Image by mcmurryjulie from Pixabay
This blog post discusses the development of an Educator CIRCLS workshop aimed to “translate” or disseminate computer science education research findings to practitioners while promoting AI literacy.
Have you ever played the telephone game, where a sentence is whispered into someone’s ear and passed from person to person, until the final person reveals the message aloud to see how closely it aligns with what was originally said? I am frequently reminded of this childhood game in my role as the Broader Impacts Project Coordinator at the University of Pittsburgh and CIRCLS, where I think about how we can “translate” research into practice for practitioners; however, the game has become much more challenging due to the technical terminology, academic jargon (e.g., research methodologies), and other contextual phrases that are often included within the message being communicated. Moreover, all of the players have individual “language barriers” (e.g., prior knowledge, experience, expertise, etc.) that add another layer of difficulty to ensure the mediated message is comprehensive for all.
My broader impacts position, inspired by the National Science Foundation (NSF) merit review criteria, was created as an avenue for broadly disseminating research on emerging technologies for teaching and learning—similar to programs such as Research Practice Partnerships (RPP) or Research Experiences for Teachers (RET). I was drawn to this opportunity because I feel it is critical not only for educators to learn about and understand education research, but also for researchers to consider the direct impact of their work on practice. I firmly believe in the importance of bridging the gap that currently exists between research and practice by promoting partnerships among all stakeholders, which can include further engagement in participatory research and involvement in co-design models.
As a former PreK-12 educator and higher education faculty member supporting pre-service teachers, my initial concern about this translation process was thinking about how students and teachers will benefit. From my own experience working in school systems, I have observed an institutional culture where research and policy are “thrown” at teachers through mandates and other recommendations. Educators’ voices are often missing from the conversation and there is not an immediate focus on how to best support their practices, which truly should center on the needs of students. I have also witnessed researchers temporarily engaging with educators for the purpose of conducting a study and then disappearing, which I personally know can feel like a one-sided transaction.
These factors led me to consider novel strategies for research dissemination that could potentially build stronger connections between researchers and practitioners. Specifically, I wanted to explore the development of supplemental curricular resources to be shared with teachers during a workshop so they could have opportunities to: (1) interact with computer science (CS) education concepts and understand their relationship within research findings, (2) experience the role of a learner and researcher, (3) engage in discussion with other educators and researchers about the impact of specific research projects on practice—especially with regard to the integration of emerging technologies, and ultimately to (4) bring elements of their professional learning back into the classroom via guided activities that could be adapted for implementation with students.
It is important to note that these goals were shaped through many discussions with practitioners, especially after having the opportunity to speak directly with 20 educators about their experiences as participants in professional development programs for CS/STEM education. I sought their recommendations for how we might design and structure a workshop to disseminate research findings via our supplemental curricular resources. Throughout these reflective conversations, it was frequently mentioned how most programs tend to be “technocentric” and focus more on “new shiny technology tools” rather than pedagogy for classroom integration or research-based practices and learning theories. Educators advocated for further rigor and inquiry-based activities that immerse them into the research literature, paired with opportunities for collaboration and the exchange of ideas or curricular resources; each of these elements would be intentionally incorporated into our workshop design.
Additionally, I connected with members of interdisciplinary research teams to better understand their different areas of expertise and the methodologies used across projects. I had to consider the application of CS terminology and concepts within each project (many of which were new to me) and pinpoint the key areas to focus on in the translation. Fortunately, I was introduced to a new undergraduate student in the lab who was double majoring in both CS and communication. She was eager to help and became a translator for me when I wore my “learner hat,” similar to how a teacher’s assistant or tutor might provide direct instruction to dive deeper into the content. Likewise, I would then put on my “teacher hat” and explain pedagogical concepts (e.g., scaffolding, asking different levels of questions, Universal Design for Learning- UDL strategies, etc.) or learning theories (e.g., constructivism, sociocultural learning, project-based learning, etc.) while we discussed how we could take research findings and use them to develop supplemental curricula or guided activities for dissemination to educators.
A final consideration in the development of these guided activities was how to simulate the research procedures in an immersive way without the technology equipment. This was necessary because we wanted to acknowledge potential constraints of implementation in schools, such as access issues and the need for further technical support or training—not to mention how expensive these emerging technologies are. Therefore, we engaged in further conversations with the research teams about how we might develop user-friendly prototypes of simulations that educators could interact with on their own devices. Our discussions reminded us that there may be further barriers to research dissemination in the traditional schooling environment including challenges with existing curricula requirements and/or scheduling constraints. For this reason, we decided it might make more sense to frame our activities as supplemental or enrichment materials that can be adapted/remixed across a variety of settings (e.g., after school programs or summer camps).
In summary, these convenings with researchers and practitioners across what Wenger-Trayner and colleagues (2014) refer to as the “boundaries in landscapes of practice” helped us consider the institutional culture bounding each landscape. We found it extremely valuable learning from multiple perspectives and using these insights to help us identify existing boundaries and ways to collectively navigate them.
Key takeaways from the experience are:
- Acknowledge the systemic barriers with regard to education policy and practices in different community settings.
- Engage in learning partnerships by collaboratively negotiating and exploring the existing boundaries. This includes actively listening to all voices (e.g., researchers and practitioners) from different landscapes (e.g., PreK-12 education, higher education, and industry) to create a two-way dialogue of mutual reflection.
- Focus less on the technology and more on the diffusion of innovative ideas as well as the AI literacy needed by ALL stakeholders for advancement of these ideas.
- Develop immersive guided activities that promote further conversations about AI literacy while being grounded in research and learning theories. Be sure to clearly communicate these connections when translating back-and-forth and offer opportunities for reflective discussion.
- Seek feedback at every stage of the iterative process and prioritize the community partnerships across the landscapes of practice above all.
- Remember that the ultimate shared goal or vision is to positively impact the future of learning for students.
Since I personally identify as both a researcher and practitioner, I have learned firsthand the importance of negotiating my own experiences to build a bridge between my understanding of the teaching practice and students’ needs, while also thinking critically about advancing the field of education research. In order to bring these landscapes together, researchers must consider ways to make their work more accessible so they can get the necessary buy-in from teachers that will propel institutional change and innovation in the future of schooling and education. Likewise, educators need to keep seeking opportunities to stay abreast of current research findings, especially to help lead this exploration of new pedagogical practices or emerging technologies that can support teaching and learning. One avenue to achieve this is establishing sustained partnerships between researchers and practitioners through co-design or participatory research. Moreover, the incorporation of “intermediaries” or “knowledge brokers,” which Levin (2013) defines as “people or organizations that translate or transmit research,” similar to my position as a Broader Impacts Project Coordinator, can “play a critical role in the process of diffusing ideas and practices in education” (p. 21). It is my hope that researchers will take into account how emerging scholars, such as school administrators, academic coaches, a subgroup of PreK-12 teachers, post-doctoral students, or graduate students, might be leveraged to help spearhead this essential translation of research into practice.
References:
Levin, B. (2013, February). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of education, 1(1), 2-31. DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3001
Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (Eds.). (2014). Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. Routledge.
About the Author
Cassandra Kelley, Ed.D. has over fifteen years of experience in K-12 and teacher education. She earned her doctorate degree in Learning Technologies from Pepperdine University and is passionate about exploring new tools that can improve teaching and learning. She currently serves as a Broader Impacts Project Coordinator at the University of Pittsburgh and supports CIRCLS with Expertise Exchanges in the AI CIRCLS and Educator CIRCLS sub communities. Cassandra also teaches graduate courses for National University in the Master of Science in Designing Instructional and Educational Technology (MSDIET) Program.
Thank you to Sarina Saran, Deniz Sonmez Unal, Sarah Hampton, Dr. Erin Walker, and Dr. Judi Fusco for their thinking and feedback on this post.
