STEM Studio: Scientists and Science Educators Learning and Collaborating Together About STEM-Related Educational Design

• In Event: Learning to Engage: Scientists, Engineers, Educators, and Youth in Learning Collaborations

Abstract

Purpose
Partnerships between scientists and science educators are not without their challenges, such as understanding each other’s languages and modes of inquiry. Yet these partnerships can be fruitful with respect to the design of learning environments and artifacts (e.g., curricula, online spaces) in a myriad of contexts and in collaboration with diverse publics. This paper highlights the STEM Studio, a design studio that supports these collaborations through the use of studio-based practices. The STEM Studio is composed of a diverse group of scientists (e.g., chemists, computer scientists) and science educators (e.g., focused on environmental education, science assessment), who are committed to the study of how they learn from each other and from various community members to better support individual and collective design goals. The analysis we report on in this paper explores the following question: How do scientists and science educators learn from each other and various collaborators in the STEM Studio, and what are important features of this learning?

Theoretical Framework
To explore this question, we utilize sociocultural lenses on learning (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), focused specifically on learning’s relationship with language use (e.g., Gumperz & Hymes, 1986) and sociomaterial practices (cf., Dreier, 2009). With respect to images of design, we use Crismond and Adams’ (2012) design matrix to help us attend to specific characteristics of design practices. We use studio-related literature to theorize about design practices in the STEM Studio and elsewhere in fields such as art and theater that make heavy use of studio practices (e.g., Cennamo et al., 2011). Lastly, we use Hoffman-Riem et al.’s (2008) conceptions of transdisciplinarity (e.g., boundary crossing between academic cultures, engaging societal and community-based problems in collaboration with members of those communities).

Methods
Participants included Studio members, as well as community collaborators. Sites included university classrooms and studio spaces, as well as community-based organizations. We collected qualitative data during our interactions in the STEM Studio, and during our observations of, and interviews with, collaborators. Data sources included: video and audio recordings, digital photographs, field notes, and documents.

Results
We found that our learning within the STEM Studio was influenced by several factors. In general, participation structures were important (e.g., workshopping educational designs in mixed groups – scientists and science educators – ensured the most robust feedback). Second, language cues, both verbal and nonverbal, were important markers of understanding (or lack thereof) of feedback. Third, what we call willingness to engage is crucial. Very few members of the Studio had prior experience displaying their designs for public critique, and their ability to trust the studio processes we employed (e.g., desk crits) was crucial to individual and collective learning.

Scholarly Significance
Learning how to help scientists and science educators engage in public scholarship and collaborate with diverse publics involves ensuring that they learn how to listen to each other and these publics, learn how to speak aspects of each other’s languages, and learn to accept and effectively use critique. This paper contributes to scholarship by studying learning within a studio-based, collaborative, educational design shop.

Author

• Leah A. Bricker, University of Michigan