Slide 1

Slide 1 text

Explicit and Congruent: A Case Study of Factors Guiding the Design of an Online Environment Justin Olmanson1, Chung-Kai Huang2, Rob Scordino3, Woonhee Sung4, Jaejin Lee3 Language Learning & Technology Research and Design Group University of Illinois Urbana Champaign1 | National Taipei College of Business2 University of Texas at Austin3 | Teacher’s College Columbia University4

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry • The Design Elements • Our Positions on the Design Elements • FunWritr, an Instantiation • Findings Link to the full paper ->

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters – Epistemological Resonance – Design Element Congruence “Collectively we worked to ensure ongoing reflective epistemological resonance among our design orientations (Voithofer & Foley, 2002)... It also gave us the chance to consider the educational design process from the perspective of holism and congruence (Der-Thanq, Hung, & Yu-Mei Wang, 2007).” P.1-2

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

Explicit Congruence among Design Elements Design Element Congruence (Der-Thanq, Hung, & Wang, 2007)

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

Explicit Congruence among Design Elements Epistemological Resonance (Voithofer & Foley, 2002)

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry – Our methods for reflective inquiry “We employ a self-critical, reflective mode of design inquiry wherein we explicitly make connections among and between our stances on factors central to the creation of educational technologies (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2010).” P.2

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

Explicit Congruence among Design Elements Reflection and Self-Critique (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2011)

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

Distributed Biography (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983) Deleuzian Experiment in Writing, Experience & Identity Explicit Congruence among Design Elements

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

Explicit Congruence among Design Elements Reflection and Self-Critique Resonance Congruence Design Elements

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry • The Design Elements “Garrett (2009) suggests four elements for consideration in the development of literacy and language acquisition applications. We bookended her list with two additional elements.” P.1

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

Typically: Standards-Driven (Tyler, 1949) Curriculum The Design Elements: Curriculum What it is: Educational Experience

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

(Jonassen, 2003) Learning Theories Expectations The Design Elements: Learning Theory Typically: Constructo-Behaviorism What it is: Explanation of How Learning Happens

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

Educational Context Physical Space Students Neighborhood Schedule District The Design Elements: Educational Context Typically: High-Stakes Spaces What it is: Site (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Squire, and Newell, 2004)

Slide 14

Slide 14 text

(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005) Pedagogy The Design Elements: Pedagogy Typically: Teaching Centric What it is: Curriculum meets Learning Theory

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

Resource Procurement & Management The Design Elements: Development Typically: External Funding What it is: Realization

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

The Design Elements: Technology (Olmanson, Huang, Lee, Sung, & Scordino, in preparation) Typically: Automate / Expertise What it is: Role / Goal of Technology Hal iRobot Emerging Technologies

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

The Design Elements

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • The Design Elements • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry • Our Positions on the Design Elements ‘we describe our position on each of these parameters and the gestalt effect produced when explicitly aligned with each other.’ P.1

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

Positionality: Curriculum (McClintock, 1971; Pinar, 2012, 2006; Plato, 1955; Roy, 2003) Reconceptualized Curriculum Self-directed, Reflective Study Meeting learners where they are, via multiple accessible entry points with a focus on intellectual qualities over outcomes.

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

Positionality: Learning Theory (Duckworth, 2006; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Jonassen, 2003, 1991) Constructivism Supporting Connection Making & Reflection Connections between experiences, processes, habits of mind, and understandings serve as a reservoir of resources to be used in the future.

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

Positionality: Educational Context (Olmanson, Kim, Sung, Huang, and Chen, 2010) Naturalistic Classroom Setting Low-Stakes Spaces Within a design ethnography research framework we conducted 80 hours of observations and data collection in an ESL 2nd grade classroom. We identified daily center time as a space congruent with our interest in supporting open-ended exploration and self-directed meaning making.

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

Positionality: Pedagogy (Coles & Hall, 2001; Higgins, 1995; Jewitt, 2006; Truscott, 1998) Expression, Exploration & Noticing Scaffolded, Multimodal, Open-Ended Interaction Anchoring linguistic and metalinguistic exploration to comprehensible, learner directed output.

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

Positionality: Technology (Higgins, 1995; Jewitt, 2006; Smith, 1994) Invisible Mashup Blurring the Lines between Reading & Writing Open-ended, multimodal, environments that leverage Natural Language Processing, APIs, and student understanding. Technology as scaffold and support, not expert.

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

Positionality: Development (Olmanson, Huang, Scordino, & Lee, 2013; Stober & Hansmann, 2009) Agile & Sustainable Democratized, Professionalizing Design & Development Our design process emphasized inclusion, communication, consensus, and participation.

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

Positionality: Development Agile & Sustainable

Slide 26

Slide 26 text

The Design Elements Study Constructivism Sustainable & Agile AI, NLP, & APIs Low Stakes Spaces Expression & Exploration

Slide 27

Slide 27 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • The Design Elements • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry • Our Positions on the Design Elements • FunWritr, an Instantiation

Slide 28

Slide 28 text

Natural Language Toolkit Technologies Used AI Engines & APIs Web Designers Learning Technologists Programmers Language Experts Instructional Designers CALL Project Team Roles Pilot Testing / Class Observation

Slide 29

Slide 29 text

connection making2 classroom observation3 Language Expert Web Designer Learning Technologist Programmer Instructional Designer Natural Language Toolkit modification through APIs5 iterative design6 research and design meetings6 open-ended inquiry1 student-directed1,2 multi-modal4 expanding meanings of text4 exploratory levels4 technology as scaffold5

Slide 30

Slide 30 text

Composition Interface

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

Disambiguation Interface

Slide 32

Slide 32 text

Word Exploration Interface

Slide 33

Slide 33 text

Application Demo

Slide 34

Slide 34 text

Outline • Why Design Congruence Matters • The Design Elements • A Self-Critical, Reflective Design Inquiry • Our Positions on the Design Elements • FunWritr, an Instantiation • Findings: Design Factor Congruence “multiple design factors can explicitly and congruently co- influence the creation of an educational application” P.7

Slide 35

Slide 35 text

The Value of Being Explicit • The importance of curriculum – When aligned with a congruent approach to curriculum within a low-stakes context, constructivistic designs take flight • Design methodologies that get beyond monolithic conceptions of context – Design Ethnography as a way to understand the contours of classroom contexts • The potential of emerging technologies when not constrained by curriculum, pedagogy-as usual

Slide 36

Slide 36 text

Select References Der-Thanq, C., Hung, D., & Yu-Mei Wang. (2007). Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 876–884. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating Innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x. Voithofer, R., & Foley, A. (2002). Post-IT: putting postmodern perspectives to use in instructional technology—a response to Solomon’s “Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology.” Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(1), 5–14. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2010). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3

Slide 37

Slide 37 text

Acknowledgements The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B110008 to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. And Thank You to the Computer and Internet Applications in Education SIG!

Slide 38

Slide 38 text

Explicit and Congruent: A Case Study of Factors Guiding the Design of an Online Environment Justin Olmanson1, Chung-Kai Huang2, Rob Scordino3, Woonhee Sung4, Jaejin Lee3 Language Learning & Technology Research and Design Group University of Illinois Urbana Champaign1 | National Taipei College of Business2 University of Texas at Austin3 | Teacher’s College Columbia University4 [email protected]