially analyzed the terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies while interacting with sustainable engineering design features of the solar house guided by augmented videos and assessments. The frames of ‘Design’ and ‘Evaluate’ were integrated as a culminating Design Challenge task where students were reorganized into groups to collaboratively design and evaluate prototypes of solar powered structures based on their experience of the ‘Analyze’ frame.
Analyze the global challenge of energy crisis through related information on renewable/non-renewable energy, fossil fuels, etc. Students analyze terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies related to sustainable energy and solar strategies in built solar residential designs as one solution to the global challenge of energy crisis.
Design a prototype of a built-solution, based on solar design strategies by considering specific sustainable engineering concepts in design solutions. Students build design prototypes and integrate concepts and design strategies they had learnt during the design focused STEM ubilearn experience
Evaluate a built solution based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs specified by the four elements framework focused on understanding climate &place, load reduction, using free energy, and using the most efficient strategy.
Table 4-1: NGSS process frames, ‘analyze-design-evaluate’.
85
Findings that informed this conjecture were focused on evidence of students’ applied understanding of active and passive solar concepts and design strategies, in the context of the ill- structured joint problem space of the Design Challenge. Following Mercier and Higgins (2014), the group activities were examined as indicators of the tacit aspects of complex thinking that were made explicit through the process of group prototype design and the presentation. Learner artifacts particularly the group design prototypes were considered as external representations of the students’ knowledge (Krajcik
&Blumenfeld, 2006; Mercier & Higgins, 2014).
Results from Pre- & Post Tests
Results from the Pre- & Post tests gave valuable insights about students’ progress with reference to the ‘Analyze’ frame; particularly, terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies.
Terminology
The two questions on ‘terminology’ were designed at an easier level, scaffolded by the images, with the purpose of getting baseline information about the students’ prior knowledge of discipline specific terminology (Appendix A). The first question required free-responses on the three terms (a) sustainability
(b) engineering design (c) solar energy. Pre-test responses indicated that the students were somewhat familiar with the concepts. However, their post-test responses show use of discipline specific terms especially from the videos. For example, the post-test responses included terms like, efficient designs, long lasting, photovoltaic, energy harnessed from sun, renewable energy, the ability to sustain, etc. (see
Appendix B). All these words appear in the first design-prompt video titled ‘Active and Passive Solar
Strategies’ and this evidently illustrates students’ uptake of terminology. In the second question (Table,
86
Appendix B) students were required to identify the scenarios as either renewable or non renewable by providing a rationale for their choice. Though the post results showed a slight progress, the pre-test results revealed that the students came with basic prior knowledge.
Properties of Materials
Findings from pre-post tests, based on data from the three questions (Q-5, Q-6, and Q7) focused on ‘properties of materials’ in sustainable engineering design suggested conceptual gains in the learners’ understanding of the properties of materials. This was closely related to the video content on ‘Conductors and Insulators’ which comprises a core concept not only from the viewpoint of STEM but more so within
Sustainable Engineering Design. Knowing the properties of materials is essential for design decisions and tradeoffs in active and passive solar designs where materials with varying thermal mass, conductivity and resistance are strategically differentiated across design features.
Results of Q-5, Figure 4-15 show learner progression for the concepts of high thermal mass and conductors. For the concept of high thermal mass, in the pre-test condition, only 2 out 10 students had correctly responded while in the post-test condition, 8 out of 10 students responded correctly. For the concept of conductor, in the pre-test condition, only 4 out 10 students had correctly responded while in the post-test condition, 9 out of 10 students responded correctly.
87
10 Properties of Materials 9 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Pre Post Pre Post High thermal mass Conductor
All Participants Figure 4-15: Pre-Post test data, Properties of Materials, Q-5
Q-7, (Appendix B) asked the students to categorize 9 materials into conductors and insulators to further probe into their understanding of these two concepts. Again, this was linked to the core design strategy in sustainable engineering where a deeper understanding of materials predisposes engineers to efficiently strategize active and solar designs. Out of the nine materials, there were 3 conductors (copper, silver, diamond) and 6 insulators (rubber, Styrofoam, ceramic, plastic, graphite, glass). Figure 4-16, captures the students’ correct categorization of the 3 conductors and 6 insulators on both the pre- and post-test. It is evident that the learners’ gained a better understanding of materials and their properties as conductors (C) or insulators (I).
88
Properties of Materials: Categorization 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1
0
Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre
Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post C (3) I(6) C(3) I (6) C(3) I (6) C (3) I (6) C (3) I (6) C (3) I(6) C(3) I (6) C (3) I(6) C (3) I (6) C(3) I (6) GD 1 GD 2 GD 3 GD 4 GD 5 GD 6 GD 7 GD 8 GD 9 GD 10
Figure 4-16: Pre-Post test data, Properties of Materials, Q-7
Design Strategies
The pre-&post tests had 4 questions focused on design strategies. The first of these questions, Q8, was a free response question that asked the learner’s opinion “about three things that could make the design of a home energy-efficient” This was to understand learners’ opinions about energy-efficient residential design before and after being exposed to the solar house. This free-response question generated responses that showed the students’ progress from generic awareness to more specific understanding of energy-efficient residential design. Table 4-3 (Appendix B) presents the students’ responses where the post-test responses mention design strategies that were foregrounded throughout the learning experience. For example, the responses for design strategies relate to insulation like thermal mass- high for insulation, insulated walls, thermal mass, concrete flooring tiles, water pipes under concrete floor as well there are responses for the concepts of positioning and direction like, having a main window facing south, windows and solar panels facing south, windows (directions), house windows facing south, ledge over the south.
89
The second question on design strategies, Q9 presented students with a pre-labeled image of a residential design and the students were asked to identify the design features as either part of passive solar strategy or active solar strategy. There were 13 design features labeled in the image of which 9 were related to Active Passive strategy and 4 were related to Passive Solar strategy. Figure 4-17, gives an overview of correct categorization of these strategies by each student in the pre- and post tests. The responses show progression in the students’ understanding of these design strategies as either active or passive. The students’ conceptual understanding about design strategies was also evident from the presentation of their design prototypes where they demonstrated deeper, applied understanding of design strategies, both active and passive.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1
0
Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre
Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) GD 1 GD 2 GD 3 GD 4 GD 5 GD 6 GD 7 GD 8 GD 9 GD 10
Figure 4-17: Pre-Post test data, Design Strategies, Q-9
In Q-10 on design strategies, students identified the differences between prefabricated or modular construction and brick by brick construction as an important sustainable engineering design strategy exemplified by the solar house. Appendix B provides an overview of students’ responses that clearly show that they gained a better awareness of this design process through this learning experience.
The last question on design strategies, Q-11, presented the students with a solar energy process diagram where students indicated the process at each of the three points marked in the diagram. This was
90 to gauge students’ understanding of the process of how solar power works. This process was explained in the first two videos that all students watched. Table 4-5 (Appendix B) provides an overview of students’ responses, for example, the pre-test responses were found to be more on the generic lines where the details were inaccurate, students used different terms for the inverter like radiator, electrical box, electrical system, and fuse box. Also, in the post-test, students were able to articulate the specific process of conversion of power from direct current (DC) to alternate current (AC). It was found that these details added depth and accuracy to the students’ understanding of sustainable design strategies.
Summary: Pre-Post Test Results
The pre-post test results revealed gains in learners’ conceptual understanding of terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies. This was supported by similar evidence from Design
Challenge Presentation, the Post interviews and the interaction data from the design-focused interaction at the ARL platform engagement phase. I turn to this rich data in the next sections.
Design Challenge Findings: Group 1 Solar Powered Pet House
This group comprised of five members with one representative each from the four design-focused roles and one additional member from the role Peyton (technical core). The design process generated artifacts e.g. collaborative planning sheets and a detailed discussion board around which the group had dynamic conversations. This group chose LEGO™ as the medium of presenting their design prototype.
Also, Figure 4-18 is the transcript of the group’s presentation where the group chose a spokesperson who presented the core features of the design guided by three simple questions: (1) What did you choose? (2)
Why did you choose this? (3) What sustainable design features did you implement?
Presentation Data for Group 1 (Figure 4-18) revealed that the prototype design included features of both active and passive solar strategies. For example, “geothermal heat pump” (line 26) and “solar
91 panels…onto the roof” (line 32) refer to the active solar design features while the passive features included “ceramic tiles”, “heavy stone on the floors” (line 27), “overhang” (line 29), “windows at the
South side” (line 30). The group had also considered applied concepts of the sun’s position in summer versus winter and the placement of the overhang in view of the insulated walls for energy conservation
(lines 27-28). These features were a visible part of the prototype as seen in the LEGO™ model (Figure 4-
19) and were discussed amongst the group members as seen in the group design board ( Figure 4-20).
Figure 4-18: Design Challenge, Group 1 presentation, solar powered pet house
92
Figure 4-19: Design prototype, Group 1, solar powered pet house
The group design prototype of the solar powered pet house constructed from LEGO™ demonstrated students’ applied understanding of the concepts and design strategies. The students were able to translate the design features from the 2D design board (Figure 4-20) to the affordance provided by the 3D blocks (Figure 4-19).
However, from the perspective of the frame of ‘evaluate’ where I looked into design decisions and trade-offs, it was insightful to note the design features contributed by group members that were not presented in the final group prototype. Data findings included many instances where the trade-offs were influenced by the group dynamics, particularly from group members who dominated the ideas and the space. The findings that informed this conjecture thus characterized learner interactions with their peers at the points of design trade-offs.
Design Decision/Trade-off 1:
One design feature that was discussed for quite some length within the group was that of the
Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) which essentially are insulated wall panels made of polyurethane.
93
Figure 4-18, excerpts the discussion from the group post interview where Bela mentions that the design feature was not part of the final group design since her peers did not understand the concept and design of
SIPs. The group traded off the idea and “kinda parked the idea” in the Walls section at the bottom of the group design board in these words “material, polyethylene wall to keep the heat/cool in” (Figure 4-20). It was insightful to note that the other 3 ideas in this section were selected for the final design except this
SIP idea. Jim’s influence over the group’s decisions constituted a very important takeaway for group collaborative design tasks.
94
Figure 4-20: Design board, Group 1, solar powered pet house
95
Design Decision/Trade-off 2:
Another trade-off was revealed in the group post interview where the group members wanted to show a triangular roof but ended up with a square roof (Figure 4-21, lines 59-67). This detail could be better accessed visually as a comparison of Figure 4-19 with Figure 4-20. This particular ‘triangle roof’ design feature was an extension of the passive solar strategy of design positioning and directions, as
Kevin explains ‘….triangle has angles that can work to direct the sunlight’ (line 66). Sharon also supports “yeah it was like that, to angle the sunlight in summer’ (line 67). At a deeper level, this design explanation aligned with the adapted NGSS standards, precisely two of Mclennan’s green methodology elements (understanding place & climate and using the most efficient strategy). However, a trade-off had to be made and group members rationalized this trade-off as driven by time-constraint as Kevin says “but we didn’t really have time” (line 66) and “we were looking at time” (line 69). However, Sharon’s explanation suggests another constraint that the group members were not able to properly articulate. Lines
62 and 67 refer to the mode as a constraint where the design had to be transferred from the 2D affordance of paper to 3D physical LEGO blocks, as Sharon says ‘I just sketched something and we agreed for the design’ (line 62) and ‘so on paper it was triangle on paper’.
96
Figure 4-21: Open Ended Post Interview, group1, solar powered pet house
Design Decision/Trade-off 3:
This pertains to the concealed design feature of radiant flooring listed out as a feature of the house’s floors “pipes throughout the house” (Figure 4-20) and the excerpt from group post interview
(Figure 4-6 reproduced as Figure 4-22). This constituted a design decision rather than a trade-off where the group decided to have “it on the outside just to show that it was in there as active strategy” (lines 88-
89) since “we really couldn’t show the pipes running through the house” (line 85).
97
Figure 4-22: Open Ended Post Interview, group 1, solar powered pet house.
Design Challenge Findings: Group 2 Open Plan House
This group comprised of five members with one representative each from the four design-focused roles and one additional member from the role Kendall (solar panels & carport). This group chose to sketch a house plan as their design prototype (Figure 4-23). The design is also revealed through the transcript of the group’s presentation where the group spokesperson presented the core features of the design (Figure 4-24). In comparison with group one’s presentation, this group’s presentation left out quite a few design features that were not marked in the sketch but were revealed through the group post interview (Figure 4-25, 4-26).
98
Figure 4-23: Design Sketch, Group 2, open plan house
Analysis of the sketch (Figure 4-23) as a standalone representation of the group’s learning outcome does not do justice and needs to be juxtaposed with data from the presentation and the group post interview to get an understanding of the design this group proposed. Looking into the transcribed video presentation (Figure 4-24) the group spokesperson, Larry reveals a ‘strictly passive heating system’
(line 23) with the ‘south side facing wall’ (line 23) as a central design feature ‘going into the bedroom’
(line 23) and ‘a large green house right next to the south side facing wall’ (line 27-28). The other design features mentioned in this presentation are ‘a modular wall leading to our living room area’ (line 24) with ‘storage areas for efficient space design’ (line 26) and ‘garden beds surrounding the exterior of the house as passive strategy’ (lines 26-27). With these sparse details, the presentation addressed the three guiding questions: (1) What did you choose? (2) Why did you choose this? (3) What sustainable design features did you implement?
99
The only expressed reference to a trade-off in the presentation was in the opening line where
Larry says, ‘we stuck with strictly passive heating system’ (line 23). This led to a probe into the design decisions and trade-offs.
Figure 4-24: Group presentation, group 2, open plan house.
Design Decision/Trade-off 1:
The group mentioned time as a constraint that precluded them from proposing design features along the lines of active solar strategy as in ‘there was little time to add other ideas so we stuck with that’
(Figure 4-25, line 34). However, another group member, Clara explains how they traded-off active design elements with those of passive design since ‘yes but we also talked about active design with solar panels and aluminum conductors but we decided that the only reason we really need to use that is for a more prolonged storage of the energy and we decided that for our purpose it wasn’t really necessary’ (lines 35-
37).
Design Decision/Trade-off 2:
The design decisions revealed in the group post interview added details about the group decisions from the dynamic conversations surrounding the design process. For example, the group talked about
“…and things that we applied for passive design was the thermal mass” (Figure 4-25, line 38) as the
100
“concrete bricks for flooring throughout the house’ (line 39) and “for walls we decided to use special panels called SIP” (line 40).
Figure 4-25: Open ended post interview, group 2, open plan house.
Design Decision/Trade-off 3:
Another design decision that members of group2 alluded to was that of the water-filled, milk bottles on a moving rack (Figure 4-4 reproduced as Figure 4-26, lines 64-65). Marcy had accessed this information about this passive design feature through the augmented video and was also able to get support from Clara who had seen this design feature at an earlier visit to the solar house. This helped them integrate the design feature in the final group design “we thought about may be implementing that in the winter months” (line 53) but to also propose an improvisation in that, “we can paint the bottles in dark colors to keep the heat in for winters as passive strategy” (line 63).
101
Figure 4-26: Open ended post interview, group 2, open plan house.
The brief discussion on this improvisation (Figure 4-27) revealed how the two students related their new understanding from the design feature of the glass bottle rack to their understanding of colors as when Marcy says, “…we talked that colors can be passive strategy coz dark colors like black absorb heat so if you paint those glass bottles black and fill with water, the water will heat more and at night heat will be released” (line 70-71). Also, Clara’s interjection, “but you paint it half, like partially so coz you want the heat to release from the other side” (line 72) revealed that these students’ ideation of the design was detailed and based on their conceptual understanding of passive solar strategy based on the property of materials to absorb and release heat in a timed manner.
102
Figure 4-27: Open ended post interview, group 2, open plan house.
Summary of Conjecture 3 Findings
The third conjecture, ‘Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in collaboration with peers through the process of ‘analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes’ captures the process of meaning-making (hence learning) that learners strategized for themselves guided by the process of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’. Data revealed learners’ uptake of sustainable engineering design concepts as they progressed across the design-focused ubilearn experience enabled by multiple semiotic resources and modes. This was best illustrated by statistical results from the pre-post tests and by interaction data that evidenced learners’ gains at the level of conceptual understanding and application of concepts.
(1) The pre-post test results revealed learners’ progress in conceptual understanding of terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies. It was found that learners build on their prior generic-level awareness about concepts and issues of sustainable energy and showed movement towards discipline-specific applied understandings of concepts around sustainable design strategies.
103
(2) Evidence from the students’ group presentations and post interviews from the Design
Challenge, revealed learners’ affordance with design improvisations. The students described the improvisation and rationalized it based on their conceptual understanding. For example, group 1 members build upon the concepts of sun’s positioning, design directions and angles to propose a triangular roof as a passive strategy based on the reasoning that “triangle has angles that can work to direct the sunlight”
(Figure 4-21, line 66). Also, group 2 members proposed an improvisation on the milk bottle design feature through the additional lens of “colors can be passive strategy” (Figure 4-26, line 70).
(3) It was found that the process of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ generated insights about learners’ collaborative work in groups. It was observed that group decisions relied on whether or not members took a convincing stance regarding their contribution in the final group design. It was also found that the design feature-contributions that were incorporated in the final group design either met the logical acceptance level of the group or were jointly reinforced by two or more group members.
Summary of Findings
Pertaining to the first conjecture, situatedness was recognized by the learners as they operated across the physical setting of the solar house and the digital ARL platform within the design-focused
STEM ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners. Situatedness operated in the GreenDesigners at two levels:
(1) Space was transformed into ‘place’ where the technologically augmented content afforded learners to make meaning of the concepts as they collated multiple interpretations of reality sourced by their first impressions, by their multisensory interaction with the specific design features, and by the technologically augmented content in the videos. (2) Enhanced embodied perspective was achieved by learners to move beyond physical constraints of time and perception. Specifically, the technologically augmented videos
104 being visual demonstrations of several design features, served to bring out both the concealed designs and the non-existent designs to the learners’ active imagination. This provided a sense of technologically enhanced embodied situatedness that made the learners confident contributors to their group designs.
With reference to the second conjecture, it was found that the dynamic relationship between multiple semiotic resources helped learners in the meaning-making process. Specifically, (1) sensorimotor capacities afforded learners an intuitive method of meaning-making involving steps such as task deconstruction, use of elimination principles, and applying prior knowledge in combination with augmented information to rationalize choices. Learners coordinated their interactions between the sensorimotor modes (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content to employ this intuitive method of meaning-making; (2) Learners displayed interaction patterns in design- focused action prompts that involved gaze interaction, spatial repositioning, tactile interaction and constructing the ‘big picture’. It was found that the students intuitively strategized the sequence of these moves to address the specific task requirements.
Related to the third conjecture, learners’ uptake of discipline-specific concepts and concept- application strategy was guided by the process of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’. While the process of
‘analyze’ was focused on design-focused interaction and uptake of isolated concepts, the processes of
‘design and evaluate’ drew upon learners’ applied understanding of the concepts to guide them towards well rationalized design prototypes and design improvisations.
This chapter reported the findings from my study to evidence the data that supported formulation of the three conjectures. Each conjecture was initially articulated based on the literature set that motivated it. Specifically, conjecture 1 is focused on learner situatedness and gets its support from the literature on
‘Place’. Similarly, conjecture 2 that is focused on the dynamics of learner interactions across sensorimotor and technological semiotic resources gets its support from the literature on ‘Embodiment’ while conjecture 3 with its focus on learners’ conceptual gains is supported by the literature on ‘Meaning-
Making’. It is important to note that findings that inform Conjecture 1 and Conjecture 2 also help respond
105 to the first Research Question of my study while findings that inform Conjecture 3 also help respond to the second research question of my study.
In the next chapter, I relate these findings to the literature with an objective to response to the two research questions of my study.
106
Chapter 5
Conclusion
This Chapter concludes the dissertation. Based on the exploratory, qualitative investigation on learner interactions, this dissertation proposes three theoretically salient conjectures to characterize learner interactions within a design- focused STEM ubilearn experience called GreenDesigners.
As a concluding note, this Chapter is purposed towards responding to the two research questions of my study which is accomplished by summarizing the study’s findings through the lens of literature.
Next, I discuss some nuances of the findings, along with their implications as a way to launch into the future iterations of DBR for this study. Then I summarize the empirical and methodological contributions of this study where I elaborate on the unique contribution of my study to the field of educational technology in proposing an evidence-based characterization of learner interactions within design-focused
STEM ubilearn experiences. Finally, I propose future research that I plan to do, and that is needed to further develop our understanding of how learners make meaning of this world through interactions
Responding to the Research Questions
This study was designed to inquire into the two research questions that probed into learner interactions in a design-focused ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners.
(1) In what ways do learners interact with the physical, material, technological, and human
resources as part of the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners?
(2) In what ways do the learning and assessment activities embedded in GreenDesigners enable
learning of sustainable engineering design concepts?
107
The research questions were worded so as to foreground the study’s focus on ‘learning processes’ whereby as a researcher, I was interested ‘in the ways’ that learners interacted with the varied resources within a design-focused STEM ubilearn experience. Another important interest was to know in what ways the learner interactions enabled learning of sustainable engineering design concepts.
Findings from qualitative data helped refine the three conjectures that were initially formulated based on the literatures from the three pronged lens (see Chapter 2). Since each of the three conjectures constitutes a response to the research questions, I use the research questions as section headings to organize the next sections.
RQ-1: In what ways do learners interact with the physical, material, technological, and human
resources within the ubilearn experience, GreenDesigners?
Findings related to the first research question revealed the patterns and characterizations of learner interactions that contributed to the first and second conjectures. The first conjecture is theoretically focused on the literature of ‘Place’ while the second conjecture is theoretically motivated by the literature on ‘Embodiment’.
The first conjecture, ‘Context-aware technological resources situate the learner in the ubilearn experience’ states that the embodied situatedness afforded by ubilearn experiences is driven by context- aware AR technologies that operated in the GreenDesigners at two levels.
First, space was transformed into ‘place’ where the technologically augmented content layered another reality over the space of the solar house. Though the learners recognized their presence at the solar house at the onset of the learning experience, this AR driven transformation of the space into a layered, meaningful ‘place’ afforded the learners an understanding of the concepts and the house about which they were not initially conscious. In one critical incident, a student, Marcy, engaged with meaning- making of the information she had received from three sources- her first embodied impression of the
108
‘tough feel’ of the house, the video content where the information supported her first impression, and her tactile interaction with the SIP models that constituted the walls of the house as ‘they are foam’ and
‘light’. Her situatedness at the house made her conscious of her unease with the conflicting relationship between the augmented content and her interaction with the SIP models “…but look at these panels. They are foam. That’s what the video said but you can see these right here. They are so light” (lines 85-86). In this process of meaning-making supported by her embodied situatedness, she replaced her first embodied impression of the house as being ‘tough’ with ‘it’s not the way it looks’. For another student, Bela the process of interaction with a meaning-enriched ‘place’ involved synthesizing different realities- the reality she ‘felt’, and ‘looked at’ and the reality of the augmented content paired with her feel of the SIP panels as “very light to hold”, to arrive at the conclusion that ‘the real SIP bricks that looked like hard foam but very light to hold”. Priestnall et al. (2010) in the context of digital augmentation in field experiences, discuss the access to layered realities as an affordance created by AR technological designs. The recognition of being ‘in place’ at the solar house helped the students make meaning of the concepts as they collated multiple interpretations of reality sourced by the technologically augmented content in the videos combined with their first situated impressions of the solar house and their multisensory interaction with the specific design features.
Second, enhanced embodied perspective enabled learners to think and act beyond physical constraints of time and perception. This is closely tied to Heidegger’s (1927) seminal argument that humans act in this world only by ‘being in the world’, a position also emphasized by Lakoff (2015) as embodied situatedness in the process of making meaning. In my study, the learners recognized and strategized their physical, embodied presence at the solar house to create a holistic understanding of design features that were either non-existent at the current time (time constraint) or were hidden from sight (perception constraint). A critical incident of time constraint showed one student Clara employing her current physical presence at the solar house to compensate for a passive solar design feature that was no more on display. Clara used gestures to explain the design to her peers and also used the property (i.e. sliding) of another design feature to explain the functionality of the non-existent design feature. For this
109 same design feature, another student Marcy had access to the digitally augmented content that compensated for the physical absence of that design feature. In so doing, the digitally augmented content enhanced the embodied situatedness experienced by Marcy. This explains how Marcy’s embodied situatedness where seeing “the rack now too” in that space “near the window” was enhanced after watching the video that “got me (her) thinking” of extending that design feature by an improvisation of
“paint(ing) the bottles in dark color to keep the heat in for winters as passive strategy”. This revealed how the AR content allowed for a complete picture of the non-existent passive design feature through
Marcy’s enhanced situatedness that compensated for Clara’s time-constrained situatedness. One critical incident of perception constraint with reference to a concealed design feature was addressed when students were able to access the digitally augmented content. The content made the students appreciate the design feature as “beneath the floor in this house and you cannot really see it”. Students’ embodied experience of seeing the slate floor under which this concealed design functioned paired with the augmented video demonstration of the concealed system created a proxy that enabled them to visualize a non-visible design feature with the confidence that, “it’s hidden from sight but keeps the house warm”
(line 95).
Both critical incidents revealed that the technologically augmented videos served to suspend the learners’ sense of real-world time by bringing the concealed designs and the non-existent designs to the learners’ active imagination. Within the field of digital augmentation, the strategy of superimposition is purposed towards suspending time by layering time-specific, augmented content onto any real-world object (Wagner, 2018; Yuan et al., 2010). Particularly, Wagner (2018) discusses this concept as occlusion which functions as time-condensed meanings hidden from sight but brought to the foresight through digital augmentation. In my study, superimposition afforded the learners a sense of technologically enhanced embodied situatedness. Interesting parallels of this affordance is found in Bongard andS Pfeifer
(2007) in their discussion of embodied intelligence. They refer to this superimposition or layering as the time-scale integration where the technological design meshes parallel time-frames to augment a concept or object in the ‘here and now’. In my study, the students’ ‘here and now’ experience of the SIPs design
110 and that of the milk bottles was enriched by the time-scale integration of AR to achieve enhanced situatedness at the solar house. This sense of enhanced situatedness at the solar house allowed the learners a better understanding of the design concepts in a manner proposed by Schiller et al. (2012) where buildings are conceptualized as high-performing teaching tools. This also aligns with Barr et al. (2011) who recommend the use of technology in place-based learning designs to feed the active imagination of novice designers.
The second conjecture, ‘Learners’ coordination of sensorimotor capacities (gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and technological content supports design focused STEM learning’, captures the dynamic relationship between multiple semiotic resources that helped learners in the meaning-making process. Three claims are put forth for this conjecture:
First, sensorimotor capacities afforded learners an intuitive method of meaning-making where learners coordinated their interactions between the sensorimotor modes (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content. My study found that learners strategized their sensorimotor capacities to problem-solve through a process that included task deconstruction, use of elimination principles, applying prior knowledge in combination with augmented information, and rationalizing choices. This confirms the observation from Bezemer and Jewitt (2010) that in any meaning-making event, learners engage multiple semiotic modes and make choices from available alternatives. Similarly, in a study where students were involved in developing a community map, Pink et al. (2016) found that each student-group varied their choice of semiotic modes to uniquely annotate and present their maps. In my study as well, meaning-making was strategized across semiotic modes in interactions that involved problem solving. For example, when students at the West Wall encountered an identification problem, they coordinated the sensorimotor capacities mediated by peer talk and technology to find their unique problem-solving paths. Through this episode it was found that in design-focused disciplines, the learner interaction is guided by the discipline specific lenses. For instance, in identifying the conductor embedded in the solar slates at the West Wall, learners devised and switched between four criteria based on the physical properties of materials, such as color, texture, ductility, and conductibility. The first three criteria
111 involved sensorimotor interaction with the design feature and each learner chose a unique route to confirm the identification of the conductor. The learners felt empowered to make choices of which semiotic mode to use in the process of problem solving. In this way, learners took control of their own learning paths as they coordinated interaction between sensory modes (e.g., verbal, gaze, touch, spatial) and the technologies (e.g., tablets, AR content, design resources like LEGO™ and stationery).
Second, the technologically mediated ubilearn experience formed an external system ‘coupled’ with the learner’s embodied mind for meaning-making. Particularly, learning happened at the point of the students’ embodied interactions with the solar house layered with the AR driven videos and assessments.
This represented a mutually constitutive relationship involving the learners’ embodied mind and the ubilearn experience referred to as active externalism (Clark, 2008; Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Wilson
2004). Specifically, Clark and Chalmers (1998) define active externalism as the two-way interaction when a human organism is linked with an external entity in a coupled system that functions as a cognitive system in its own right. My study’s data revealed students’ active coordination of sensorimotor capacities and technological resources to engage with the design concepts and assessments. This coordination functioned as mutually constitutive learning process evidenced by my study’s data that supported the six claims of (Kirsh,2010) where (1) learning of sustainable engineering design concepts involved perception and action in the real world; (2) learning was designed under the conditions of real time and a dynamic environment; (3) learners’ cognitive work was offloaded on to the AR driven videos and assessments; (4) the ubilearn experience together with the learners’ sensorimotor embodied interactions formed the external, coupled part of the learning system considered as a single unit of analysis; (5) the built-in tasks involved action and guided interaction with the three dimensional, physical space of the solar house; and
(6) meaning-making relied on off-line cognition i.e. the learners’ memory of sensorimotor engagement with the physical and digital resources which was most visible at the point of the Design Challenge when students had no access to technological content or the spatial resource of the solar house.
Third, learners displayed certain recurring patterns and interaction-moves in design-focused action prompts that included gaze interaction, spatial repositioning, tactile interaction, peer talk,
112 constructing the ‘big picture’ and peer confirmation. It was found that in a problem-solving task, the students intuitively strategized the sequence of these moves to address the specific requirements of the tasks involving identification, reconfiguration and assembling. For example, the identification task showed that talk preceded the sensorimotor interactions. This contrasted learner interactions in the reconfiguration task where the actions preceded the talk and also in the assembling task where talk guided the actions that resembled a typical episode of technical instruction. In this way, learners’ embodied engagement was exemplified throughout the learning experience; however, it was the learners’ response to the specific action-prompts that determined how learning took place at the point of sensorimotor engagement. Kress’s (2005, 2001) and Lemke’s (2002) perspectives explain these students’ engagement patterns as the inter-semiotic processes through which semiotic choices integrated to create meaning.
Particularly, Lemke (2002) asserts that all meaning resides in the integration of complex material semiotic systems including sensorimotor capacities that learners employ in a unique yet “relatively automated ways” (p.2). The multimodal interactions of learners revealed that they used various semiotic systems to navigate through the prompts of identification, reconfiguration and assembling but perhaps with limited self-awareness.
Research Question 1: Claims
In response to the first research question, my study generated two conjectures that are specified as the following evidence-based claims about learner interaction within design-focused STEM ubilearn experiences:
1. Learners interacted with the multiple layers of reality as space is technologically
transformed into ‘place’ in a ubilearn experience. In this, they either chose one layer of
reality at the cost of another layer or they synthesized varied layers into one interpretation
of reality
113
2. Learners experienced technologically enhanced embodied perspective that helped them
think and act beyond the constraints of time and perception
3. Learners strategized an intuitive method of meaning-making where they coordinated their
interactions between the sensorimotor modes (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial
positioning) and the technological content. This coordination enabled a mutually
constitutive relationship between the learner and the ubilearn experience such that it
functioned as a two-way learning system even when decoupled.
4. Learners’ interaction displayed recurring patterns and moves that included gaze
interaction, spatial repositioning, tactile interaction, peer talk, constructing the ‘big
picture’ and peer confirmation. In problem-solving tasks, learners intuitively strategized
the sequence of these moves to address the specific requirements of the tasks that
involved identification, reconfiguration and assembling
The claims discussed above pertain to the first research question. Next, I move towards the second research question of my study.
RQ-2 In what ways do the learning and assessment activities embedded in GreenDesigners enable
learning of sustainable engineering design concepts?
Findings related to the second research question revealed the learners’ meaning-making process in collaboration with peers across the three process frames of analyze-design-evaluate. These findings contributed to the third conjecture which is theoretically focused on the literature of ‘Meaning-Making’.
The third conjecture, ‘Learners develop their understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts in collaboration with peers through the process of analyze-design-evaluate across semiotic resources and modes’ captured the process of meaning-making (hence learning) that learners strategized
114 for themselves guided by the NGSS process standards of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ that are focused on problem-solving. While the process of ‘analyze’ involved design-focused interaction and uptake of isolated concepts; the processes of ‘design and evaluate’ drew upon learners’ applied understanding of the concepts to guide them towards conceptually rationalized design prototypes and design improvisations. It was found that the problem-based action prompts followed by the ill-structured problem of the Design
Challenge enabled learners’ uptake of discipline specific concepts. This uptake was afforded by the ubilearn design that dispensed multiple semiotic resources and modes as learners progressed across the design-focused STEM ubilearn experience. These claims are based on the evidence from statistical results of the pre-post tests and from interaction data that evidenced learners’ conceptual understanding and functional or applied understanding of sustainable engineering design concepts. These findings confirm the observation by Wang, Derry, and Ge (2017) that learners’ interest and agency could be best achieved by situating problems in authentic learning contexts.
My study foregrounds the learning and assessment activities in GreenDesigners as the most critical enabler of the design focused STEM learning. An important aspect was that the learning and assessment activities in GreenDesigners were designed in accordance with the NGSS process frames of analyze-design-evaluate. My study’s findings show that the ‘analyze’ frame involved students’ design- focused interaction with the solar house as a solution to the issue of energy crisis. Students essentially analyzed the terminology, properties of materials, and design strategies while interacting with sustainable engineering design features of the solar house guided by augmented videos and assessments. The frames of ‘design’ and ‘evaluate’ were integrated in the culminating Design Challenge task where students were reorganized into groups to collaboratively design and evaluate prototypes of solar powered structures based on their experience of the ‘analyze’ frame. Learners built on their prior generic-level awareness about concepts and issues of sustainable energy to progress towards an understanding of discipline- specific concepts and strategies at the applied and /or functional level. This observation aligned with the design recommendations proposed by Edelson and Reiser (2006) that discipline focused activities should bridge “students’ prior knowledge, abilities, and experiences to the authentic practices” (p. 336) so that
115 authentic learning progresses in as seamless a manner as possible. This is in recognition of the pedagogical challenge of making authentic practices accessible to learners.
Moreover, the process of analyze-design-evaluate, afforded learners the confidence to rationalize their design contributions for the group Design Challenge. In this way, the tacit aspects of complex thinking were made explicit through the process of group prototype design and group presentation.
Mercier and Higgins (2014) refer to such group activities as joint problem spaces and observe that providing a joint problem space leads to externalizing a group’s problem solving processes. In my study, the design-focused interactions with the solar house at the frame of ‘analyze’ equipped learners with an applied understanding of the active and passive concepts and design strategies. This exposure to the applied concepts and strategies enabled dynamic utilization of the joint problem space in the Design
Challenge, for example, members of both groups explained and defended their design contributions in terms of the differentiated design strategies for active and passive concepts they had observed in the physical design of the solar house. Particularly, learners described and rationalized the design improvisations based on their newly acquired conceptual understanding. For example, group 1 members build upon the concepts of sun’s positioning, design directions and angles from the augmented videos to propose a triangular roof as a passive strategy based on the reasoning that “triangle has angles that can work to direct the sunlight”. Also, group 2 members proposed an improvisation on the milk bottle design feature through their uniquely defined lens of “colors can be passive strategy”. The ubilearn experience thus helped the students notice the features that displayed critical sustainable engineering design concepts.
Learners built on this noticing to propose design improvisations.
Therefore, the Design Challenge represented an effective joint problem space that allowed the group to reach a consensus based on the convergence of each member’s problem solving process (Hmelo-
Silver, 2013; Mercier & Higgins, 2014). It is in such contexts, Mercier and Higgins (2014) use the term
‘joint external visualization’ for design outcomes that externalize the thinking, problem-solving and joint- learning process. They posit that technology can simplify the process required to create such joint external representations (Higgins et al., 2012; Mercier & Higgins, 2014; Pea, 1992). This resonates with the
116 findings of my study where the content-specific ARL platform stimulated and captured collaborative discourse and learner interactions that led to the joint external representation of the group design prototypes. Research of Fischer, et al. (2002) suggests that creating content specific visualization-like models would help a group’s collaborative knowledge construction. Similarly, within science inquiry,
Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006) consider models and artifacts as “external representations of students’ constructed knowledge” (p. 327). This was observed in my study where students actively worked on their group prototypes to manipulate ideas that afforded deeper understanding of the concepts and their functional relationships.
Similarly, Lehrer and Schauble (2006) posit that “learning is enhanced when students have multiple opportunities to invent and revise models and then to compare the explanatory adequacy of different models” (p. 382). In the case of my study, students were not given an opportunity to carry out iterations of the design due to time constraint. However, they were provided the opportunity to present and explain their group design and also to engage with the design presentation of the other group. This was in keeping with Andriessen (2006) who states that “science advances not by accumulations of facts, but by debate and argumentation” (p. 443).
Also, the ubilearn experience with the place based, technological scaffolding exposed the learners to a coordination of the digital platform and the physical setting of the solar house. Rich, visual augmentation of selective design features that were either non-existent or non-visible was used to catapult learners’ imagination. Learners were able to employ this exposure to contribute design improvisations.
This aligns with the idea that learners can be engaged and sustained in authentic ill-structured problems if they are provided with the tools, scaffolds, and social supports needed to manage the complexity of the problem so that they can produce creative solutions (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007).
Moreover, findings from the process of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ generated insights about learners’ collaborative work in groups that required a trade-off between the need to manage interpersonal communication and the need to engage in individual thinking (Sawyer, 2006). My study thus revealed the need for students to be instructed about group participation similar to Sawyer’s (2006) assertion that
117 within STEM collaborative work “many students may need explicit coaching in how to participate in effective collaboration” (p. 196).
My study observed that group decisions were visibly influenced by students who assumed a dominant role at the onset of the joint-design task. The group discourse revealed instances where non- dominant members found spaces to emphasize their point or to convince the group about the value of their design contribution. Though gendered-insights were not a focus of my study, the data revealed female students taking an assertive role in defending the value of their design contributions. A strategy female students employed was to team up with each other to command acceptance of their design contribution. It was also found that the design-contributions that were incorporated in the final group design either met the group’s common logic or were jointly reinforced by two or more group members.
Research Question 2 Claims:
In response to the second research question, my study generated the third conjecture that constitutes the following evidence based claims about how the activities within the design-focused ubilearn experience enabled learning of discipline specific concepts:
1. The process frames of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’ afforded a holistic, problem-based
learning experience through the learning and assessment activities embedded in
GreenDesigners.
2. Interaction with the solar house enabled learners to situate the design-focused problem in
the authentic learning context of the sustainable engineering design practice
3. The ubilearn experience facilitated the learners to externalize their learning through the
process of designing the prototype and rationalizing their individual design contributions
for the group design
118
4. Rich, visual augmentation afforded learners digital exposure to selective design features
that were either non-existent or non-visible. This exposure enabled learners to propose
conceptually rationalized design improvisations based on their noticings. .
5. Learners collaborated with their peers on tasks while articulating conceptual
understanding that involved team work as they interacted with the solar house. The
culminating task of Design Challenge afforded the learners a joint-problem space around
which they were provided opportunities to discuss concepts, rationalize and negotiate
their design contributions, revisit their initial impressions and find confirmation from
their peers.
Contributions to the Literature
Within the context of STEM-focused ubilearn experiences, my study fills the literature gap on learner interaction. Particularly, it advances literature to specify recurring patterns, multimodal choices, and moves in learner interaction that support design-focused STEM learning. It further generates literature on learners’ coordination of their sensorimotor participation (i.e., gaze, touch, speech, spatial positioning) and the technological content as an intuitive strategy of meaning-making across semiotic modes and resources. This literature points towards important considerations for designing and studying
STEM ubilearn experiences. Moreover, this study looked at learner interactions as proxy for embodied learning; hence, the characterization of learner interactions based on the microanalyses of multisensory interactions will add to the growing understanding of embodied learning.
Based on the NGSS curricular frames of ‘analyze-design-evaluate’, my study exemplifies a technologically mediated STEM ubilearn experience. This experience allowed learners to notice and uptake STEM design concepts and strategies that they later applied in joint problem spaces. It further enabled opportunities for learners to discuss concepts, rationalize and negotiate their design trade-offs, contribute design improvisations and find confirmation from their peers.
119
At another level, my study supports the use of multimodal interaction analysis in STEM research as a powerful methodological tool for studying complex, dynamic interactions. This emerging method has a prominent tradition in humanities specifically social semiotics. With the growing interest in visual research data, it is important to replenish this analytical method with examples from interdisciplinary research to allow a wider community of scholars to understand and further contribute to this rich method of qualitative visual data analysis.
Limitations of the Study
My study’s findings are limited in three important ways. First, the findings of this study are inherently context-dependent and are tied to a design-focused STEM ubilearn experience. Therefore, the design will need to be customized for ubilearn experiences that have a different curricular focus within
STEM education. Second, while this first DBR iteration generated three theoretically salient conjectures along with conjectured outcomes, these require further testing and refinement in the next iterations. Third, besides the data sources reported in this dissertation, I collected data from varied sources (e.g. concept mapping activities, touch-screen recordings, and learner analytics generated by the ARL platform).
However, considering the focus of my dissertation and the research questions, I decided to include data that pertained to qualitative side of characterizing learner interactions. Analysis of the concept-mapping data and the learner analytics from the ARL platform could add quantifiable dimensions on learner interactions. This will be addressed in the next iterations.
Recommendations for Future Research
I conclude this dissertation study equipped with more insights about learner interactions and STEM ubilearn experiences. I aspire to pursue these insights in several ways.
120
As stated earlier, this dissertation study constitutes the first iteration that affords a space for next iterations to refine the conjectures and test the conjectured outcomes. I anticipate that multiple iterations will reveal a more rigorous qualitative examination of learner interaction. This process will help characterize learner interactions across a larger dataset that could eventually contribute towards a theory of interactions within immersive learning environments, ubilearn being one example. Moreover, I would like to apply the findings from these iterations to place-based learning experiences designed for other disciplines within STEM and beyond STEM.
Also, data from my dissertation study points towards some insights about gendered interactions, particularly the use of guided peer-talk and negotiation skills amongst the female participants. I see this as a critical space for contribution and plan to return to my data to pursue this focus exclusively.
Based on insights from this first iteration, I would like to revise certain activities to streamline the research design, e.g. the group concept mapping activity could be placed before the group design challenge to allow focused discussion amongst group members. Also, the group design challenge could use more nuanced instructions and a rubric to guide the design activity and group dynamics. Moreover, integrating other STEM standards (e.g. Math, Physics, etc.) from NGSS as complementary focus to sustainable engineering design could operationalize multiple curricular entry-points.
Looking into the future, an extension of this research design could involve translating it into an online platform for increased outreach. Also, future designs could be built on advanced AR rendering technology (HoloLens, ARCore, etc) for enhanced fidelity.
Methodologically, I recognize the importance of quantifying selective interaction patterns and presenting those through visualizations. Qualitative findings from the present study’s interaction data could guide the isolation of specific interaction patterns for further microanalyses.
121
References
Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom.
Computers & Education, 63, 62-72.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to Learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences (2nd ed.) (pp 443-459). Cambridge, MA: CUP.
Ardoin, N. M. (2006). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of place: Lessons for environmental
education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 11, 112–126.
Baldry, A. & Thibault, P.J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: School students’ perceptions of learning in
natural environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
11(3), 218–236.
Barr, S., Leigh, K., & Dunbar, B. (2011). Green schools that teach: Whole-school sustainability.
Greenbuild Conference Proceedings. Toronto: US Green Building Council, 2011.
Batterman, S.A., Martins, A. G., Antunes, C. H., Freire, F., & Gamerio de Silva, M. (2011). Development
and application of graduate programs in energy and sustainability. Journal of Professional Issues
in Engineering Education and Practice, 137(4), 198 – 207.
Bellocchi, A., King, D. T., & Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Context-based assessment: Creating opportunities
for resonance between classroom fields and societal fields. International Journal of Science
Education, 38 (8), 1304-1342.
Bezemer, J. & Mavers, D. (2011). Multimodal Transcription as Academic Practice: A Social Semiotic
Perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14 (3), 191 – 207.
Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C. (2010). Multimodal Analysis: Key issues. In L. Litosseliti (ed.), Research
Methods in Linguistics. (pp. 180-197). London: Continuum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 1–32.
122
Burbules, N. C. (2009). Meanings of “ubiquitous learning”. In Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (eds.).
Ubiquitous Learning. (pp 15-20). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Chen, C. H., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. H. (2014). A progressive prompting approach to conducting
contextual ubiquitous learning activities for natural science courses. Interacting with Computers,
26(4), 348-359.
Chen, C. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2017). Effects of the team competition-based ubiquitous gaming approach
on students’ interactive patterns, collective efficacy and awareness of collaboration and
communication. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (1), 87–98.
Chen, C. H., Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). Interaction between gaming and multistage guiding
strategies on students’ field trip mobile learning performance and motivation. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 47(6), 1032-1050. doi:10.1111/bjet.12270
Chiang, F. K., Zhu, G., Wang, Q., Cui, Z., Cai, S., & Yu, S. (2015). Research and trends in mobile
learning from 1976 to 2013: A content analysis of patents in selected databases. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1006-1019.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routeledge.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M., (Eds.). (2009). Ubiquitous learning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Coulter, R., Klopfer, E., Perry, J., & Sheldon, J. (2012). Discovering familiar places: Learning through
mobile place-based games. In S. Barab, K. Squire and C. Steinkuehler (Eds). Games, Learning,
and Society: Learning and Leading in the Digital Age (pp. 327-354). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Craig, S., Barr, S., Loftness, V., Aziz, A., & Cochran, E. (2012). Buildings as teaching tools: Strategies to
maximize the pedagogical potential of a sustainably built environment. The 9th Greening of the
Campus Conference. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
123
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dede, C. (2011). Emerging technologies, ubiquitous learning, and educational transformation. In Kloos
C.D., Gillet D., Crespo García R.M., Wild F., & Wolpers M. (eds.) Towards Ubiquitous
Learning. EC-TEL 2011. (pp. 1-8). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6964. Berlin and
Heidelberg: Springer.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke,
J., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences:
Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
19(1), 3-53.
Dourish, P. (2000). A foundational framework for situated computing. Position paper for the CHI 2000
Workshop on Situated Computing: A Research Agenda.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dourish, P. (2010). 'Computational Thinking' and the Postcolonial in the Teaching from Country
Programme. The International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 2, 91-101.
Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2007). The infrastructure of experience and the experience of infrastructure:
Meaning and structure in everyday encounters with space. Environment and Planning: Planning
and Design, 34(3), 414-430.
Dourish, P. & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in ubiquitous
computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dourish, P., Graham, C., Randall, D., & Rouncefield, M. (2010). Theme issue on social interaction and
mundane technologies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14 (3), 171-180.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory
augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
Edelson, D. & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners. In K.
124
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335 - 354).
Cambridge University Press.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of
meaning. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction
with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213–232.
Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a
cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149–1159.
Goff, E., Mulvey, K.L., Irvin, M., and Hartstone-Rose, A. (2018). Applications of Augmented Reality in
Informal Science Learning Sites: a Review. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9734-4
Grudin, J. (2012). A moving target: The evolution of human-computer interaction. In Julie A Jacko (Ed.).
Human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging
applications. (3rd ed., pp. 1-24). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Hall, T & Bannon, L. (2006). Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children's learning in
museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22 (4), 231-243.
Halliday, M.A.K (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996). Re-Place-ing space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative
Systems, Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Work ‘96. ACM, 67-76.
Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analyzing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In
Tim May (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage.
Heidegger, M. (1990). Being and time. (J.Macquarrie and E.Robinson,Trans). Oxford: Blackwell.
(Original work published 1927).
125
Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, L., & Joyce-Gibbons, A. (2012). Multi-touch tables and collaborative
learning: Multi-touch tables for collaboration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6),
1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01259.x
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2013). Creating a Learning Space in Problem-based Learning. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1334
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-
Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
Holsonova, J. (2012). Methodologies for multimodal research. Visual Communication (Special Issue),
11(3).
Horst, H. (2015). Being in fieldwork: Collaboration, digital media and ethnographic practice. In R. Sanjek
and S. Tratner (Eds), eFieldnotes, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Horst, H. &Hjorth, L. (2013). Engaging practices: doing personalized media. In S. Price, C. Jewitt and B.
Brown (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research (pp. 87-102), London, UK:
Sage.
Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y. et al (2012). Research trends
in technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: a content analysis of publications in selected
journals. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (2), 354–370.
Huang, Y.M., Lin, Y.T., & Cheng, S.C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a
science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54, 47–58.
Hung, P. H., Lin, Y. F., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). The formative assessment design for PDA integrated
ecology observation. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 33–42.
Hutchins E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265-288.
126
Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Yin, P. Y. & Chuang, K. H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning
personalized learning paths for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54
(2), 404–415.
Hwang, G. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of
publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology,
42 (4), E65–E70.
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C. & Yang, S. J. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware
ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 81–91.
Hwang, G. J. & Wu, P. H. (2014). Applications, impacts and trends of mobile technology-enhanced
learning: a review of 2008–2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. International Journal of
Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8 (2), 83–95.
Jewitt,C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt and B.
Brown (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research (pp. 250-265). London, UK:
Sage.
Jones, R. (2009). Technology and sites of display. In C.Jewitt (Ed.). Routledge Handbook of Multimodal
Analysis. (pp 114-126), Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Jones, V., & Jo, J. H. (2004). Ubiquitous learning environment: an adaptive teaching system using
ubiquitous technology. Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE conference (pp. 468–474). Perth,
Australia. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/jones.html.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
Kirsh, D. (2001). The context of work. Human computer Interaction, 16(2-4), 305-322
Kirsh, D. (2009) Problem Solving and Situated Cognition. In P. Robbins, and M. Aydede, (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. (pp. 264-306). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with External Representations. AI and Society. 25, 441–454.
127
Kirsh, D. (2011). Situating Instructions. In B. Kokinov, A. Karmiloff-Smith, and N.J. Nersessian. (Eds.)
European Perspectives on Cognitive Science. Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University Press.
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions in
Human Computer Interaction, 20 (1), 1-30.
Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klopfer, E. &Perry, J. (2014). UbiqBio: Adoptions and Outcomes of Mobile Biology Games in the
Ecology of School. Computers in the Schools, 31 (1-2), 43-64.
Krajcik, J.S. & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of the Learning Sciences.(pp. 317-333). New York: Cambridge.
Kress, G., (2005). Gains and Losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and
Composition, 22, 5–22.
Kress, G., (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the
rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary
communication. London: Edward Arnold.
Lakoff, G. (2015, March 14). How brains think: The embodiment hypothesis. Keynote address presented
at International Convention of Psychological Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to
western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning
environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 63 (2), 229-255.
128
Laru, J., Järvelä, S., & Clariana, R.B. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip
with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: a case study with K-12 learners, Interactive
Learning Environments, 20 (2), 103-117.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D.
Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC.
Lemke, J. (2002). Multimedia genres for scientific education and science literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell
& C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning
with Power (pp. 21-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Looi, C-K., Sun, D., & Xie, W. (2015). Exploring students’ progression in an inquiry science curriculum
enabled by mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8 (1), 43-54
Looi,C-K. Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H., Chen, W., &Wong, L.H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology
for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41 (2), 154-169
Luckin, R. (2010). Learning contexts as ecologies of resources: A unifying approach to the
interdisciplinary development of technology-rich learning activities. International Journal on
Advances in Life Sciences, 2(3 and 4), 154–164.
Marshall,P. & Hornecker, E. (2013).Theories of embodiment in HCI. In S.Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research.(pp. 144-158). London, UK: Sage.
McCullough, M. (2006). On the urbanism of locative media. Places. Retrieved from: http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~mmmc/PAPERS/UrbanismOfLocativeMedia.pdf
McCullough, M. (2014). The Digital City. In M. Orvell, K. Bensch &H. Dolores, (Eds.). Rethinking the
American City: An International dialogue. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
129
Mclennan, J. F. (2004). Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Kansas, MO: Ecotone Publishing
Mercier, E., & Higgins, S. (2014). Creating joint representations of collaborative problem solving with
multi-touch technology: Joint representations with multi-touch. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 30(6), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12052
Menary, R. (2010). The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless
learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology-enhanced learning. In Z. L.
Berge & L.Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 95–108). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Moores, S. (2012). Media, place and mobility. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive programs in out-of-school
settings. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning, Board on Science Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Norris,S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. Abingdon, Oxon:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Oh, Y. & Woo, W. (2013). Ubiquitous virtual reality environments. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown
(Eds.) (pp. 374-386), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research. London, UK: Sage.
O'Halloran, K. L. (2009). Multimodal analysis and digital technology. Interdisciplinary perspectives on
multimodality: Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Multimodality, Palladino, Campobasso, 2009. Retrieved from http://multimodal-analysis-
lab.org/_docs/Multimodal%20Analysis%20and%20Digital%20Technology.pdf
130
Orr, D. (1994). Architecture as Pedagogy. In Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human
Prospect (pp. 112-117). Washington DC: Island Press.
O’Shea, P. O., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2009). Lessons learned about designing
Augmented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations,
1(1), 1-15.
Park, S. I., & Jang, S. (2008). Analysis of peer-scaffolding patterns in four phases of problem-solving in
web-based instruction. The SNU Journal of Education Research, 19(2), 1-32
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
Distributed cognitions,(pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts
for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-
451.
Pea, R. D., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices
anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.
852–889). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Phumeechanya, N. & Wannapiroon, P. (2013). Ubiquitous scaffold learning environment using problem-
based learning to enhance problem solving skills and context awareness. International Journal
on Integrating Technology in Education, 2 (4), 23-33
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., &Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital Ethnography: Principles
and Practices. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Priestnall, G., Brown, E., Sharples, M., & Polmear, G. (2010). Augmenting the field experience: a
student-led comparison of techniques and technologies. In B. Elizabeth (Ed.). Education in the
wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action (pp. 43–46). Nottingham, UK:
Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham,
Puntambekar, S., & Sandoval, W. (2009). Design research: Moving forward. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 18, 323–326. doi:10.1080/10508400903053492
131
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge
and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100. doi:10.1002/tea
Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., & Perry, J. (2006). On location learning: Authentic applied science with
networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 31- 45.
Rohwedder, R. (1998). The Pedagogy of place and campus sustainability. Symposium on Academic
Planning in College and University Environmental Programs. Washington D.C.: North
American Association for Environmental Education, 1-8.
Salman, F. H., Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M., (2014). Collective problem solving in a technologically
mediated science learning experience: A case study in a garden. Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Conference for the Learning Sciences. pp. 378-384.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18–36.
Sandoval, W., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context.
Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. The Orion Society (4th
ed.,Vol. 4). Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
Swayer, K. (2013). Introduction: the new science of learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.) (pp 1-18). Cambridge, MA: CUP.
Swayer, K. (2006). Analyzing Collaborative Discourse. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of
the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.) (pp 187-204). Cambridge, MA: CUP.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G.N. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age.
In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite,.(Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. (pp.
221-47). London, UK: Sage.
Shelton, B., & Hedley, N. (2003). Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with
augmented reality. Technology Instruction Cognition & Learning. 1(1), 323–357.
132
Shute, V. J., Wang, L., Greiff, S., Zhao, W., & Moore, G. (2016). Measuring problem solving skills via
stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 106–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.047
Song, Y., Wong, L.H., & Looi, C-K. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry supported
by mobile technologies. Education Technology Research Development, 60(4), 679–701.
Stephen, R., David S. L., & James D. M. (2008). Using technology of university buildings in engineering
education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24 (3), 521-528.
Sun, D., & Looi, C-K, (2018). Boundary interaction: Towards developing a mobile technology-enabled
science curriculum to integrate learning in the informal spaces. British Journal of Educational
Technology. 49(3), 505-515.
Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for learning environments.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Teske, J., A. (2013). From embodied to extended cognition. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 48
(3),759-787.
Turner, P. & Davenport, E. (2005). An introduction to spaces, spatiality and technology. In P. Turner and
E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, Spatiality and Technology. (pp 1-4). London, UK: Springer.
Twidale, M.B. (2009). From ubiquitous computing to ubiquitous learning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis
(Eds.). Ubiquitous Learning.(pp 72-90). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an
educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers &
Education, 56(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.013
Walker, R. (2003, November 30). The Guts of a New Machine. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved
from: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html
Waller, V. (2009). Information systems “in the wild”: supporting activity in the world. Behavior and
Information Technology, 28(6), 577–588.
133
Wang, M., Derry, S., & Ge, X. (2017). Guest editorial: Fostering deep learning in problem-solving
contexts with the support of technology. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 162–165.
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic Inquiry in Education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee, P.
Smagorinsky. (Eds.) Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning
through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R. A. (2004). Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wu, W. H., Jim Wu, Y. C., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H. & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends
from mobile learning studies: a meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 817–827.
Yuan, T., Tao, G., &Cheng, W. (2010). An automatic occlusion handling method in augmented
reality. Sensor Review, 30 (3), 210-218, https://doi.org/10.1108/02602281011051399
Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L. R., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G. W., & Salman, F. H. (2015).
Tree investigators: Supporting families and youth to coordinate observations with scientific
knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 44–67.
134
Appendix A
Pre- & Post-Test
Part I. LEARNING & INTERACTION
11. Indicate by labeling and shading which parts of your body help you in learning.
Part II. TERMINOLOGY
2. Write down the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the following terms:
a. Sustainability:______
b. Engineering Design: ______
c. Solar Energy: ______
3. Look closely at the two scenarios and say which of the two given terms go with each scenario and why.
135
Scenario 1 represents Renewable energy/Non-renewable energy (select one) because:
______
______
______
136
Scenario 2 represents Renewable energy/Non-renewable energy (select one) because:
______
______
______
Part III. PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS
4. For both responses below, choose ONE property that does not apply:
a. A material with high thermal mass: i. absorbs heat to release it later ii. is heat resistant iii. has a heavy mass
b. A conductor: i. has free electrons ii. has high resistance iii. is used in electronic circuits
5. Look at the diagram and label the parts to show the electrical conductor and the
insulator
(1)______
(2)______
6. Categorize these materials into Conductors (C) and Insulators (I). Just write the initial against each item in the list below:
137 i. Copper v. Plastic ii. Rubber vi. Diamond iii. Styrofoam vii. Graphite iv. Silver viii. Glass ix. Ceramic
Part IV. DESIGN STRATEGIES
7. In your opinion, what could be the THREE things that could make the design of a home energy- efficient?
(a)______
(b) ______
(c) ______
8. In the following image of a residential design, identify the features that represent:
Passive Solar (PS) Active Solar (AS)
Just circle the feature and write the short forms: (PS), or (AS)
138
9. The two pictures below capture the process of constructing a house. Identify and list the differences you see. If you think there are no differences, just write “no difference”.
139
(a)______
(b) ______
10. Look closely at the picture. Indicate briefly what is happening at the three points:
(1)______(2)______(3)______
140
Appendix B
Results
Pre- & Post-Test
Terminology:
There were two data sources for understanding the students’ engagement with the terminology (a) the pre-post tests (b) concept – mapping task, and (c) two design prompts, that were input videos focused on terminology related to solar strategies with assessments built in to check uptake of terminology.
Comparison of the pre-post test data shows progress in students’ uptake of terminology. In the pre-post tests, there were two questions focused on terminology. The first question, ‘Write down the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the following terms: (a) sustainability (b) engineering design (c) solar energy’ required free-responses on the three terms. These terms appeared multiple times in the video content so it was anticipated that the responses will indicate learner’s uptake of core, basic terminology. Pre-test responses indicated that the students were somewhat familiar with the concepts.
However, their post test responses show use of specific discipline specific words or terms from the learning experience especially the videos. For example, the post-test responses include words like, efficient, long lasting, photovoltaic, harnessed, renewable, and smart (see Table 4-1). All these words appear in the first design-prompt video titled ‘Active and Passive Solar Strategies’ and this evidently illustrates students’ grasp of terminology.
Students Sustainability Engineering Design Solar Energy
GD1 (Pre) able to last without much designing something difficult energy from the sun damage (Post) long lasting energy energy efficient sun energy
GD2 (Pre) sturdy tall buildings sun energy (Post) lasting how to make the house livable solar panels
141
GD3 (Pre) something stays the same they design how something is using panels or something that doesn't change going to be built holds in the sun’s heat which gets turned into energy (Post) stays the same for a long they design how house is using PV panels to absorb sun time getting built in an efficient energy and convert into way electricity
GD4 (Pre) clean energy construction the sun's rays (Post) clean energy windows on the south as a solar panels passive design
GD5 (Pre) durable and reliable efficiency construction good stuff (Post) reliability, efficiency, long smart design, aesthetic, sun's energy, photovoltaic lasting efficient
GD6 (Pre) living with reliance designing things energy harnessed by the sun (Post) using renewable resources designing things to be more energy turned to electricity efficient through sun
GD7 (Pre) able to last on its own for a a thought out plan renewable energy long time (Post) long lasting efficient smart homes efficient sun energy into power
GD8 (Pre) stays buildings energy from the sun (Post) energy that is long lasting smart buildings sun energy to electricity GD9- No response for pre-post GD10 (Pre) to keep things a field that my friend is going into a slightly expensive way to get clean energy (Post) the ability to sustain designing smart efficient homes energy harnessed from the sun Table 4-1 Pre-Post test results, Terminology, Question 3
The second terminology-focused question, ‘Look closely at the two scenarios and say which of the two given terms go with each scenario and why?’ The two scenarios are presented as two images each of which shows a world driven by either renewable or non-renewable systems. The students were required to identify the scenarios as either renewable or non renewable by providing a rationale for their choice.
The first scenario represents ‘non-renewable’ while the second scenario represents ‘renewable’. In the pre-test, out of the 10 students who participated, 7 correctly identified the scenarios while 2 (GD 2, GD6) identified incorrectly and 1 (GD 9) did not respond. Of the 2 students who identified incorrectly, one student (GD6) identified the first scenario as both renewable and non-renewable which makes this
142
response invalid. In the post-test, out of the 10 students, 8 students responded correctly while one student’s response (GD 2) is incorrect and one student (GD 9) did not respond. This question was deliberately designed at an easier level, scaffolded by the images of the scenarios, with the purpose of getting baseline information about the students’ prior knowledge of terminology.
Students Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Renewable Non- Renewable Non- energy renewable energy energy renewable energy GD1(Pre) Non-renewable they Renewable energy have coal, gas, and oil because its natural energy which none are a that is coming from the renewable resource earth and atmosphere and once we run out, it that’s always going to be is gone for good. there.
Non-renewable you Renewable. We will (Post) won’t always have always have these these resources
GD2 (Pre) Renewable Non because there is energy because not much to renew there are more renewable energy sources Renewable Non-renewable (Post) because of all because there are no the sources clean sources
GD3 (Pre) Non-renewable Renewable energy because they use coal because they like the sun to get the electricity and there is a side that the and you can't get put sun get used energy so this that coal back through represent renewable that has already been used Non renewable Renewable they use the (Post) because it doesn't have sun to heat houses in
143
a good way to renew winter and cool them in what is already burnt summer
GD4 (Pre) there is coal, oil, gas this is because it uses which are all sources water that is a renewable of non-renewable resource and all of the energy these resources are renewable. It mostly has non It is all renewable energy (Post) renewable resources that cannot be replaced
GD5(Pre) non-renewable - coal Renewable - all sources is made from decaying that never run out plants but takes a long time to form and runs out fast, oil & gas are both non-renewable resources non-renewable - renewable - unlimited (Post) limited resources (pretty much resources
GD6 (Pre) Renewable: Non renewable: oil & Renewable because this Electricity gas will eventually run scenario uses strictly (harnessed out, coal renewable materials. naturally with infinite resources), power stations. Non because it uses Renewable because this (Post) energy sources such as town use electricity from natural gas & coal clean sources
GD7 (Pre) It represents non- Renewable energy, renewable energy, because its making energy because coal, oil, and from long lasting and gas are limited sources preexisting things in the and could run out. environment. Non-renewable, Renewable, because these (Post) because these energy sources are resources can be used sustainable up.
GD8 (Pre) Renewable Non-renewable energy you can energy you can't use reuse it. Non-renewable Renewable energy, they're (Post) energy, they're using using that energy in power plants different ways. GD 9(Pre) No response for pre-post
144
GD10 Non-renewable energy Renewable (Pre) because … :) energy Non-renewable Renewable energy, it's (Post) energy, it isn't recycled showing us the types of it, water, solar, wind Table 4-2 Pre-Post test results, Terminology, Question 4
Properties of Material:
Findings from pre-post tests, based on data from the three questions (Q-5, Q-6, Q7) focused on
‘properties of materials’ in sustainable engineering design suggest conceptual gains in the learners’ understanding of the properties of materials. This was closely related to the video content on ‘Conductors and Insulators’ which comprises a core concept not only from the viewpoint of STEM but more so within
Sustainable Engineering Design. Knowing the properties of materials is essential for design decisions and tradeoffs in active and passive solar designs where materials with varying thermal mass, conductivity and resistance are strategically differentiated across design features.
The first of these three questions, Q-5 (see Appendix A), has two parts each of which provide three choices where students have to choose the property that does not apply. It is a slight twist on a definitional question that was designed to gauge if/not students understood the two core concepts of high thermal mass, and conductor with respect to their definitional properties as they relate to sustainable engineering designs. Figure 4-11, presents learner progression in defining high thermal mass for the pre- and post-test conditions. For the concept of high thermal mass, in the pre-test condition, only 2 out 10 students had correctly responded while in the post-test condition, 8 out of 10 students responded correctly. One student did not attempt the pre-test (n=9) but she responded to the post-test. For the concept of conductor, in the pre-test condition, only 4 out 10 students had correctly responded while in the post-test condition, 9 out of 10 students responded correctly. One student did not attempt the pre-test
(n=9) but she responded to the post-test.
145
10 Properties of Materials 9 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Pre Post Pre Post High thermal mass Conductor
All Participants Figure 4-11: Pre-Post test data, Properties of Materials, Q-5
The second question, Q-6, presented a diagram of the parts of an insulated wire to be labeled as: insulator and electrical conductor. This was a very basic question to help students transfer their understanding of something commonplace (e.g. insulator and conductors in wires) to a disciplinary concept in engineering design (e.g. conductivity and insulation as a residential design feature). Figure 4-
12, presents the students response where 9 out of 10 students labeled the diagram correctly in both the pre- and post-tests. There was only one student who labeled incorrectly on the pre-post test. This same student did not respond to all questions which makes her data somewhat invalid for the study’s purpose.
146
9 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Pre Post Pre Post Insulator Conductor Properties of Materials: Labeling
Figure 4-12: Pre-Post test data, Properties of Materials, Q-6
The third question, Q-7, asked the students to categorize 9 materials into conductors and insulators to further probe into their understanding of these two concepts. Again, this was linked to the core design strategy in sustainable engineering where a deeper understanding of materials predisposes engineers to efficiently strategize active and solar designs. Out of the nine materials, there were 3 conductors (copper, silver, diamond) and 6 insulators (rubber, Styrofoam, ceramic, plastic, graphite, glass). Figure 4-13, captures the students’ correct categorization of the 3 conductors and 6 insulators on both the pre- and post-test. For each student, e.g. GD6, the correct categorization of conductors (C) and insulators (I) on the pre and post test is shown. It is evident that the learners’ gained a better understanding of materials and their properties as they reached the end of the learning experience. Again, one student provided incomplete data as she did not attempt this question in the post-test.
147
Properties of Materials: Categorization 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1
0
Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre
Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post C (3) I(6) C(3) I (6) C(3) I (6) C (3) I (6) C (3) I (6) C (3) I(6) C(3) I (6) C (3) I(6) C (3) I (6) C(3) I (6) GD 1 GD 2 GD 3 GD 4 GD 5 GD 6 GD 7 GD 8 GD 9 GD 10
Figure 4-13: Pre-Post test data, Properties of Materials, Q-7
Design Strategies
The pre-post tests had 4 questions focused on design strategies. The first of these questions, Q8, was a free response question that asked the learner’s opinion “about three things that could make the design of a home energy-efficient” This was to understand learners’ opinions about energy-efficient residential design before and after being exposed to the solar house. This free-response question generated responses that showed the students move from a generic awareness to a more specific understanding of energy-efficient residential design. Table 4-3, presents the students’ responses where the post-test responses mention design strategies that were foregrounded throughout the learning experience.
For example, there are response-instances for design strategies that relate to insulation like thermal mass- high for insulation, insulated walls, thermal mass, concrete flooring tiles, water pipes under concrete floor as well there are response-instances for positioning and direction like, having a main window facing south, windows and solar panels facing south, windows (directions), house windows facing south, ledge over the south.
148
Students Response
GD1 (Pre) (a) more windows/skylights (natural lighting) (b) a limit on water (c) small and compact (Post) (a) insulated walls (b) windows (directions) (c) water pipes under concrete floor
GD2 (Pre) (a) solar panels (b) shades (on window) (c) less lights being used (Post) (a) moving walls (b) water jugs near windows (c) solar panels
GD3 (Pre) (a) using sun energy (b) using less water (c) turn things off when you are done using (Post) (a) house window facing south (b) ledge over the south (c) concrete flooring tiles
GD4 (Pre) (a) blinds (b) solar panels (c) water wheels (Post) (a) solar panels (b) hydronic controllers (c) thermal mass
GD5 (Pre) (a) natural lighting (b) renewable resources (solar, wind) for power (c) small (Post) (a) renewable energy sources (b) thermal mass - high for insulation (c) adaptability in design
GD6 (Pre) (a) efficient use of appliance/tools (b) use of renewable energy sources (c) using electricity only when necessary (Post) (a) use of sun energy (b) appliances (c) passive ways for energy
GD7 (Pre) (a) solar panels (b) good insulation (c) Electronics/lights that automatically turn off when not being used (Post) (a) solar panels (b) thermal mass (c) windows and solar panels facing south
GD8 (Pre) (a) solar panels (b) Air flow (c) Sun reflections (Post)
GD9 (Pre) (Post) (a) solar panels
GD10 (Pre) (a) hi-tech lights that turn off when the sensors sense no one in the room (b) a solar panel (c) maybe the home is instead powered through wind (turbines) (Post) (a) having a main window face south (b) a solar panel setup (c) wind power Table 4-3 Pre-Post test results, Terminology, Question 8
The second question on design strategies, Q9 presented students with a pre-labeled image of a residential design and the students were asked to identify the design features as either part of passive solar strategy or active solar strategy. There were 13 design features labeled in the image of which 9 were related to Active Passive strategy and 4 were related to Passive Solar strategy. Figure 4-14, gives an
149
overview of correct categorization of these strategies by each student in the pre- and post tests. The responses show a clear progression in the students’ understanding of these design strategies as either active or passive. This indicates learning gains not only at the level of design strategies; rather, it captures student’s conceptual understanding undergirding their appreciation of design strategies.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1
0
Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre
Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) PS (4) AS (9) GD 1 GD 2 GD 3 GD 4 GD 5 GD 6 GD 7 GD 8 GD 9 GD 10
Figure 4-13: Pre-Post test data, Design Strategies, Q-9
The next question on design strategies, Q-10, presented the students with two pictures representing the process of house construction and asked them to list the differences that they spot in the pictures. This was an important means to access students’ awareness about modular/prefabricated construction versus the brick by brick/board by board traditional construction before and after the learning experience. As part of the GreenDesigners experience, prefabricated or modular construction was an important sustainable engineering design strategy that is exemplified by the solar house as an efficient design strategy. Table 4-4, provides an overview of students’ responses that clearly show that they gained a better awareness of this design process through this learning experience.
150
Students Responses GD1 (Pre) (a) Size, Materials, how its being placed (Post) (a) the walls (b) the size
GD2 (Pre) (a) picture 1, the people are building the house then to carrying it like (b) pic 1 is more hand on then (c) In pic 2 there are more workers (Post) (a) 1 is using manual construction (b) 2 is using module construction
GD3 (Pre) (a) the one above with bricks are done by hand (b) the other picture is using machinery (c) the picture to the left is build up from the grand the other is built by stakking (Post) (a) one is using concrete construction (b) the other is using module board
GD4 (Pre) (a) one is being build with stone while the other one is already finished (b) one is built on the land while other is being placed on the land (c) one has people actually building while the other people are just hoisting it by ropes (Post) (a) manual construction v/s modular (b) brick v/s wood or board
GD5 (Pre) (a) second was pre-built and lowered in place (b) the first had to have a lot of land cleared for space (c) first seems harder and more tedious to construct (Post) (a) non sustainable v/s sustainable (b) bricks construction v/s module construction
GD6 (Pre) (a) left seems to ue bricks / right seems to use wooden walls (b) left actively being / right done with construction (c) left permanent structure / right being moved (Post) (a) brick - modular (b) constructing - finished (c) stationary - moving
GD7 (Pre) (a) the one house is made of bricks (b) the blue house is pre built and being placed in the location (c) the brick house is surrounded by dirt and the blue house is surrounded by grass (Post) (a) blue house is modular (b) other house made of brick (c) blue house looks smaller
GD8 (Pre) (a) one is being built by hand (b) one is just being lifted (Post) (a) first is build by hand (b) second blue house is already made like module
GD9 (Pre) (a) The patterns and colors are different (b) one is using a machine and second using people GD9 (Post) No response GD10 (Pre) (a) The workers are building with brick, not many workers (b) Blue- seem to be building a structure not made of brick on a truck, more workers, non-brick (Post) (a) They're building a house with hands (b) they're building a solar powered research house with modular design Table 4-4 Pre-Post test results, Design Strategies, Question 10
151
The last question on design strategies, Q-11, presented the students with a solar energy process diagram where students had to indicate what part of the process was taking place at each of the three points marked in the diagram. This was to gauge students’ understanding of the process of how solar power works. This process was explained in the first two videos that all students watched. Table 4-5, provides an overview of students’ responses that clearly show that they gained a better awareness of this process in terms of the specific details about the process. For example, the pre-test responses were found to be more on the generic lines where the details were inaccurate, students used different terms for the inverter like radiator, electrical box, electrical system, and fuse box. Also, in the post-test, students were able to articulate the specific process of conversion of power from direct current (DC) to alternate current
(AC). It was found that these details added depth and accuracy to the students’ understanding of sustainable design strategies.
Students Description of the Process (Pre) (1) solar panels capture the suns energy (2) the energy is modified and stored (3) energy from the lines are stored and mixed into the solar energy (Post) (1) The sun is giving the solar panels energy (2) its transformed to electricity (3) and put back into the grid.
GD2(Pre) (1) the sun is giving off energy to the solar panel (2) the solar panel is giving the energy to a radiator (3) the radiator is making that into power (Post) (1) energy being put in (2) energy going to convertor (3) energy used in house and extra going to grid
GD3(Pre) (1) the sun rays shines down on solar panels (2) the solar panels that the sun electricity goes through the electrical box. (3) keep going into another box when it goes up to the power lines and there your electricity (Post) (1) the sun rays been into solar panels (2) solar panels take it and shoot the electricity through electrical box to turn into DC electricity(3) it is turned to AC electricity in inverter and extra goes to grid
GD4(Pre) (1) the sun's rays are absorbed through the solar panels (2) which are then transmitted as rays through home's electrical system (3) it gets to the inverter to turn to AC and then to electrical grid (Post) (1) solar panels absorb the rays (2) which goes through the electrical system (3) it gets to the inverter to turn to AC and then to electrical grid
152
GD5(Pre) (1) sunlight is generated into solar energy (2) transferred to fuse box + inverter (3) travels out through power lines (Post) (1) sunlight to DC electricity(2) Stored in fuse box as DC(3) DC to AC in inverter and extra goes to grid
GD6(Pre) (1) taking in sun rays (2) converting energy for storage (3) sent back out to power grid (Post) (1) taking solar energy-converting to electricity (2) converting from AC-DC (3) extra going to grid GD7(Pre) (1) the panels are collecting energy from the sun (2) the energy is being transported to a place it can be stored. (3) the energy goes to the fuse box where it can be used and then out to a public energy source. (Post) (1) solar panel is collecting energy from the sun (2) the energy is being converted to electricity (3) the house uses the electricity and extra is being transported out
GD8(Pre) (1) The sun is going into the solar panels (2) solar panels are creating energy (3) devices are then using that energy. (Post) (1) solar panels collecting sunlight(2) solar energy to electricity (3) using in home and sending to grid GD9(Pre) No response GD9(Post) (1) solar panels are taking in light to make energy
GD10(Pre) (1) sunlight is charging the solar panels. (2) The energy is going into a module transfer (3) Then into a thermostat looking object and out (Post) (1) sunlight powers the solar panels & energy is transferred to electricity (2) electricity goes to house fuse box (3) then in inverter from DC to AC and surplus goes to grid Table 4-5 Pre-Post test results, Design Strategies, Question 11
153
Appendix C
Events, Segments, Critical Incidents
EVENTS AND SEGMENTS DESCRIPTION
EV#1: ARL ENG (core concept videos) MAXQDA memo#15-17 1 Peer talk 2 Gesture/pointing 3 Touch 4 Spatial 5 Gaze 6 Off screen 7 On screen
EV#2: DESIGN-FOCUSED INTERACTION (design MAXQDA memo#23 (a , b, c) roles) 8 Assembling 9 Reconfiguration 10 Eng/ physical design features 11 Eng/ feel 12 Eng/augmented concept 13 Eng/identification 14 Eng/augmented design info 15 Eng/situatedness 16 Eng/gaze interaction 17 Eng/peer talk 18 Eng/pointing 19 Eng/moving, acting on a design feature 20 Eng/gesture 21 Eng/collaborative decision 22 Eng/touch 23 Eng/spatial distance 'from' 24 Eng/spatial repositioning 'towards' 25 Eng/mobile screen MAXQDA memo#1, 14, 16, 25 EV#3: MEANING-MAKING (DESIGN CHALLENGE) 26 Terminology 27 Time 28 Materials 29 Group dynamics 30 Peer talk 31 Gesture/pointing
154
32 Gaze interaction 33 Concepts 34 Design 35 Collaborative decision 36 Conceptual understanding 37 cu/evaluate 38 cu/analyze 39 cu/design 40 cu/constraints MAXQDA memo#3, 5, 6,7(a,b), EV#4: PRESENCE ('IN PLACE') 23 (c) 41 Augmented concept info 42 Augmented design info 43 Positioning 44 Situatedness MAXQDA memo#4,6,16, 23 (b) EV#5: PRE-&POST ACTIVITIES Crosscut: memo 19 45 Peer talk 46 Off screen 47 On screen 48 Gaze 49 Spatial 50 Gesture 51 Touch
Sub-Events/Critical Incidents
1. Milk bottles (Ev#2: South Wall) 2. Conductor (Ev#2: West Wall) 3. SIPs (Ev#2: Interior) 4. Radiant Pipes (Ev#2: Interior) 5. Radiant Pipes (Ev#2:Technical Core) 6. HIT solar panels (Ev#2: Carport &Ev#3: Group 1) 7. Negotiation design features in (Ev#3: Group 2) 8. Heat pump (Ev#2: Technical core& Ev#3: Group 1) 9. Concept mapping collaborative (Ev#5:Group 1)
155
Appendix D
The Pennsylvania State University CONSENT FOR RESEARCH (Participants and Parents)
Title of Project: GreenDesigners: An Augmented Reality Learning Experience for Sustainable Engineering Design
IRB #: 3171
Principal Investigator: Fariha Hayat Salman
Address: 329 Innovation Blvd., Suite 313, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802
Telephone Number: ………………
Advisor: Roy Clariana, Professor of Education, Learning, Design & Technology
Advisor Telephone Number: (814) 865-1958
Subject’s Printed Name: ______
We are asking you to be in a research study. This form gives you information about the research.
Whether or not you take part is up to you. You can choose not to take part. You can agree to take part and later change your mind. Your decision will not be held against you.
Please ask questions about anything that is unclear to you and take your time to make your choice.
Some of the people who are eligible to take part in this research study may not be able to give consent because they are less than 18 years of age (a minor). Instead we will ask their parent(s)/guardian(s) to give permission for their participation in the study, and we may ask them to agree (give assent) to take part. Throughout the consent form, “you” always refers to the person who takes part in the research study.
1. Why is this research study being done? We are interested in designing innovative learning experiences for youth that connect learning in school to learning outside school. For this study, we have chosen sustainable engineering design as a possible curricular area of interest for high school students. This research is being done to find out if the GreenDesigners learning experience helps students like you understand
156
engineering concepts and practices. We are interested in studying how you interact with the entire learning design.
2. What will happen in this research study?
(i) Location: The study is located at the Penn State Sustainability Experience Center (SEC), University Park campus near Beaver Stadium. SEC houses the solar demonstration home which is surrounded by the community gardens, the wind turbine and the solar carport. It is an active learning space used for engineering courses and has a classroom on site.
(ii) Duration: Participants will spend approx 3.5 hours on a single day scheduled between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm at the Penn State Sustainability Center. Each data collection session will have no more than 12 participants.
(iii) Phases: Consented participants should expect procedures organized across five phases (please also see flow-diagram below). All phases will be audio and video recorded to be used for analysis. Participants will be contacted for future research ONLY if they express their interest in the consent forms. The five phases include:
1. Pre-test [15 mins]: Multiple Choice Questions on terminology related to sustainable engineering designs
2. Game Play [90 mins]: Participants are given tablets on which they play a role-based, code-accessed game as they observe various design features at the Penn State Sustainability Experience Center. Participants respond to augmented information (videos, texts, quizzes) and get a chance to earn digital badges.
3. Capstone Design Challenge [60 mins] Participants get into design groups and start working on a scenario based design challenge using the resources and media made available to them. They present their design and record their design sketch with a voice over that will be utilized as part of the game.
4. Focus group interviews [30 mins] Stimulated recall focus group interviews with design groups. Participants will be asked specific question sabout the process and outcome of the learning experience.
5. Post test [15 mins] Multiple Choice Questions on terminology related to sustainable engineering designs
157
4. Audio & Video Recording Procedures: Participation in all phases will be captured on audio & video and as still images. For this, participants will be equipped with obtrusive microphones in order for the researchers to record the conversations while interacting with the digital (on tablets) and physical (Sustainability Experience Center) learning space. Both audio and video will be coded, anonymized and transcribed for interaction analysis. In capturing audio and video, we will make every effort to focus on the actions particularly on how participants interact with the tablet-screens and the design elements on site. The study is interested to gather data on the “type” of interactions than “who” performs those actions.
3. What are the risks and possible discomforts from being in this research study? There is a risk of loss of confidentiality if your information or your identity is obtained by someone other than the investigators, but precautions will be taken to prevent this from happening. The confidentiality of your electronic data created by you or by the researchers will be maintained to the degree permitted by the technology used. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
4. What are the possible benefits from being in this research study?
4a. What are the possible benefits to you?
Taking part in this study will help you in the following ways: The whole learning activity will help you learn about some important engineering design concepts related to designing sustainable elements in built environments
158
You will get an opportunity to apply your existing knowledge of science in a new, practical context You will learn how scientists and engineers think , design and practise their design skills You will be part of a unique, fun way to learn STEM using the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
4b. What are the possible benefits to others?
The study benefits STEM educators at various levels whereby it exemplifies a crossover learning design that is a challenging to teachers and educators since it involves connecting formal school curricular standards to informal learning outside schools through assessments.
The game that develops as part of the study will benefit the community to engage and interact with the solar demonstration house and concepts of sustainable engineering design
5. What other options are available instead of being in this research study?
You may decide not to participate in this research.
6. How long will you take part in this research study?
Being in this research study does not require any additional time on your part. If you agree to take part, it will take you about 4 hrs today to complete this research study.
7. How will your privacy and confidentiality be protected if you decide to take part in this research study?
Efforts will be made to limit the use and sharing of your personal research information to people who have a need to review this information. A list that matches your name with your code number will be kept in a locked file or password protected file in a secure room in Fariha Hayat Salman’s custody at 329 Innovation Blvd., Suite 313, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802 Your research records will be labeled with your code number and/or pseudonym and will be kept with Fariha Hayat Salman at 329 Innovation Blvd., Suite 313, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802 Your designs and artifacts will be labeled with a code number and will be stored with Fariha Hayat Salman at 329 Innovation Blvd., Suite 313, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802
In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the research, no personally identifiable information will be shared.
We will do our best to keep your participation in this research study confidential to the extent permitted by law. However, it is possible that other people may find out about your participation in this research study. For example, the following people/groups may check and copy records about this research.
159
The Office for Human Research Protections in the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Penn State University Center for Online Innovation in Learning (COIL) The Institutional Review Board (a committee that reviews and approves research studies) and The Office for Research Protections. Some of these records could contain information that personally identifies you. Reasonable efforts will be made to keep the personal information in your research record private. However, absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
8b. What happens if you are injured as a result of taking part in this research study? In the unlikely event you become injured as a result of your participation in this study, medical care is available. It is the policy of this institution to provide neither financial compensation nor free medical treatment for research-related injury. By signing this document, you are not waiving any rights that you have against The Pennsylvania State University for injury resulting from negligence of the University or its investigators.
10. Who is paying for this research study? Not applicable
11. What are your rights if you take part in this research study? Taking part in this research study is voluntary. . You do not have to be in this research. . If you choose to be in this research, you have the right to stop at any time. . If you decide not to be in this research or if you decide to stop at a later date, there will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled.
12. If you have questions or concerns about this research study, whom should you call? Please call the head of the research study (principal investigator), Fariha Hayat Salman at 814- 321-3788 if you: . Have questions, complaints or concerns about the research. . Believe you may have been harmed by being in the research study.
You may also contact the Office for Research Protections at (814) 865-1775, [email protected] if you: . Have questions regarding your rights as a person in a research study. . Have concerns or general questions about the research. . You may also call this number if you cannot reach the research team or wish to offer input or to talk to someone else about any concerns related to the research.
INFORMED CONSENT TO TAKE PART IN RESEARCH Signature of Person Obtaining Informed Consent
160
Your signature below means that you have explained the research to the subject or subject representative and have answered any questions he/she has about the research.
______Signature of person who explained this research Date Printed Name
(Only approved investigators for this research may explain the research and obtain informed consent.) Signature of Person Giving Informed Consent
Before making the decision about being in this research you should have: Discussed this research study with an investigator, Read the information in this form, and Had the opportunity to ask any questions you may have.
Your signature below means that you have received this information, have asked the questions you currently have about the research and those questions have been answered. You will receive a copy of the signed and dated form to keep for future reference.
Signature of Subject By signing this consent form, you indicate that you voluntarily choose to be in this research and agree to allow your information to be used and shared as described above.
______Signature of Subject Date Printed Name
Signature of Parent(s)/Guardian for Child (at least one signature required)
By signing this consent form, you indicate that you permit your child to be in this research and agree to allow his/her information to be used and shared as described above.
______Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Printed Name
______Signature of 2nd Parent or Guardian Date Printed Name
VITA
Fariha Hayat Salman [email protected]
EDUCATION Awards & Honors Ph.D., Learning, Design, & Technology 2018 Ardeth & Norman Frisbey Award for Global Understanding, Penn State 2018, cGPA 3.98 Graduate School Pennsylvania State University, USA 2015 Research Initiation Grant, COIL, Penn State Masters in Educational Research 2015 Top 15 Research Paper Award, Div C, AERA. 2008, Institute of Education, 2012 USA Fulbright Award. Institute of International Education (IIE), University College London, UK Washington DC 2012 Dean’s Graduate Award for Engaged Scholarship & Research. PSU M.A. English Linguistics 2009 XIII International Conference of Young Scholars Award, Prague, CZ. 2002, Department of English 2006 Centenary Research Scholarship, University College London, Institute University of Karachi, Pakistan of Education, UK
EMPLOYMENT Penn State University, USA Principal Investigator &Project Head, GreenDesigners July 2015- June 2017 Instructor, Advanced Research Writing, UBMS Summer STEM Academy June 2014-July 2014 Graduate Researcher, Tree Investigators Aug 2012-May 2014 Instructor and Researcher, Girlz Digital World Camp, College of IST June 2013- Aug 2013 Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development Senior Instructor, M.Ed. Language Education & Research July 2009 - Aug 2012 Coordinator, E-Learning & Online Learning July 2010 - Aug 2012 Instructor, M.Ed. (Teacher Education); Academic Literacies July 2005 -June 2009 Senior Program Officer, PhD Program Feb 2004- June 2005 Research Assistant, research study funded by National Research Council (NRC) Jan 2003 – Jan 2004 Birkbeck University of London, UK, Dept. of Continuing Education Sessional Lecturer, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Sept 2007-Dec 2007 Imperial College London, UK, Dept of Life Sciences Research Assistant, BioScience Learning Research Group July 2007-Sept 2007 University of Karachi, Department of English Adjunct Faculty, M.A. Applied Linguistics Program June 2003-Jan 2004
RESEARCH GRANT Title: GreenDesigners: Augmented Reality Learning for Sustainable Engineering Design ▪Role: Principal Investigator ▪Sponsor: COIL, Penn State ▪ Award US$42,500 (July 2015-June 2017) PUBLICATIONS 1. Salman, F. H., & Riley, D. R. (forthcoming, last qtr, 2018). Technology-mediated Assessments in Crossover Learning Assessment Design (CLAD): A Case from Sustainable Engineering Design Education. In D. Cristol and A. Zhang (Eds.), Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. ( pp). Heidleberg: Springer. 2. Salman, F.H., & Riley, D.R. (2016, Dec). Augmented Reality Crossover Gamified Design for Sustainable Engineering Education. Future Technologies Conference 2016. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7821781/ 3. Salman, F. H., Borge, M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015, June). Girls’ Digital Storytelling: Democratizing Learning Design through Makerspaces. 2015 AERA Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. 4. Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L.R., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G-W., & Salman, F. H. (2015). Tree Investigators: Supporting Families and Youth to Coordinate Observations with Scientific Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education. 5(1): 44-67. 5. Salman, F. H., Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M., (2014). Collective problem solving in a technologically mediated science learning experience: A case study in a garden. Proceedings of the 11th ICLS, Vol. 1, 378-384