What do we Learn by Observing Collaborative Design Among Cross-Domain, Cross-Role Educators?
Abstract
Designing with cross-domain, cross-role educators leads to innovations more likely to be adopted and sustained. Yet, there are few opportunities and little guidance to do so. We contrast the challenges and successes faced by two teams of members with diverse roles in education (pre/in-teacher, administrator, graduate student) during a summer institute on designing classroom-based games for learning. Descriptive cases based on video of teams' collaboration and design artifacts illustrate how members' differing views on learning impacted their collaborative experiences and the games they produced. Findings contribute to understanding the value and challenges of similar collaborations, particularly given the increasing need for learners and educators to integrate multiple perspectives.
References
[1]
P.C. Abrami, C. Poulsen, and B. Chambers. 2004. Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 2, 201--216.
[2]
J. Blase. 2004. Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning (2nd. ed.). Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[3]
B.L. Brock and M.L. Grady. 1998. Beginning teacher induction programs: The role of the principal. The Clearing House, 71, 3, 179--183.
[4]
A.S. Vann (1988). Student teachers and the building principal: The missing link. Action in Teacher Education, 10, 4, 59--62.
[5]
G. Cawelti and N. Protheroe. 2001. High student achievement: How six districts changed into high performing systems. Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA.
[6]
M.J. Schmoker. 2001. The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically improved schools. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
[7]
T.J. Sergiovanni. 2001. The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (4th. ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
[8]
Y.B. Kafai, M.L. Franke, C.C. Ching, and J.C. Shih. 1998. Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students' and teachers' mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 2, 149--184.
[9]
T. Huizinga, A. Handelzalts, N. Nieveen, and J.M. Voogt. 2018. Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers' design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46, 1, 33--57.
[10]
B. Barron. 2003. When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 3, 307--359.
[11]
H. Kuusisaari. 2014. Teachers at the zone of proximal development: collaboration promoting or hindering the development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 46--57.
[12]
C.S.C. Asterhan and B.B. Schwarz. 2009. Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer to peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33, 3, 374--400.
[13]
J.L. Plass, B.D. Homer, and C.K. Kinzer. 2015. Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 4, 258--283.
[14]
J. Hamari, D.J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke, and T. Edwards. 2016. Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170--179.
[15]
I. Harel. 1991. Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT.
[16]
A. Baylor. 1997. The effects of designing instruction for text on learning. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Carolina.
[17]
M.B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative data analysis (3rd. ed.). Sage Publications.
[18]
R.K. Yin. 2003. Case study research and applications: Design and methods (3rd. ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[19]
R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek, 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research, Game Developers Conference.
[20]
G.A. Gunter, R.F. Kenny, and E.H. Vick (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 5-6, 511--537.
[21]
V. Aleven, E. Myers, M. Easterday, and A. Ogan, 2010. Toward a framework for the analysis and design of educational games, IEEE 3rd International Conference on Digital and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning.
[22]
K. Kiili, T. Lainema, S.d. Freitas, and S. Arnab (2014). Flow framework for analyzing the quality of educational games. Entertainment Computing, 5, 4, 367--377.
[23]
J. Bourgonjon, M. Valcke, R. Soetaert, and T. Schellens. 2010. Students' perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers and Education, 54, 4, 1145--1156.
[24]
Y.B. Kafai. 1996. Learning design by making games: Children's development of strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 71--96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[25]
J. deHaan, W.M. Reed, K. Kuwada. 2010. The Effect of Interactivity with Music Video Game on Second Language Vocabulary Recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 2, 74--94.
[26]
M. Kebritchi. 2008. Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education, 51, 4, 1729--1743.
[27]
F. Binkhorst, A. Handelzalts, C.L. Poortman, and W.R. van Joonlingen. 2015. understanding teacher design teams: A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 213--224.
[28]
P. Wachira and J. Keengwe. 2011. Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 20, 1, 17--25.
Index Terms
- What do we Learn by Observing Collaborative Design Among Cross-Domain, Cross-Role Educators?
Recommendations
Building and Nurturing Communities of Practice among K-12 CS Teachers: (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationThe need for K-12 students to engage in Computer Science has been acknowledged in the White House call for "Computer Science for All" and supported through a variety of institutions. Implicit in many initiatives, and explicit in Google's CS4HS ...
Collaborative design of cross-disciplinary game minors based on the IGDA curriculum framework
ITiCSE '10: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationDue to the recent creation of game degree programs at post-secondary institutions, peer-reviewed literature on the curriculum planning process for game degrees at post-secondary institutions pales in comparison to the literature available for more ...
Developing an Ecosystem of Support for K-12 CS Educators
SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2K-12 computer science (CS) teachers are often the only teachers of the subject at their school. Many school-based administrators and personnel lack the content knowledge to support their ongoing professional growth. How then can an ecosystem of support ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
March 2019
206 pages
Copyright © 2019 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 09 March 2019
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
FL2019
Acceptance Rates
FL2019 Paper Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 64Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in