Design-activity-sequence: A case study and polyphonic analysis of learning in a digital design thinking workshop

In this case study, we report on the outcomes of a one-day workshop on design thinking attended by participants from the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning conference in Philadelphia in 2017. We highlight the interactions between the workshop design, structured as a design thinking process around the design of a digital environment for design thinking, and the diverse backgrounds and interests of its participants. Data from in-workshop reflections and post-workshop interviews were analyzed using a novel set of analytical approaches, a combination the facilitators made by possible by welcoming participants as coresearchers

“I felt like I was missing out on something”: An evaluation of using remote technology in the classroom

As technology develops in Higher Education (HE), distance learning has adopted many different guises and supports many different needs (Keane 2013). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of Double Robotics on a Doctoral (level 8) postgraduate course at a HE institution. The aim of this project was to generate an understanding of student and tutor experiences more generally, while examining the feasibility and impact of Double Robotics within a doctoral programme more specifically. Data were collected through a series of focus group interviews with the student and tutors over the course of a single semester (10-weeks). The data were subject to an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2013). The findings of the study shed light on the interactive pitfalls of the technology and contribute to understanding the experiences of distance learners’ engagement. Four key themes were identified: quality of technology, classroom familiarity, tutor facilitation and user isolation. The significance of this study lies not only in assessing the feasibility of Double Robotics but, specifically, shedding light on the nuanced understanding tutors require to enrol and engage distance learners remotely. Most notable, the ‘isolation’ of the learner points to a heightened awareness of context that can help tutors develop robust and durable environments, which embrace both traditional classroom settings and facilitate the addition of distance learners. Building upon Tucker (2013), technological advancements in the classroom must be carefully designed to appreciate the context of the learning environment, the teacher, and the pedagogic experiences of the learners

Teaching and learning in virtual worlds: is it worth the effort?

Educators have been quick to spot the enormous potential afforded by virtual worlds for situated and authentic learning, practising tasks with potentially serious consequences in the real world and for bringing geographically dispersed faculty and students together in the same space (Gee, 2007; Johnson and Levine, 2008). Though this potential has largely been realised, it generally isn’t without cost in terms of lack of institutional buy-in, steep learning curves for all participants, and lack of a sound theoretical framework to support learning activities (Campbell, 2009; Cheal, 2007; Kluge & Riley, 2008). This symposium will explore the affordances and issues associated with teaching and learning in virtual worlds, all the time considering the question: is it worth the effort

Transforming pre-service teacher curriculum: observation through a TPACK lens

This paper will discuss an international online collaborative learning experience through the lens of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. The teacher knowledge required to effectively provide transformative learning experiences for 21st century learners in a digital world is complex, situated and changing. The discussion looks beyond the opportunity for knowledge development of content, pedagogy and technology as components of TPACK towards the interaction between those three components. Implications for practice are also discussed. In today’s technology infused classrooms it is within the realms of teacher educators, practising teaching and pre-service teachers explore and address effective practices using technology to enhance learning

Improving School Improvement

PREFACEIn opening this volume, you might be thinking:Is another book on school improvement really needed?Clearly our answer is yes. Our analyses of prevailing school improvement legislation, planning, and literature indicates fundamental deficiencies, especially with respect to enhancing equity of opportunity and closing the achievement gap.Here is what our work uniquely brings to policy and planning tables:(1) An expanded framework for school improvement – We highlight that moving from a two- to a three-component policy and practice framework is essential for closing the opportunity and achievement gaps. (That is, expanding from focusing primarily on instruction and management/government concerns by establishing a third primary component to improve how schools address barriers to learning and teaching.)(2) An emphasis on integrating a deep understanding of motivation – We underscore that concerns about engagement, management of behavior, school climate, equity of opportunity, and student outcomes require an up-to-date grasp of motivation and especially intrinsic motivation.(3) Clarification of the nature and scope of personalized teaching – We define personalization as the process of matching learner motivation and capabilities and stress that it is the learner's perception that determines whether the match is a good one.(4) A reframing of remediation and special education – We formulate these processes as personalized special assistance that is applied in and out of classrooms and practiced in a sequential and hierarchical manner.(5) A prototype for transforming student and learning supports – We provide a framework for a unified, comprehensive, and equitable system designed to address barriers to learning and teaching and re-engage disconnected students and families.(6) A reworking of the leadership structure for whole school improvement --We outline how the operational infrastructure can and must be realigned in keeping with a three component school improvement framework.(7) A systemic approach to enhancing school-community collaboration – We delineate a leadership role for schools in outreaching to communities in order to work on shared concerns through a formal collaborative operational infrastructure that enables weaving together resources to advance the work.(8) An expanded framework for school accountability – We reframe school accountability to ensure a balanced approach that accounts for a shift to a three component school improvement policy.(9) Guidance for substantive, scalable, and sustainable systemic changes –We frame mechanisms and discuss lessons learned related to facilitating fundamental systemic changes and replicating and sustaining them across a district.The frameworks and practices presented are based on our many years of work in schools and from efforts to enhance school-community collaboration. We incorporate insights from various theories and the large body of relevant research and from lessons learned and shared by many school leaders and staff who strive everyday to do their best for children.Our emphasis on new directions in no way is meant to demean current efforts. We know that the demands placed on those working in schools go well beyond what anyone should be asked to do. Given the current working conditions in many schools, our intent is to help make the hard work generate better results. To this end, we highlight new directions and systemic pathways for improving school outcomes.Some of what we propose is difficult to accomplish. Hopefully, the fact that there are schools, districts, and state agencies already trailblazing the way will engender a sense of hope and encouragement to those committed to innovation.It will be obvious that our work owes much to many. We are especially grateful to those who are pioneering major systemic changes across the country. These leaders and so many in the field have generously offered their insights and wisdom. And, of course, we are indebted to hundreds of scholars whose research and writing is a shared treasure. As always, we take this opportunity to thank Perry Nelson and the host of graduate and undergraduate students at UCLA who contribute so much to our work each day, and to the many young people and their families who continue to teach us all.Respectfully submitted for your consideration,Howard Adelman & Linda Taylo

Sustainable international experience: A collaborative teaching project

Within engineering education, there is an increasing need for providing our students with international experiences. This is most often done by exchange studies abroad. However, a majority of the students on engineering programs do not engage in any international exchange. This paper presents insights from a collaborative cross-disciplinary international project to give students international experience without having to travel. From both a sustainability perspective and a situation where e.g. a global virus outbreak stop students from travelling, solutions that give engineering students experience of working in an international setting are becoming increasingly important. Initial challenges, for the teachers involved in the project, that were addressed before the project started, included the assessment of students, the use of online collaborative tools, assessment of students and the dependence between the two courses. The learnings from the first and second iteration of the collaborative project were mainly focused around transparency, introduction of students to each other, communication, real-time issues and deadlines. By gradually remove these peripheral challenges for the students, resulting in making the students focus on the actual challenges surrounding the actual collaborative project. Even though this project is ongoing, the initial results clearly show that by integrating courses between different countries and disciplines, it is possible to create an environment that strengthens the students’ ability in teamwork, communication and addresses the cultural and professional aspects of working as an engineer in an international context

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo