Nina Wacholder Class Guest Lecture Rebecca Reynolds, Assistant Professor

1. Supporting guided discovery based learning with informational learning management systems: Challenges and Opportunities Nina Wacholder Class Guest Lecture Rebecca Reynolds, Assistant Professor School of Communication & Information, Dept. of Library and Information Science, Rutgers University

2. Alignment: Learning System Design Across Theoretical Perspectives

3. Constructionism: My Own Path to These Ideas • IditHarel, MIT Media Lab, World Wide Workshop, Globaloria • In the Constructionist framework for educative action (Papert & Harel, 1991; diSessa& Cobb, 2004), learners: • a) create a computational artifact in a workshop-based learning context, working in teams • b) engage with and learn a core content domain, AND, • c) use resources to support their learning • Creative production, design and programming are the central purposes (tasks) that drive the inquiry and collaboration activity. • History of research charting meta-cognitive, affective, learning gains(Papert & Harel, 1991; Harel, 1991; Kafai, 1995; Bruckman & Resnick, 1995; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Urrea, 2001, 2002; Cavallo, 2004; Kafai & Ching, 2004; Kafai, 2006; Peppler, Kafai & Chiu, 2007; Klopfer, 2008; Reynolds, 2008)

4. Common Threads • Social constructivist theoretical underpinnings (Dewey; Piaget / Vygotsky) • Pedagogy is optimally developed to both leverage and cultivate human agency • Situated, distributed cognition (class- and team-levels) • Involves inquiry, information seeking, and application of information into some kind of product (problem answer, project, creation/presentation) • Converging evidence base (E.g., Kuhlthau, Todd, Chu, Hmelo-Silver, Martin, Kapur & Kinzer, Blumenfeld, Eccles, and Constructionist cites) • HOWEVER, STILL DEBATES . . . “discovery-based learning” & cognitive load (Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006)

5. INTERVENTION: Guided discovery-based game design program and curriculum offered by the World Wide Workshop. MS, HS teachers and students gain experience and expertise in a range of agentive digital practices.

6. Globaloria is currently active in 4 U.S. states: CA, TX, NY, WV, >2000 students

7. Learning Management System as Information System

8. Learning Management System as Information System

9. Learning Supports for Students and Educators: • Flash software, Wiki Environment, Curriculum, Tutorials • “Hands On” Training Sessions (virtual, local) • Globaloria Academy – In-person, intensive trainings (3) • Online Mini Webinars - Web-based workshops (7) • Globaloria Mentors Program • Experienced educators take on a leadership role by supporting other educators • “24/7” Virtual Support • Expert Support via wikis, blogs, email, WebEx • Educator Community Development – private educators community wiki, peer-to-peer mentoring, weekly educators newsletter, sharing teaching & learning reports • Rewards and Recognition • Teachers: Stipends and Graduate credits are earned • Students: Nationally-Recognized Game Design Competitions

10. Domains of Learning and Expertise • Game Example • Constructionist digital literacy (skills needed in knowledge economy => 6-CLAs) • Computational thinking through game design in Flash and programming in Actionscript • Core curricular subject matter: • When game subjects are linked to core curriculum and students deepen knowledge about topic through online research and design • STEM career interests: Technology & Engineering; Computer Science • Motivation, Affect, Attitudes, Life Choices, New Possibilities and Horizons

11. Globaloria Game Design Program Learning Objectives: Cultivate the Six Contemporary Learning Abilities (6CLAs)(Reynolds & Harel, 2009)Developing games in a social e-learning system cultivates participatory practices that simulate productive engagement in today’s digital cultures and knowledge-based economy

12. Research Agenda: Investigate Collaborative Information Behavior in Globaloria • Collaboration & information seeking are meta processes supporting the primary game design task • Teams of 2-4 collaborate to complete a game (& some indivs) • Unstructured collaboration • Little scaffolding for effective engagement (e.g., no inquiry circles (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2007) • Role taking, though, is encouraged • Learning management system: • Information resources • Supports social engagement and project management (e.g., the team page) • Simulates future professional work contexts studied in areas such as CSCW, therefore, the CIS literature may be relevant to phenomena occurring in this Constructionist, knowledge building project among youth

13. My Research: Issues of Structure and Agency in Socio-Technical e-Learning Systems Research • In Constructionist / discovery-based / inquiry-based learning: Learners • a) engage with and learn a core content domain, AND, • b) engage with and find resources to support their learning • Simulates informal, naturalistic learning • Gives students experience with autonomous, agentive inquiry and creation • In Constructionist learning, in particular, creative production, design and programming are the central purposes that drive the inquiry. • GIVEN DEBATES about effectiveness of guided discovery-based learning interventions. . . .

14. My Research: Issues of Structure and Agency in Socio-Technical e-Learning Systems Research • I am investigating student engagement in these general inter-related spheres of activity • My research considers the design of the learning management system as a support (or hindrance) for activity in these spheres, in this game design implementation context.

15. Select results so far in the Globaloria context: • Reynolds (2012), AERA: • Especially for practices representing the more Constructionist engagement categories, survey analysis (t-test) indicates increases in student motivation towards, and self reported understanding of these practices as a result of participation. • For three other less-Constructionist but active technology-use categories (e.g., information seeking), the results were more varied with regard to statistically significant increases. Ceiling effects may have played a role in this. • Indicates a measure of success in the program at meeting the stated learning objectives.

16. Results so far in the Globaloria context: • Reynolds & HarelCaperton (ETR&D, 2011): Qualitative, student self-reports of experience => Student affect and attitudes vary towards the autonomy-supportive, semi- and ill-structured activities in Globaloria • Some +, some - • Why the variation?

17. Intrinsic Motivation in Globaloria Students • Reynolds (ICA, 2011): intrinsic motivation positively correlated with game quality (measured thru content analysis); extrinsic motivation negatively correlated • Reynolds & Chiu (ICLS, 2012): Multi-level analysis model at team level of analysis supports 2011 findings for intrinsic motivation positive contribution to team outcome scores • Results qualify Kirschner et al’s critique: • Intrinsic motivation contributes positively to outcomes in guided discovery-based learning • Such programs may support those with this orientation

18. Digital Divide • Reynolds & Chiu, 2013 (submitted): Student participation attenuates digital inequality effects (factors that predict DL in prior research also influence students’ self-reported technology engagement prior to Globaloria participation, but no longer contribute after the fact).

19. What are the mechanisms? • Self determination theory: Self-determined, fulfilling intrinsically motivated engagement coincides with perceived competence, autonomy, social relatedness (in individual and as qualities supported by environment) (Deci & Ryan, U-Rochester) • Latest Model findings: • Student resource uses including their use of online tutorials (text-based), use of online tutorials (video-based), use of self-sought online resources on the wider internet contributed positively to team outcome scores, AND, to CHANGES IN INTRINSIC MOTIVATION • Inquiry plays a role. . . • But we need to investigate *when* inquiry may also detract. • Multi-level analyses continue

20. Collaborative Information Behavior in Globaloria • (Reynolds, Hmelo-Silver, Sorenson, & Van Ness, 2013; Reynolds, Baik, Li, 2013). • Collaboration & information seeking are meta processes supporting the primary game design task • Teams of 2-4 collaborate to complete a game (& some indivs) • Unstructured collaboration • Little scaffolding for effective engagement (e.g., no inquiry circles (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2007) • Role taking, though, is encouraged • Learning management system: • Information resources • Supports social engagement and project management (e.g., the team page) • Simulates future professional work contexts studied in areas such as CSCW, therefore, the CIS literature may be relevant to phenomena occurring in this Constructionist, knowledge building project among youth

21. Research Questions, Methods • (Reynolds, Hmelo-Silver, Sorenson, & Van Ness, 2013; Reynolds, Baik, Li, 2013). • “What collaborative information behaviors do middle school students evidence when given the chance to self-organize their game design task-driven teamwork?” • Step 1: Categorical analysis • Data sources: • video recorded face-to-face and virtual interviews with student teams, transcripts, coded in 2 waves in Dedoose • Step 2: Case study analysis of 4 distinctly dissimilar teams (Firestone, 1993) • Data sources: • wiki log files, wiki history, teacher quarterly progress reports, game design evaluation results, and individual student blogs

22. Peer Help • Many peer help examples; this was very common • Assessment and perceptions of cheating: “…cause usually other teachers…when you ask a student, they think you are cheating ‘cause students do the same thing. But in this class you can’t really cheat, because we all work on different things... the other two partners work on astronomy and you work on math ….so how are you gonna cheat?” • Challenges norms around individualized universal education where all students learn the same material • Other evidence existed, though, around issues of intellectual property – students holding on to ideas and not posting them online; conflicts between teams about idea stealing, etc. • Not about assessment  innovation and authorship

23. Role-Taking and Division of Labor • Some teams adopted the strategy of individuals taking on multiple roles; others remained in single roles throughout • Distribution of work based on perceived expertise, with some students gaining recognition at class level: • "I’m a little bit better drawer than he is and a better searcher and he’s better with the code and getting things to work than I am. So I usually do the drawing and save to link, and he usually does the coding and makes things to work.” • “We are honest with each other, so say somebody performs something better than somebody, we will tell them, say, William did buttons better than Justin. We got to be honest or we’re not going to get a full game. I’m good at flash and he’s good at buttons…at first we were kind of raw, but we all worked together.” • Assessment implications of specialization

24. Role-Taking and Division of Labor • Distributing the work to meet deadlines: • “We were trying to work with each other at first, and do all the levels on our own but I didn’t get what my level was supposed to be. So what I did was put it on my flash drive and on my wiki, and I started working on my own, so it was split in two levels. So she had that one and I have mine. Yeah, so we can do whatever we want on our own level. We just split apart like that, split the work into halves.”

25. Version Control • Developing (misguided) project management workaround: • “Well, what we usually do is use that one computer just for flash and the other one for the wiki and to code video things and we usually switch computers for flash. We usually just follow the team page and when we start to make ourselves confused, we do that.” • “Well what we do is usually…she logs in as me cause I keep all my stuff there. I save it first and then she saves it then we just kinda like…”

26. Videos • Example 1 • 2 ninth graders (male, female) • Individual level work to create mobile games (pilot) • Male student’s project was a track and field racing game including nutritional information for athletes as quiz content (personal interest of the student) • Off-task collaborative information seeking behavior is demonstrated • Related, but peripheral to main game topic, which • Male student was searching for information on a sports injury • Female student seated adjacently takes over the search

27. Opportunity:Collaborative Information-Seeking is Engaging Vid omitted

28. Videos • Example 1 Observations: • Dialogue, conversation, possibly flirtation • Search is used as a constructive tool for social discourse across genders, race, ethnicity in a school where racial tensions exist • Off-task engagement might distract…. • Might also support social engagement, attitudes towards school / project, sense of belonging • Empathy • Information credibility? • Health Q&A • Opportunities, and Challenges • Information literacy instruction . . .

29. Videos • Example 2 • Informal discussion w educators on system limitations for information search

30. Challenge:Information Use in Complex PBL/Constructionist Interventions is Under-Structured Vid omitted

31. How does Globaloria structure and scaffold students? • (Reynolds, Hmelo-Silver, Sorenson, & Van Ness, 2013; Reynolds, Baik, Li, 2013) • Qualitative research findings: • Primary task (game design) is supported; secondary tasks (collab; inquiry) under-supported • Collaboration & Inquiry meta-processes are under-structured • Discovery process not scaffolded. . . • Guided Inquiry model of Kuhlthau may inform ongoing modifications for information literacy; collaboration (e.g., reciprocal teaching / inquiry circles)

32. Knowledge Building as Conditions to Cultivate in Instructional Design Reynolds & Hmelo-Silver. (2013). Areas of Convergence in Constructionism, Knowledge Building and Guided Discovery Based Learning in the Globaloria Game Design Initiative. Presented at AERA 2013 in San Francisco, CA. Scardamalia & Bereiter (2006) state these in brief as: • Knowledge advancement as a community rather than individual achievement • Knowledge advancement as idea improvement rather than as progress toward true or warranted belief • Knowledge of in contrast to knowledge about • Discourse as collaborative problem solving rather than as argumentation • Constructive use of authoritative information • Understanding as emergent

33. Information Sciences Contribution • Inter-disciplinary cross-walks are important • IS perspectives such as CIS/CIB can help strengthen understanding of collaborative and information meta-processes in IBL/PBL contexts • Contribute to the design of curricular supports

34. Scaffolding Information Literacy and Collaboration • Leverage agency inherent to inquiry; cultivate agency in students • But don’t lose the learning and knowledge production needed during the inquiry process • Creating information literacy modifications in Globaloria • Help students track sources, find and use information more effectively • Delicious; NoodleTools; others? • Ross Todd: “Transportation vs. Transformation” • Internet reading comprehension literature; Donald Leu • School librarians can help; professional development of SLs as information literacy experts and curriculum developers => Common Core emphasis on non-fiction information texts; digital environments

35. References • Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. (2013).  Context matters:  The effect of formal and informal context differences upon pre- to post-program changes in student engagement in a program of game design learning.  Journal of Learning, Media & Technology. • Reynolds, R.; Baik, EB & Li, X. (2013). Collaborative information seeking in the wild: Middle-schoolers’ self-initiated teamwork strategies to support game design. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), 2013. • Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. (2013). How sustained engagement in game design and social media use among diverse students can mitigate effects of the digital divide. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Education Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA, April, 2013. • Reynolds, R., Hmelo-Silver, C., Sorenson, L., & Van Ness, C. (2013). Interview findings on middle schoolers’ collaboration in self-organizing game design teams. Poster presented at the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, July 2013, Madison, WI. • Reynolds, R., and I. HarelCaperton. 2011. Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning.Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (2): 267–289. • Reynolds, R. (2011). Children's game design learning in discovery-based contexts: Contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations to student outcomes. Paper presented at the annual International Communication Association (ICA) conference, May 2011, Boston, MA. • Reynolds, R. (2012). Changes in student attitudes towards 6 dimensions of digital engagement in a program of game design learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association (AERA), April 2012, Vancouver, Canada. • Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. (2012). Contribution of motivational orientations to student outcomes in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), July 2012, Sydney, Australia.

36. Thank you! Rebecca.reynolds@gmail.com Rutgers University website http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/directory/rbreynol/index.html Thanks to IMLS! Thanks to my partners! Globaloria.org Worldwideworkshop.org