Scaffolding and Assessment of Cross-disciplinary Learning

1. Scaffolding and Assessment of Cross-disciplinary Learning Scott Schaffer, Ph.D. Purdue University Associate Professor, Curriculum & Instruction, Educational Technology Program Affiliated Faculty, Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering and “Co-director” Health Informatics and Learning Technologies

2. Session Goals • Summarize frameworks and research related to team learning and development • Identify major team learning principles • Identify evidence-based strategies for facilitating team learning and performance

3. Collaborative Learning Research Path Global, virtual graduate classrooms interacting on constrained tasks -Work-based Activities -Teamlets -Social learning Systems Virtual Blended Scaffolding for capstone project teams in CE -Activity Systems -CDTL Model Validation -CDTL design principles -Design research

5. Professional Teams Complex Projects • Innovation • Creativity Diverse Associates • Cross-disciplinary • Cross-cultural • Range of expertise Collaborative Environment • Networked • Global

6. Opportunities to learn and work across disciplines are desired in higher education but uncommon. Silos Synergies not

8. Applied Research Processes: Literature review/description of current system Development/validation of theoretical framework Abstraction of principles from framework Design of support tools or use of technologies that adhere to principles What we did: CDL (Fruchter & Emery, 1999); Teams (Ilgen, et. al., 2004); Observed and interviewed teams in context. Questionnaire responses from over 200 EPICS teams Design principles from framework used to evaluate technology tools support of CDL Selection, formative evaluation, and successive iteration of tools Method to the Madness

9. Evolution of Cross-Disciplinary Learning (CDL) Islands of knowledge: one masters his/her discipline, but does not have experience in other disciplines. Awareness: one is aware of the other discipline’s goals and constraints. Appreciation: one begins to build a conceptual framework of the other disciplines, is interested to understand and support the other disciplines' goals and concepts, and knows what questions to ask. Understanding: one develops a conceptual understanding of the other disciplines, can negotiate, is proactive in discussions with participants from the other disciplines, provides input before the input is requested, and begins to use the language of other disciplines. Fruchter, R. & Emery, K. (1999). Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.) Dec. 12-15, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10. Toward a Definition Definition of Cross-disciplinary Team Learning (CDTL)“A social entity of individuals, who are heterogeneous in terms of expertise, culture, and experience, and are committed to a project for an extended amount of time in order to solve open-ended problems in real world contexts. They develop a shared mental model; and create new knowledge and innovative solutions through socialization and interaction.”Schaffer, Lei, & Reyes (2007)

11. Organizational Learning System Framework Organizational Learning & Capacity-building Our awareness, understanding & integration of what we know applied to solving novel, complex problems

12. Cross-disciplinary Service Learning Teams • Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) • 70 highly diverse teams working on complex, ill-structured projects • Mixed-methods research paradigm • Team activity and performance systems • Cross-disciplinary team learning model • Effect of use of an online, collaborative reporting tool on team performance

13. Purpose of the Study • To create a theoretical framework for studying cross-disciplinary team learning and performance Two research questions addressed are: • What is the structure and experience of cross-disciplinary teams in a collaborative learning environment? • What theoretical framework emerges from systematic and systemic analyses?

14. Context: EPICS Program

15. Participants in Case Studies Rover Project Team Traffic Project Team

16. Activity System Example Policy, engineering design process, industrial standards, ethics, compensation Project teams, SMEs, support staff, manager, and client Information, Communication, Technology Tools Tools Outcomes Design docs; Team logs; Reports; Customer feedback Sales/Customer Satisf. Innovative Products Design Excellence Capacity for Team Learning Community of Practice Individuals, Teams Performers Artifacts Rules Division of Labor Community Roles-tasks; peer-peer, peer--coach, employee-manager, employee-client

17. Mutual respect; Trust, Weekly meetings; Email; Clear expectations on roles; Customer-focused design; Engineering design process followed ISB-Rover Team, ISB Project Team, Machine Shop, Indiana Space Grant Consortium , Purdue EPICS, EPICS Consortium RoverProject Team Cell phones, Emails, File Server, Electronic Equipment, Desktop PCs, Machine Shop, AutoCAD, LabView software, Report Templates, Resources on the EPICS website, SMEs Outcomes 8 team members 3 EEs 2 CompEs, 2 MEs, 1 CGT; 4 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 2 Sophomores Tools • Project on time • Customer-focused design • 2nd place in the 2006 National Idea-to-Product Competition • Entrepreneurship opportunity • Performers’ confidence on the project • Development of technical and non-technical skills • Learned about others’ disciplines Reports, Design Docs, Mars Rover Exhibit Performers Artifacts Rules Division of Labor Community Project leaders; Roles assigned based on functional areas of the artifacts; Professor (Policies); TA (technical help)

18. Worked in subgroups; Reported subgroups’ status in weekly meetings; Constantly worked on reports and presentations; On time LSC-Traffic Flow Team, Lafayette School Corporation, Machine Shop, EPICS, EE, Civil Google, PCs in EPICS lab, video cameras, cell phones, Machine Shop at ME, electronic components, Instant Messenger, professors (EPICS, ME, and EE) as the resources, MyEPICS Traffic Project Team Outcomes 7 team members (6 new to EPICS) 5 EEs, 1 ME, 1 Civil 4 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore • Project management skills • Interaction with partners • Problem solving skills • Technical skills • Team work • Relate and share prior internship experience Tools Automated traffic controls for improving safety and congestion in each Lafayette school Performers Artifacts Rules Division of Labor Community Team Leader, Project Leader, Circuit Design, Webmaster, Subgroups work on similar tasks; Advisor helped with project goals and problems, TA helped with circuit designs.

19. Area of Contradictions Culture Themes (Rover vs. Traffic) Element/ Sub-Activity Triangle Contradictions in Activity Systems (1) • Experience • Confidence • Leadership • Experienced vs. novice • Increased vs. lack of confidence • Developed vs. developing leadership Performers • Competing technologies within and outside the context, e.g. instant messengers, Blog, etc. vs. WebCT • Project specific tools vs. general tools • Communication tools • Collaboration technology • Technical tools Tools

20. Area of Contradictions Culture Themes (Rover vs. Traffic) Element/ Sub-Activity Triangle Contradictions in Activity Systems (2) • Performance support materials • Resources and expertise • Support materials guiding problem-solving vs. lack of support materials; • Proactively seeking external resources vs. reactively seeking internal assistance. Performers-Tools-Goals • Collaboration vs. specification; • Team leader proactively involved vs. reactive responded • Multi-ethnic vs. single-ethnic • Advisors as facilitators vs. leaders • Team structure • Relationships with advisors or experts Performers-Division of Labor-Goals

21. Area of Contradictions Culture Themes (Rover vs. Traffic) Element/ Sub-Activity Triangle Contradictions in Activity Systems (3) • Team community • External community • Social dimension version vs. task • Multi-cultural vs. Not multi-cultural • Continuously develop strategic partnerships with other communities vs. maintain current partnerships. Performers-Community- Goals • Trust building vs. rule driven • Flexibility vs. structure • Clear roles and frequent feedback • Customer-focused performance vs. task-oriented performance • Trust • Expectation and feedback • Team participation • Rewards & incentives Performers-Rules- Goals

22. Cross-disciplinary Team Learning (CDTL) Framework Framework validated with more than 200 EPICS teams.

23. Rover Project Team CDTL Level Traffic Project Team CDTL Level

24. Discussions and Conclusion What are the learning, performance support, and knowledge management requirements necessary to design a CDTL support system?

25. Wiki-supported Teams • Design research method • 2 semester service learning course • Assessed teams using pre-post CDTL questionnaire, reflections, activity systems • Implemented mid-project changes to support systems (Blackboard to Wiki)

26. Design Guidelines for Supporting Team CDL Self-group-regulation Self-monitoring, Goal setting Evolution of knowledge Awareness, Curiosity, Synthesis Experiential feedback Targeted team and self-reflection New knowledge creation and sharing Valued artifacts, contributions, advice Information-communications-task management Systems to capture, store, retrieve and integrate new knowledge assets

27. Scott Schaffer sschaff@purdue.edu Teams.wikispaces.com