• None

• Complete introductions and explore course website (ungraded)

Required readings:

• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). Learning: From speculation to science. In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 3–28). National Academy of Sciences.
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). Learning and transfer. In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 51–78). National Academy of Sciences.

Additional resources (recommended):

• Reimann, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2018). Expertise. In F. Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, S. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 54–63). Taylor & Francis.
  This chapter provides a brief overview of expertise and transfer, and it ends with a description of the process of developing teaching expertise. (Available in Library E-Reserves)

Assignments are due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 1 Summary of Readings
• Module 1 Discussion: How People Learn

Required reading:

• Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2012). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 29–65). Routledge. (Available in Library E-Reserves)

Choose one from the following supplemental readings, based on relevance to your career/interests:

• Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286–300). Routledge. (Available in Library E-Reserves)

  Abstract

  One of the most important concepts in social or situated learning theory is the notion of a community of practice. The concept, like the concept of constructivism or the concept of zones of proximal development, has been used both as an explanatory framework for learning and as a metaphor for how instruction should take place. In this chapter, I first describe some basic history of the concept of communities of practice and some of the theoretical assumptions underlying it. Next, I examine some of the key processes identified as producing and sustaining communities of practice. I compare and contrast the notion of communities of practice with other social learning approaches or knowledge communities. And finally, I describe some of the techniques people have used to support communities of practice through technology.

• Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2014). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 686–706). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.04

  Abstract

  In this chapter, we draw on empirical research on the cultural nature of learning, including studies of (a) learning in and out of school settings; (b) relationships between everyday and academic knowledge and discourse, especially for youth from nondominant groups; and (c) classroom-based design research that explores linkages among the varied repertoires of practice of youth and those of academic disciplines. These studies address multiple dimensions of learning including cognition, discourse, affect, motivation, and identity. Our cultural view of learning is closely related to work on adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986), that is, the development of flexible knowledge and dispositions that facilitate effective navigation across varied settings and tasks. Adaptive expertise is crucial for youth from nondominant groups who typically face and must be able to address extreme societal challenges.

• Chinn, C.C., & Selu, G. S. (2019). Bridging the cultural gap in the global workplace. In V. Kenon & S. Palsole (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of global workplace learning. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  Abstract

  Over the past three decades, there has been an increase in trade partnerships between countries and an expansion of global markets. As a result of this growth, multinational corporations have faced the challenge of hiring staff with the cultural fluency, sensitivity, and adaptiveness to work at different locations across the globe. Identifying and adapting to workplace culture (situated within ethnic or national culture) and understanding learning in practice are both fundamental focal points within sociocultural theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, Del Rio, & Alvarez, 1995). In this chapter, we argue that sociocultural theory can provide helpful tools for those who study, create, and manage global workplace learning. We identify some existing challenges in global workplace learning, offer a definition of organizational/workplace culture informed by sociocultural theory, and review some basic assertions of sociocultural theory. Then we identify three features of workplace culture from a sociocultural perspective—training versus learning, artifacts of practice and technology‐facilitated communication—and draw from existing published case studies across diverse contexts to illustrate each of these features.

   

Assignments due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 2 Summary of Readings
• Module 2 Discussion: Communities of Practice and Practice Fields

Required readings:

• Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions and design. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). Routledge. (Available in Library E-Reserves)

• Linn, M. C., McElhaney, K. W., Gerard, L., & Matuk, C. (2018). Inquiry learning and opportunities for technology. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S.R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 221–233). Routledge.

Additional resources (recommended):

• Lyons, L. (2018). Supporting informal STEM learning with technological exhibits: An ecosystemic approach. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S.R. Goldman,  & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 234–245). Routledge. 

Assignments due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 3 Summary of Readings
• Module 3 Discussion: Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) Project Examples

Required readings:

• Berland, M., Halverson, E., Wilkerson, M., & Polman, J. (2017). Expressive construction: Enabling learners to represent powerful ideas. In J. Roschelle, W. Martin, J. Ahn, & P. Schank (Eds.), Cyberlearning community report: The state of cyberlearning and the future of learning with technology. SRI International.
• Halverson, E., & Peppler, K. (2018). The maker movement and learning. International Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (Available in Library E-Reserves)

Additional resources (recommended):

• Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

  Abstract

  In this essay, Erica Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan provide the context for research on the maker movement as they consider the emerging role of making in education. The authors describe the theoretical roots of the movement and draw connections to related research on formal and informal education. They present points of tension between making and formal education practices as they come into contact with one another, exploring whether the newness attributed to the maker movement is really all that new and reflecting on its potential pedagogical impacts on teaching and learning.

   

• Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? www.sylviastipich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Coursera-Piaget-_-Papert.pdf

  Abstract

  What is the difference between Piaget's constructivism and Papert's "constructionism"? Beyond the mere play on the words, I think the distinction holds, and that integrating both views can enrich our understanding of how people learn and grow. Piaget's constructivism offers a window into what children are interested in, and able to achieve, at different stages of their development. The theory describes how children's ways of doing and thinking evolve over time, and under which circumstance children are more likely to let go of—or hold onto—their currently held views. Piaget suggests that children have very good reasons not to abandon their worldviews just because someone else, be it an expert, tells them they're wrong. Papert's constructionism, in contrast, focuses more on the art of learning, or "learning to learn," and on the significance of making things in learning. Papert is interested in how learners engage in a conversation with (their own or other people's) artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed learning, and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge. He stresses the importance of tools, media, and context in human development. Integrating both perspectives illuminates the processes by which individuals come to make sense of their experience, gradually optimizing their interactions with the world.

   

• Bar-El, D., & Worsley, M. (2019, June). Tinkering with Music: Designing a maker curriculum for an after-school youth club. IDC '19: Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Boise, ID, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323127 (Available in Library E-Reserves)
  

  Abstract

  In recent years, researchers have focused on the design and implementation of maker activities across formal and informal settings. As a result, the research community is gradually articulating the challenges and design considerations relating to these settings. These include: tools, facilitation, and curricular requirements. In this paper we present the design and implementation of Tinkering with Music, a 10-week youth club curriculum around popular music appreciation and instrument building with electronics. Reflecting on our design and implementation, we report on: (1) our curricular activities; (2) design challenges which we had to overcome throughout implementation; and (3) a failure to engender long-term engagement with tools and practices of the curriculum.

   

Assignments due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 4 Summary of Readings
• Module 4 Discussion: Learning by Constructing

Required reading:

• Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–114). (Available in Library E-Reserves)
  

  You may also read more about the project on the Teaching for Understanding page.

Additional resources (recommended):

• Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for understanding. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 17(3), 8, 28–35.

Assignments due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 5 Summary of Readings
• Module 5 Discussion: Sharing Perspectives on Understanding

Assignment due Friday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Post TFU design blueprint to discussion forum

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Provide peer reviews of classmates’ TFU design blueprints

Required reading:

• Lu, J., Bridges, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2014). Problem-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 298–318). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.019

Choose one from the following supplemental readings, based on relevance to your career/interests:

• Navy, S., Edmondson, E., Maeng, J., Gongzi, A., & Mannarino, A. (2019). How to create problem-based learning units: Understanding the PBL planning process.  Science and Children. 56(5), 68-72.

  Abstract

  This article provides a PBL example and template for creating PBL lessons that are tied to standards. The example presented is in the domain of earth sciences.

• O’Brian, E., Hamburg, I., & Southern, M. (2019). Using technology‐oriented, problem‐based learning to support global workplace learning. In V. Kenon & S. Vasant Palsole (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of global workplace learning (pp. 591–609).
  Abstract

  This chapter presents a research paper on PBL in the workplace environment. It discusses the PBL platform and steps for creating PBL, ending with research findings.
• Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history.  Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 21–56.

  Abstract

  This research investigates how multimedia resources can be designed to support problem-based learning in secondary history classrooms. The focus of the PBL is on the process of learning historical empathy.

Additional resources (recommended):

• Cindy Hmelo-Silver: Problem-Based Learning webinar (1:49:00 in length)

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 7 Summary of Readings
• Prepare for the PBL design blueprint

Required readings:

• Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.018

  Abstract

  This chapter presents features of project-based learning environments, based on learning sciences theory. The authors state: "project-based learning allows students to learn by doing, to apply ideas, and to solve problems." The authors discuss examples of their own research in the domain of project-based science.

• Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. (1999).  Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(2), 39–59. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/BF02299464

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 8 Summary of Readings
• Prepare for the PBL design blueprint

Assignments due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Post PBL design blueprint to discussion forum

Required reading:

• Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 501–521). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.030

Choose one from the following supplemental readings, based on relevance to your career/interests:

• Emerson, L., & Berge, Z. (2018). Microlearning: Knowledge management applications and competency-based training in the workplace. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(2), 125–132.

  Abstract

  The focus of this article is a threefold discussion on microlearning: 1) how microlearning best practices facilitate knowledge acquisition in the workplace by engaging and motivating employees through short, personalized, just-in-time learning; 2) ways microlearning integrates with knowledge management applications through situational mentoring; and 3) how competency-based microlearning, via subscription learning, is both an innovative approach to e-learning and an asset to learning organizations focused on improving the performance of their employees.

• Squire, K. (2012).  Mobile media learning: Ubiquitous computing environments for the mobile generation. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom. Springer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_13

  Abstract

  The focus of this chapter is on how mobile technologies create new opportunities for learning outside of formal classrooms. Squire presents three case study “exemplars” of using mobile media for learning: (1) an augmented reality game, Saving Lake Wingra, a place-based augmented reality (AR) curriculum unit designed around Lake Wingra in Madison, Wisconsin; (2) an AR game called Mentira, which is used in a Spanish class at University of New Mexico and involves students going out into Spanish-speaking neighborhoods to practice language and better understand culture within communities; and (3) Mobile-Design Workshop, which discusses how high school students create mobile AR gaming experiences.

• van’t Hooft, M. (2012).  The potential of mobile technologies to connect teaching and learning inside and outside of the classroom. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom. Springer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_12

  Abstract

  This chapter (like Squire above) focuses on how mobile technologies create new opportunities for learning outside of formal classrooms. Three case study “exemplars” of using mobile media for learning are presented: (1) Frequency 1550, a GPS-enabled learning game that allows high school students to learn about the history of Medieval Amsterdam; (2) MyArtSpace, a mobile learning experience that connects classrooms and an Art Museum; and (3) the Geohistorian Project, which involves digital storytelling to help students think like historians.

• Dunleavy, M. (2014). Design principles for augmented reality learning. TechTrends, 58(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0717-2

  Abstract

  Augmented reality is an emerging technology that utilizes mobile, context-aware devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets) that enable participants to interact with digital information embedded within the physical environment. This overview of design principles focuses on specific strategies that instructional designers can use to develop AR learning experiences. A review of the literature reveals the following three design principles as instructive: (a) enable and then challenge (challenge); (b) drive-by gamified story (fantasy); and (c) see the unseen (curiosity). These design principles can also be viewed as an attempt to either leverage the unique affordances of AR or minimize the limitations of the medium as reported in the literature (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014). As the field matures and more research teams explore the potential of AR to enhance teaching and learning, it will be critical to determine the design techniques that optimize the unique affordances of AR, minimize the limitations of the medium, and ultimately enhance learning across the curriculum. 

• Lee, V., & Drake, J. (2013). Quantified recess: Design of an activity for elementary students involving analyses of their own movement data. In J. P. Hourcade, E. A. Miller & A. Egeland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 273-276). ACM.

  Abstract

  Recess is often a time for children in school to engage recreationally in physically demanding and highly interactive activities with their peers. This paper describes a design effort to encourage fifth-grade students to examine sensitivities associated with different measures of center by having them analyze activities during recess . . . over the course of a week using Fitbit activity trackers and TinkerPlots data visualization software. We describe the activity structure [of] some observed student behaviors during the activity. We also provide a descriptive account, based on video records and transcripts, of two students who engaged thoughtfully with their recess data and developed a more sophisticated understanding of when and how outliers affect means and medians.

• Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58(1), 77–83.

  Abstract

  This paper advocates for place-based education to guide research and design for mobile computers used in outdoor informal environments (e.g., backyards, nature centers and parks). By bringing together research on place-based education with research on location awareness, we developed three design guidelines to support learners to develop robust science-related understandings within local communities. The three empirically-derived design guidelines are: (1) Facilitate participation in disciplinary conversations and practices within personally-relevant places, (2) Amplifying observations to see the disciplinary-relevant aspects of a place, and (3) Extending experiences through exploring new perspectives, representations, conversations, or knowledge artifacts. Last, we link theory to practice by illustrating how the three guidelines were applied in one outdoor science learning project called Tree Investigators.

Assignment due Friday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Provide peer reviews of classmates’ PBL design blueprints

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 10 Summary of Readings
• Prepare for the Seamless, Mobile Learning design blueprint

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Post Seamless, Mobile Learning design blueprint

Required readings:

• Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with Web 2.0 technologies. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies (pp. 93–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_7
• Greenhow, C., & Li, J. (2013). Like, comment, share: Collaboration and civic engagement within social network sites. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies (pp. 127–141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_9

Assignment due Friday, November 20, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Provide peer reviews of classmates’ Seamless, Mobile Learning design blueprints.

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Module 12 Summary of Readings
• Prepare for the Learning Communities design blueprint

None

Assignment due Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Post Learning Communities design blueprint to discussion forum

None

Assignments due Friday, 11:59 p.m. (ET)

• Reflection assignment