What are Student Designers taking away from the Process of Making AEM Sims

• In Event: Advancing Math Motivation, Engagement and Persistence: Insights from Digital Interventions and Research-Practice Partnerships

Abstract

Objectives: Despite ongoing efforts for teachers to practice ambitious and equitable mathematics teaching through simulations (e.g., Author 1; Author 2 et al.), how can their design better attend to the experiences of the students most marginalized in those classrooms? To address this, we co-designed simulations with students for teachers to practice both ambitious and equitable mathematics teaching as a form of systemic intervention (Horn & Garner, 2022; Penuel, 2016). We aimed to investigate how students experienced the co-design process as a way to center their voices and whether the process was generative and affirming for the students involved.

Theoretical perspectives: While there have been calls to include student voice in design work toward systemic change in teaching and learning (e.g., Bang & Vossoughi, 2016; Vossoughi et al., 2016, it has not been frequently included in the design of simulations for teacher learning. Knowing that co-design is a culturally sustaining approach that not only elevates student voice but also draws on students’ lived experiences and cultural funds of knowledge (Champion et al., 2020), positioning students as co-designers of simulations has the potential to afford richer practice experiences for teachers. In particular, the process of restorying students’ inequitable mathematics learning experiences through the co-design of simulations intentionally centers their voice within teacher practice (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016).

Methods and data sources: We created and implemented a co-design institute where students drew on their mathematical learning experiences to develop and playtest digital clinical simulations (DCS) for teachers to practice ambitious and equitable teaching strategies (Booker & Goldman, 2016). Following the institute, students were divided into focus groups of 3–4 and participated in 30-minute semi-structured interviews to discuss their experience. We employed open coding to make sense of how students interpreted the co-design process, particularly their understanding of the role of teachers in enacting equitable instruction (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Results: Interviews with the student co-designers revealed how they experienced a deep attention to their voices, and how that could have implications beyond the design institute. First, almost all students shared that the institute gave them the opportunity to share their thoughts on how teacher decision-making could be more ambitious and equitable. Because the institute resulted in simulations based on their restorying, students named how their experiences were tangibly taken up towards supporting teachers in their professional growth. Finally, students also articulated how such experiences rarely happened within school settings. As one student shared, “But like, I feel like when I do this, I feel like I have a say in my education and other students’ educations, which makes my opinion feel valued.”

Significance and Implications: Including student voice in the design of simulations has the potential to provide educators with vital insights into equitable instruction that might otherwise be overlooked. As co-designers and in their reflection of the institute, students valued the agency they had in shaping teaching and learning. Co-designing DCS with students offers teachers expanded opportunities to practice ambitious teaching that meaningfully integrates equity by centering students’ lived experiences and perspectives in simulation design.

Authors

• Pelin Jackson, Boston University

• Juliana Isabela Ayala, Boston University

• Arielle Vargas, Boston University

• Gregory Benoit, Boston University

• Erin Barno, ETS