Unpacking the Design of a Locally Situated Problem-Based Robotics Experience

• In Event: Educational Responsibilities in Problem-Based Education (PBE): Principles, Practices, and Networks Creating and Supporting PBE

Abstract

Objectives
We explore the enactment of a problem-based robotics experience that engaged local design clients (e.g., nurses, administrators) in junior high school students’ work to address locally situated problems. We look across the trajectory of one iteration of this robotics unit to present 1) key practices used by collaborating teacher and researcher to make unit design changes in real time and 2) design principles that emerged over the course of the unit. 

This study examines not only how a locally situated PBL experience was co-designed by researcher and teacher partners, but also how such a problem was taken up by students as they worked closely with community stakeholders to design robots that addressed local problems. We seek to make visible how collaborative PBL design can empower local change.

Theoretical framework
The robotics curriculum implementation presented here is part of a larger design-based research (DBR) project (Brown, 1992). Taking a DBR approach, we understand the design and implementation of learning experiences via iteration—identifying problems, designing to address them, and implementing micro-cycles of design. Further, we aim to design PBL experiences that support students’ own navigation of iterative design cycles as they work to solve local problems.
We use DBR to understand how and why curriculum design decisions are made, how these decisions are taken up, and how this uptake informs future design refinements.

Methods and data
We draw upon discourse analysis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) and interactional ethnography (Green & Bridges, 2018) methodologies in our DBR approach. We look across 22 co-design sessions between teacher and researcher partners to identify key design decisions that were made – tracing outward across data sources (e.g., classroom video, student artifacts, design documents) to understand how they came about and what happened after they were implemented. Here, the interactional ethnography practice of “event mapping” is used to orient to trajectories of PBL design decision making, while discourse analysis is used to make sense of the fine-grained interactions that occur across events.

Results and significance
Key design decisions made over the course of this robotics unit centered on how to meaningfully integrate local stakeholders as “design clients.” This integration was continuously shaped by co-design that involved viewing video of classroom interaction in near real time and co-design scaffolds (e.g., conjecture maps and reflective prompts around video viewing). For example, scaffolds were introduced and refined to support students’ communication with design clients as we recognized specific challenges student groups had articulating their design ideas. Co-design partners found that ongoing interaction with design clients held students accountable as designers. Having design prototypes validated by local communities at multiple time points made this PBL experience more “authentic” than any we had designed before it.

In sum, this study provides insights into the design of locally situated PBL experiences that inspire change—positing that iterative and real time co-design of PBL and recurring integration of local stakeholders can support nuanced problem solving that extends beyond the classroom.

Authors

• Andrea Sarah Gomoll, Indiana University - Bloomington

• Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Indiana University

• Selma Sabanovic, Indiana University