Curriculum & Instruction 801: Interactive Media and Computers in the Curriculum Professor: Kurt Squire,
544B Teb, 263-4672
Meeting Time: Thursdays, 4:35-7pm
Office hours Wednesdays 2-5 and by appointment
Over the past decade, a number research-driven educational technology projects have been demonstrating the potential for digital technologies to support learning, using design experiment methodologies to push forward theoretical understandings while also creating tangible products and technologies. Examples such as The Jasper Series, The Virtual Solar System, The Knowledge Forum, Boxer, StarLogo, ThinkerTools, GenScope, STEP, The Games-to-Teach Project, and Quest Atlantis all fit what Brown (1992) called design experiments, educational interventions that examine learning in complex social contexts that are engineered to produce meaningful learning. This shift in research goals has resulted in an accompanying shift away from classic positivist research methodologies toward more holistic research approaches. The reasons driving this shift can be linked across several movements in education, including acknowledging the importance of context in cognition (Cole, 1996; Gee, 1992; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Salomon, 1993; Wertsch, 1998), the socially situated and culturally-mediated nature of educational technologies (e.g. Engeström, Miettinen & Punamäki, 1998), and the failure of traditional research methods to generate much usable knowledge (Collins, 1990; Reigeluth & Frick, 1999). This course uses the lens of design experiment research to examine contemporary research-driven projects with interactive media and computers in classrooms. We will trace the theoretical and practical concerns that gave rise to design experiments and examine several specific research programs. Tying together this inquiry will be a special focus on methodological issues in doing design research, drawing from recent special issues in The Journal of the Learning Sciences and Educational Researcher as well as contemporary work in ethnography, case study research, qualitative, and quantitative research methodologies. Research traditions and methodologies foreign to educational technology will be given special consideration, and students will be encouraged to pursue lines of inquiry germane to their research. Throughout the course, we will critically examine the epistemological and ontological commitments made by design researchers, given that most design researchers seek to not only understand but also transform learning, and research findings are validated examining the consequences of putting the theories and ideas into use.
Available online at amazon.com or bn.com
Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (2001). Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 2.: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.) New York: The Free Press.
Course pack of selected readings
Available at on-line through the course site or by arrangement with myself.
This course will meet once per week and will be in a seminar format. There will be a mix of open-ended discussion and student-led presentations. My goal is for the seminar to be an opportunity for you to explore areas of interests, so the syllabus and course topics will be adjusted in response to class needs.
Preparing for class- Readings and reaction papers
Each class will include a set of readings and may include a technology demonstration program. Students will be expected read and to download and experiment with the weekly program/web-site in preparation for class. The day before class meets each student will prepare and submit a one-page summary of their reading and experimentation. These reaction papers will be graded on a pass/fail standard – if they show evidence that you reflected upon the material in light of the standards and course readings, you are fine. If you merely cite parts of the readings, summarize, or insert large sections of the phone book, then it will not be so good.
Students must complete 8 of the semester reaction papers to receive full credit. All readings must be completed regardless of whether a reaction paper is composed. Reaction papers are to be posted to the class discussion web-site and should be no more than one page in length. Papers should be posted by the preceding Wednesday by 5:00 pm.
The typical class meeting will consist of a discussion of weekly program or web-site as well as the required class readings. Since class discussions are vital to the success of the class, your attendance and participation are important and will contribute to your final course grade. We will make intermittent records of class participation. Successful class discussions also involve tolerance and respect for the diversity of opinions expressed by your colleagues.
The course project will involve a research paper designed to address one of the main areas of the course discussion. We will decide on project parameters and expectations for the course project in class. The course project will constitute 50% of the final course grade.
We seek to fully include persons with disabilities in this course. Please let us know if you need any special accommodations in the curriculum, instruction, or assessments in this course to enable you to fully participate. We will try to maintain the confidentiality of the information that you share with me. Please contact us as early in the course as practicable. You may also contact the McBurney Disability Resource Center, 905 University Avenue, Madison (263-2741) if you have questions about campus policies and services. Questions or concerns about disability accommodations can be brought to the attention of Associate Dean Mariamme Whatley at 262-2463 or with Ken Scott, the coordinator in the Department of Educational Administration.
Grades for the course will be calculated according to the University of Wisconsin grading scale. Class work will count in the following proportions toward your final grade:
Reaction papers 25%
Jenkins, Squire & Tan (2004). You can’t take that game to school.
Barnett, Squire, Higgenbotham, ICLS proposal.
Optional: Holland, Jenkins, & Squire (2003). Theory by design.
Cognitively-based curriculum: CSILE
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994;
Hewitt, J. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of a Toronto classroom.
Collins, A. (2002). The balance between task focus and understanding focus: Education as apparenticeship versus education as research.
Hewitt, J. (2002). Response.
diSessa & Cobb
Adoption & Usability in Project-Based Science
Barab & Luehman
Squire et al.
Kurt at GDC
Potential Themes in Design Experiments
Capturing Knowledge in Situ
Hickey, A New Perspective for Evaluating Innovative Science Programs. Science of education readings.
Reigeluth & Frick, 1999.
Sustainability / scalability
Fishman & Krajcik.
Dede & Sabelli,
Michigan Ed psychologist?
Research in social contexts
Scientific Research in education
Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon&T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions
in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J. diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. NewYork: H. Holt and Co.
Geertz, C. (1983). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 37–59). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Laurel, B. (2004). Design-Based Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
Reigeluth, C. & Frick, T. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In Reigeluth, C (Ed). Instructional-design theories and models vol II. Pp. 633-652, Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W.-M. (2001).Situating cognition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 27–61.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bereiter, C. Design research for sustained innovation. In Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321-327. 2002. http://ikit.org/fulltext/2002Design_Research.pdf
Brown, Ann L. Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. In The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2(2), 141-178 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 1992.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. "Design Experiments in Educational Research". In Educational Researcher, Volume 32, No.1. 2003 http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_01/AERA320105.pdf
Collins, A.; Joseph, D. & Bielaczyc, K. Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. To appear in Campione, J. (Ed.) Volume in honor of Ann Brown. In press. http://www.extension.harvard.edu/2002-03/programs/cte/ext02drt.pdf
Collins, Allan. "The changing infrastructure of education research" In Issues in Education Research. Problems and possibilities. Edited by Ellen C Lagemann & Lee S. Shulman, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999.
Edelson, Daniel. Design Research: What We Learn When We Engage in Design. In The journal of the Learning Sciences. Volume 11 Number 1, Jan. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2002.
Greeno, James et al. "Research, reform and Aims in Education. Modes of action in search of each other." In Issues in Education Research. Problems and possibilities. Edited by Ellen C Lagemann & Lee S. Shulman, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999.
Lobato, J. How Design Experiments Can Inform a Rethinking of Transfer and Vice Versa. In Educational Researcher, Volume 32, No.1. 2003 http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_01/AERA320107.pdf
McCandliss, B.D., Kalchman, M. & Bryant, P. Design Experiments and Laboratory Approaches to Learning: Steps Toward Collaborative Exchange. In Educational Researcher, Volume 32, No.1. 2003 http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_01/AERA320106.pdf
Reeves,Thomas C. Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through "Design Experiments" and Other Development Research Strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA. 2000. http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/AERA2000Reeves.pdf
Richey, R.C., & Nelson, W.A. Developmental Research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.1213-1245) New York: Macmillan. 1996.
Schon, Donald A. The design process. In V.A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center (pp.111-141). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1990.
van den Akker, Jan. "Principles and methods of development research". In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp.1-14). Boston: Kluwer Academic. 1999.