EDC&I 511

Current Issues in Technology and Education:

The Digital Re-mediation of
Teaching and Learning
Fall Quarter, 2015
3 credits
Time: Thursdays
Place:

#digitalremediation

Instructor: Katie Headrick Taylor

Office: Miller 312c
Office hours: by appointment
Email: kht126@uw.edu
Phone: 206-616-0122
Cell: 615-430-4246

Course Overview and Objectives

The increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, open source software, social media sites, and geolocative
tools is not just changing the technological and scientific practices of professionals; this rapidly expanding
terrain of accessible technology is changing the ways in which non-professionals, including young people,
go about learning and teaching in school, community, and home-based settings. These changes have
implications for our theories of teaching and learning and the ways in which we go about designing new
learning experiences for and with students, young people, and adults.

In this graduate seminar, we will examine the current state of innovative learning practices and the
potential technology has in supporting young people, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders in
re-mediating collaborative processes of learning and teaching across the lifespan. We will explore a
variety of learning technologies and how they have been integrated into school and home-based
practices that used to be considered unplugged (e.g., cooking, doing homework, practicing piano). Our
discussions will critically approach the research in the learning sciences, the sociology of science, and
media studies. We will explore issues related to scaling innovative teaching and learning practices with
new and emerging technologies.

As a student that actively participates in this course, you will:

1. Understand and articulate how processes of teaching and learning are changing in relation to the
ubiquity of technologies in our daily lives;
2. Explore new and emerging technologies and consider their implications for learning and teaching
across a variety of settings;
3. Read, understand, and critically engage with extant research connected to learning, teaching, and
technology across a variety of settings;
4. Design, carry out, and report on a research project that investigates phenomena at the intersection of
learning, teaching, and technology;
5. Consider ways to design instructional approaches that facilitate and support learning with and
through technologies;
6. Understand processes of learning and teaching with technology as dynamic, interdisciplinary, and
connected across settings and people.

Course Structure and Grading

Class participation (15%, discussion of readings, contributions to in-class and online activities)

Assignments (55%)

(10%) Someone/Something You Should Know (SYSK)

(15%) Self-study: Mapping your daily media round

(20%) Analytic memo on intergenerational learning with technology

(10%) Peer review of final course paper

Course project (30%)

(5%) Proposal

(10%) Multimedia presentation

(15%) Final paper

Appointments: Please feel free to chat with me during my office hours and/or by appointment. Visit the
Google Calendar EDC&I 511: Student Appointments here to make an appointment on Tuesday or
Thursday afternoons:

Calendar ID: uw.edu_vuvuj3d8i54pcv2mvfgpgd532g@group.calendar.google.com

Attendance: This is a participation intensive course and we only meet ten times (!). Please do not miss
any class meetings. If you know of an unavoidable upcoming absence, contact me ahead of time so that
we can plan accordingly. You may miss one class without penalty. Two or three absences will lower your
participation grade. If you miss more than three times, you cannot pass the course, and you will need to
withdraw.

Late Arrival/Early Departure: Please be on time. If you arrive late or leave early, your participation
grade will be affected. Chronic lateness may lead to a request that you withdraw from the course.

Required Reading

Doctorow, C. & Wang, J. (2014). In Real Life. New York: Macmillan.

Ito, M., Antin, J., Finn, M., Law, A., Manion, A., Mitnick, S., ... & Horst, H. A. (2009). Hanging
Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Boston: MIT
press.
Schedule

Class
Date Topic Readings In class activities SYSK Projects Due
session

Taylor, Takeuchi,
Technology at & Stevens, in Introductions; Course
Oct. home: Joint press; Leander et expectations; KHT
Week 1 KT
1 media al., 2010 (pp. 329- data share; Readings
engagement 348); Ito et al., discussion
2009 (pp. 1-78)

Ito et al., 2009 (pp.

Technology at 195-242); SYSK: Self-study: Mapping
Oct. KB;
Week 2 home: Learning Steinkuehler, Daily media round your daily media
8 CK
by gaming 2010; Barron et presentations round
al., 2009

Bjrk-Willn, &
Technology in
Aronsson, SRO;
Oct. schools:
Week 3 2014;Kafai, 2006; SYSK:
15 Learning by AP
Doctorow & Wang,
gaming
2014

Technology in ITSE standards

Oct. schools: Wilensky & MV;
Week 4 SYSK: Project proposal
22 Sociotechnical Reisman, 2006; CRP
systems Stevens, 2000

Technology in
communities: *Cole, 2006;
Oct. SYSK; Trip to Seattle KS;
Week 5 Connecting Taylor & Hall,
29 Central Library JM
to/through daily 2013
live

SYSK; Virtual visit

from Erica Halverson; Memo on
Technology in
Nov. Erstad, 2012; Observations on AB; intergenerational
Week 6 communities:
5 Halverson, 2013; intergenerational SK learning with
Learning lives
learning with technology
technology

Technology at Hall, Stevens, &

Nov. SYSK; More JW;
Week 7 work: Blurring Torralba, 2002;
12 observations on MA
boundaries Star, xxxx;
 Wajcman et al., intergenerational
2008 learning

Technology on Hall, Ma, Complete draft of

Nov. the move: Nemirovsky, 2015; HL; final paper to peer
Week 8 SYSK; GPS drawing
19 Embodiment and Ryokai & Agogino, DS reviewer (cc KT,
learning 2013 Google Doc)

Nov.
No class
26

JGCC Design
Technology for Peer review
Dec. Guide; Bilkstein, JG;
Week 9 equity: Smart SYSK; comments (cc KT,
3 xxxx; DiSalvo et JA
designs Google Doc)
al., 2014

Week Dec. SYSK; Final MF;

Course synthesis Final presentations Final product
10 10 presentations NP

Activities and/or Projects

(Ongoing) Twitter

Our class is not huge by some standards, but twenty people still means that there will be discussions
where everyone will not get a turn of talk, even if they want one. For this reason, I am proposing we use
Twitter as a space for backchannel discussion that can run concurrent to class sessions and/or can
provide a space for mini observations we may have as we go through daily life related to our in-class
discussions and activities.

Here are the rules for engagement:

1. You are not required to participate via Twitter;

2. If you do want to participate but do not want to use your personal account, please make a new
account and/or consider using a pseudonym;
3. Do not identify your classmates by anything other than their Twitter handle (i.e., instead of Katie
Taylor use @KayteeTaylor);
4. If posting photos, please no images of classmates faces.

If you would like to participate in discussions on Twitter, please use the hashtag #digitalremediation and I
will add you to our list, Digital Teach & Learn.

(Ongoing) Someone/thing you should know

Each week two people will individually share an event, a tool, a news story, or a scholar related to our
shared objective of understanding teaching and learning with digital media and technology. We will
reserve ten minutes of class for each presentation. Students sharing a SYSK will put some kind of artifact
(e.g., a slide deck, a video) on our Canvas site (due the day you present) that represents the event,
scholar, etc. so we can reference it at a later time.

Self-study: Mapping your daily media round

Record or track where you go and what you do over the course of two days (preferably a weekday and
a weekend day). Then map your daily round using either Google My Maps or some other open source
mapping software you prefer or with which you want to experiment. Each location should be annotated
with information about the nature of the activity you did, and whether or not the location was a technology
hot spot. For an example (of the lowest possible bar)
see: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zd5a96tz1q_k.k2lVCJ2ow7dA&usp=sharing (Links to an
external site.)
You will turn in a link to your daily media round map and a corresponding memo (no more than 4 single-
spaced pages) with your reflections on how this self-study made you think about your technology use in
relation to the places through which you travel, how you spend your time with or without technology, and
any other issues that may have arisen. Obviously, for locations/activities that you wish to remain
confidential, do not include them, or change their location.

Analytic memo on intergenerational learning with technology

Talk to, interview, and/or observe at least two people from different stages of development in relation to
their technology use. Do a comparative analysis about how your participants engage with technology,
what they use it for, and whats most exciting and frustrating about a particular tool, application, or
learning experience. For example, you may want to be specific and compare how your younger sibling
and your grandparent use texting, or you may want to think more generally about what tools and/or
applications your sibling uses that your grandparent does not, and vice versa. Discuss some major
themes or analytic constructs that emerge from this comparison and how these relate to some of the
readings youve done in this course so far, and your own research interests/questions.

(Ongoing) Final project

The final project for this course will be scaffolded over several stages. You have three options for a final
paper and project:

(1) A Learning Technology Study: Based on the aforementioned data collection and analysis
assignment, you can elect to write it up into a full-fledged study. It should take a form appropriate to the
type of research conducted. Your annotated bibliography should review the literature relevant to your
study.

(2) Critical Review of a Genre of Learning Technology: If you are specifically interested in one of the
genres that we explore, you may opt to write a critical review paper that defines the genre and
synthesizes what is known about it. Your annotated bibliography should include an overview of the genre
you select and other pieces that advance your analysis.

(3) An Argument for a New Learning Technology Genre: You may have an idea for a genre (or sub-
genre) of learning technology that is novel and not addressed in this course. You can make an argument
for why the new form should exist (or at least be explored). Your paper should take the form of a white
paper or research proposal. Your annotated bibliography should review pieces from the literature that
allow you to advance your argument.

You will first turn in a project proposal to me on October 15th that will give me an idea of what topic you
are planning to pursue. I will respond to your proposal by the following week. You will then turn in a
complete draft of your paper to a peer (cc me) for comments. You will present the big ideas of your
course paper during the final session of class (Dec. 10) in a multimedia presentation. The final paper is
due on Monday, December 14th, 2015. Papers should follow APA guidelines.

References

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., & Fithian, R. (2009). Parents as learning partners in the
development of technological fluency.International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 55-77.

Bjrk-Willn, P., & Aronsson, K. (2014). Preschoolersanimation of computer games. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 21(4), 318-336.

Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning
environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81-119.

Cole, M., & Distributive Literacy Consortium. (2006). The fifth dimension: An after-school program built on
diversity. Russell Sage Foundation.
DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Bruckman, A., & McKlin, T. (2014). Saving face while geeking out: Video game
testing as a justification for learning computer science.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 272-315.

Doctorow, C. & Wang, J. (2014). In Real Life. New York: Macmillan.

Erstad, O. (2012). The learning lives of digital youthbeyond the formal and informal. Oxford Review of
Education, 38(1), 25-43.

Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E- learning, 2(1), 5-16.

Halverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art making as a representational process.Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 22(1), 121-162.

Ito, M., Antin, J., Finn, M., Law, A., Manion, A., Mitnick, S., ... & Horst, H. A. (2009). Hanging Out,

Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Boston: MIT press.

Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping
new mobilities. Review of Research in Education,34(1), 329-394.

Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning instructionist and constructionist perspectives
for game studies. Games and culture, 1(1), 36-40.

Takeuchi, L., & Stevens, R. (2011). The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media
engagement. In New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video-game literacy: A literacy of expertise. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, D.
J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 635-669). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Star, S. L. (1990). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to
onions. The Sociological Review,38(S1), 26-56.

Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Video games and digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1),
61-63.

*Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, M.
Knobel, C. Lankshear, D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611-634). New York,
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stevens, R. R. (2000). Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer and paper-
supported activities across settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 373-401.

Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to
reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,18(1-2), 65-93.

Taylor, K.H., Takeuchi, L., & Stevens, R. (in press). Mapping the daily media round: Methodological
innovations for understanding families mobile technology use. International Journal of Learning and
Media.

Wajcman, J., Bittman, M., & Brown, J. E. (2008). Families without borders: Mobile phones,
connectedness and work-home divisions.Sociology, 42(4), 635-652.

Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through
constructing and testing computational theoriesan embodied modeling approach. Cognition and
instruction, 24(2), 171-209.

Access and Accommodations

Your experience in this class is important to us, and it is the policy and practice of the University of
Washington to create inclusive and accessible learning environments consistent with federal and state
law. If you experience barriers based on disability, please seek a meeting with DRS to discuss and
address them. If you have already established accommodations with DRS, please communicate your
approved accommodations to your instructor at your earliest convenience so we can discuss your needs
in this course.

Disability Resources for Students (DRS) offers resources and coordinates reasonable accommodations
for students with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are established through an interactive
process between you, your instructor(s) and DRS. If you have not yet established services through DRS,
but have a temporary or permanent disability that requires accommodations (this can include but not
limited to; mental health, attention-related, learning, vision, hearing, physical or health impacts), you are
welcome to contact DRS at 206-543-8924 or uwdrs@uw.edu or disability.uw.edu (Links to an external
site.).

Academic Integrity
All students are expected to uphold the UW Student Conduct Code and fulfill their responsibility to (1)
uphold the highest standards of academic integrity in the students own work, (2) refuse to tolerate
violations of academic integrity in the university community, and (3) foster a high sense of integrity and
social responsibility on the part of the university community.

Cases of suspected plagiarism and/or academic misconduct such as copying assignments, using
unauthorized notes or information, and/or cheating on an exam will be referred to the COE Assistant
Dean for Academic & Student Affairs for adjudication. Possible penalties range from disciplinary warnings
to dismissal from the university. For more information on this issue, including a useful definition of
plagiarism, read the UW article on Academic Honesty: Cheating and Plagiarism available at:

http://depts.washington.edu/grading/issue1/honesty.htm#plagiarism (Links to an external site.)