BackHome
Refresh: Off
Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

A Tool to Support Students’ Collaborative Creation of Human Behavioral Studies (Poster 4)

Sat, April 13, 1:15 to 2:45pm, Pennsylvania Convention Center, Floor: Level 100, Room 118B

Abstract

As research is a creative and collaborative process (Aragon et al., 2009), teaching it presents unique classroom orchestrational challenges: Teachers must guide diverse learners in developing knowledge and skills both in the domain and in the collaborative design process. Building on perspectives in classroom orchestration (Hämäläinen et al., 2011), creativity support tools (Shneiderman, 2001), and an open science model (Fecher & Friesike, 2014), our theoretical conceptualization of the research design process is in terms of four iterative phases that can be supported by technology: (1) collecting models from repositories of existing work (i.e., exploring existing research upon which to build); (2) relating to peers through consultation at various stages (i.e., conducting peer review); (3) creating multiple possible solutions (i.e., proposing possible research studies); and (4) donating one’s creations to a repository (i.e., publishing one’s research study). Here, we focus on the “creation” phase to ask: What are teachers’ experiences using technology to orchestrate student teams in designing their own research studies?
Our study uses the web-based platform, MindHive (mindhive.science) (Author et al., 2022), which supports students in creating, peer reviewing, and participating in research studies on human behavior within and across schools. MindHive’s Proposal Canvas offers digital cards that allow students to structure their study designs (e.g., “research question,” “participants,” “procedure”); assign tasks to team members; update task statuses (“in progress,” “needs feedback,” etc.); and exchange comments among peers and teachers. Meanwhile, teachers can create class networks and track and provide feedback on students’ activities.
We conducted thematic analyses (Braun & Clarke, 2012) of data on teachers’ experiences from 6 US-based science teachers across 6 urban high schools who used MindHive in their science classes during two academic years, of whom some chose to use MindHive's Proposal Canvas, and others to guide students’ proposal development outside of MindHive. Data include (1) notes from bi-weekly teacher meetings; (2) two end-of-year, 2-hour debriefing focus group sessions in which teachers reflected on their experiences guiding student teams.
Our findings illustrate teachers’ challenges in scaffolding students’ proposal generation, and appreciation for how “the [proposal] cards made the struggle more specific,” allowing them to target their guidance. Teachers furthermore noted how in-person vs. virtual interaction impacted collaborative contributions: “One [student] takes the lead on doing the computer stuff and then the others easily back out of participating.” Yet, teachers noted that the digital cards structured activities, and that their modifiable statuses encouraged students “to move toward finalization.” Ultimately, most teachers wished to integrate modalities, having students ideate by organizing tangible cards, “then later turn to the Proposal Canvas [...] to layout and get organized.” They further discussed how MindHive might facilitate collaboration at different stages, such as in forming student teams; peer review partners; and matches between students and MindHive’s science mentors (e.g., based on personal or career path affinities). Findings suggest opportunities for technology to structure students’ collaborative research, while also allowing teachers to adapt and optimize those processes with in-person activities.

Authors