CHAPTER 19 Diversity-by-Design: The What, Why, and How of Generativity in Next-Generation Classroom Networks Walter M. Stroup University of Texas at Austin Nancy Ares University of Rochester Andrew C. Hurford University of Texas at Austin Richard Lesh Indiana University ‘This chapter describes two interacting strands of 21st century learning and teach- ing: group-situated design and the use of highly interactive classroom networks, Rolagve to design, perhaps the most obvious and yet underutilized feature of most classrooms is that they involve groups of people. The potential exists for teaching to be much more than a parallel delivery system for individual students (eg. tutoring); and “the class” can be much more than either a physically proxi- inate collection of individuals or an undifferentiated monolith. Given this poten tial, we ask: How can we better design for group-situated learning and teaching interactions? How can a new generation of highly interactive classroom networks extend possibilities associated with group-situated design? ‘The goal of this chapter is to describe a practical approach for creating more fully participatory learning and teaching—in particular, one that makes full use of the capabilities of next-generation classroom networks in conjunction with What we call generative design. According to Stroup, Ares, & Hurford (2005, p. 188) generative design involves “orchestrating classroom activity in ways that Eccasion productive and creative engagement by participants, characterized by increased. personal and collective agency.” Such activities are generative in a sense similar to those described by Lesh, Yoon, and Zawojewski earlier in this book, That is, students generate knowledge by repeatedly expressing, testing, 307368 _ STROUP ET AL and revising their own ways of thinking—rather than being guided row trajectories toward cleaned-up and oversimplified versions of their understandings. To address the preceding goal, we describe the whet, why, and how approach to formal education where diversity-by-design is emphasized terms of ideas and in ways of participating, Relevant forms of diversity may i a variety of native languages, communication practices, and interaction pa OVERVIEW This chapter begins with an introductory account of what we mean by g design and its relationship to issues of diversity—focusing specifically on contexts. To do this, we extend and update several important theoretical fo tions of prior research on generative teaching and learning. Next, we describe, ways that network technologies can effectively support generative classroom vities; we also describe a theoretical framework that has proven to be useful fy designing for diversity—for moving beyond individualistic frameworks and. grates aspects of sociocultural perspectives on learning and teaching as well as ™matist philosophy’s perspectives on representational sense making. This theo framework then serves as the foundation for a pedagogically focused discussion ways to advance diversity-by-design in actual classroom practice—with a parti ‘emphasis on currently underserved students. Using next-generation technology networks, this generative approach shi classroom activities beyond monologues (teacher talk) toward more diverse ar participatory forms of student-teacher and student-student communication; encourages the development and use of shared communication patterns and cultural and linguistic resources that students bring with them to class; in general, it helps students develop what Yakubinskii (1923) calls “apperceptual mass” —the tacit but powerful forms of shared, group-situated, communication patterns (p. 156, quoted in Wertsch, 1985, p. 87). Overall, our goal is to create teaching and learning activities that promote the development of an emergent ecology where, as is the case in a healthy natural ecological system, diverse participation supports both the development of indi- viduals in the class and the development of the community (or ecological system) _ asa whole. UPDATING GENERATIVE TEACHING AND. LEARNING FOR GROUP DESIGN We focus on generativity partly because a significant research literature about gene- rative approaches to teaching and learning already exists. Generative teaching, as discussed by Wittrock (1991), is “a model of the teaching of comprehension and the learning of the types of relations that learners must construct between stored knowledge, memories of experience, and new information for comprehension to occur” (p. 170). Generative learning in Wittrock’s framework involves students’ abilities to create artifacts that embody their constructed understandings in relation to prior knowledge. In a similar fashion, researchers from the Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University emphasize creating “shared environments that permitsustained exploration by students and teachers” in a manner that mirrors the Kinds of problems, opportunities, and tools engaged by experts (Learning Technology Center, 1992, p. 78). Here again, teaching involves “anchoring or situating instruction in meaningful, problem-solving contexts that allow one to Simulate in the classroom some of the advantages of apprenticeship learning” ip- 78). While these and other approaches" are generative at the level of indivi dual learners, or perhaps even at the level of a small group, they do not provide ‘clear picture of how to structure cross-individual or cross sub-group learning in classrooms. ‘Our current efforts are directed toward extending and, in some ways, recon- ceptualizing these earlier analyses of generativity to make them relevant to the development of group learning and classroom learning communities. The goal is to investigate how to use group-oriented technologies” to design instruction in a way that capitalizes on the multiplicity of learners’ existing ideas and insights, and that supports the on-going development of powerful new forms of mathematical and. scientific reasoning (Stroup, 1997a; Stroup, 2002a, 2002b; Stroup et al, 2002; Stroup, Ares & Hurford, 2005; Lesh et al., 2000) WHAT ARE KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERATIVE DESIGN? Because generative design emphasizes student expressivity and inquiry, generative activities quite often are intended to be playful,’ and, because (in our case) they are intended to encourage the development of important mathematical and scientific constructs, the underlying designs for the artifacts that students are challenged to produce should embody relevant concepts and conceptual systems. Furthermore, because the development of sufficiently useful ways of thinking generally requires several iterative cycles in which current conceptions are expressed, tested, and revised, it also is important for design specifications to be stated in such a way that they give rise to several rounds of generative exploration and/or detailed investi- gation, Therefore, they should be “thought revealing” in the sense described by Lesh, Hoover, Hole, Kelly, & Post (2000), or Lesh, Carmona, & Post (2002). “Other eames include: Senge (1998) who aimed “for leering organization, ‘adaptive lean’ must be jined by generative learning lemming that enhances our capacity to crest” p14), Peaps most sig tient ins connections to the saciocultral analyses taken up more directly later in this chapter fs Paulo Frere etal’ (V0) se of “generative words” in ways that explore the “creative pay of combinations {p.87 tocreate new words as prt of developing iteracy with adult earners in Bra (ee also Callahan, 19% Soup 1970), teraction of tchology, content, an peda sogy. We most certainly ace not advancing any sense that the technology of next-generation network, in themselves serve to daeenine the natre ofthe leaning and teaching experience (cf Paper, 199). Indeed, Sswediscus herein and elsewhere, the technologies of classroom networks can be use to support distinctly iingeneratve approaches to teaching ad leaning (et, Stoup, etal, 2002; Stroup, Ares Huron, 205; ‘hres Sroup, & schademar, 205, in feview; Ares, 208) 1 ths reason Our neusion of the phrase “nest stneraton” i to point tothe possiblity of moving beyond these previous uses. “in conserng how play actully works or children tis important o emphasize that play not simply an “anything goes” sao afar Instead play an organized form of activity The premise that Durkheim, Vygotsky, and Piaget share “that thinking a cognitive development involves portipting informs of soil activity constituted by systems of shred rues that have to be trosped ard voluntarily accepted. The system of rues serves, in fact to constitute the play situation ite Inurn hese rus derive their force from the chs enjoyment of and comatment othe share activity the play-world”(Neslopoulu, 193, p14).