Funded SOTL Research: Indiana University’s Communities of Inquiry  

Making Learning Authentic: A graduate research methods course redesign and implementation case

Summary of Original Proposal

Krista Glazewski, Jiyoon Jung, Janet Liao (Instructional Systems Technology)

Situating learners in an authentic context poses challenges to instructors, as it requires designing a learning activity that is both authentic and manageable in class and supporting it in a different way. In this regard, we examine a course redesign case where disciplinary research methods are taught through authentic learning activity (i.e., practice research) that targets an undergraduate course as its research site. We examine instructional changes and learning outcomes from this redesigned course. The instructional changes include: (1) Authentic practice research that continues throughout the semester, is focused on a single research topic, and involves using a number of research techniques. (2) Role distribution and weekly curriculum discussion meetings between the instructor and TAs. (3) End-of-the-semester reflection on the overall learning experience (4) Post-semester sharing of the practice research findings. Using the case study method (Yin, 2013), primary data will be collected from graded student coursework and two additional activities: graduate student reflection about learning, and instructor-TA reflection about teaching. The outcomes of this project will include a description of the authentic practice research activity, summaries on the role of the instructional changes and the kinds of learning, and materials from the reflection activities. The study findings and project outcomes can be used to inform practitioners and researchers who are interested in using authentic learning activities for complex learning goals. It also has implications to those who want to promote collaboration between their graduate research methods course and undergraduate course.

Cover Sheet

2013 Fall SoTL Grant Proposal

Making Learning Authentic : A graduate research methods course redesign and implementation case

Due 10/18/13

Project Title Making Learning Authentic: A graduate research methods course

redesign and implementation case. Investigators Dr. Krista Glazewski (Instructional Systems Technology))

Jiyoon Jung (Instructional Systems Technology) Janet Liao (Instructional Systems Technology)

Contact Email Dr. Krista Glazewski (glaze@indiana.edu) Jiyoon Jung (jung33@indiana.edu)

Funding Level Phase II - $5000 Funding Duration December 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015

Abstract

Situating learners in an authentic context poses challenges to instructors, as it requires designing a learning activity that is both authentic and manageable in class and supporting it in a different way. In this regard, we examine a course redesign case where disciplinary research methods are taught through authentic learning activity (i.e., practice research) that targets an undergraduate course as its research site.

The process and rationale for redesigning the course provided, we examine instructional changes and learning outcomes from this redesigned course. The instructional changes include: (1) authentic practice research that continues throughout the semester, is focused on a single research topic, and involves using a number of research techniques; (2) role distribution and weekly curriculum discussion meetings between the instructor and TAs; (3) end-of-the-semester reflection on the overall learning experience; and (4) post-semester sharing of the practice research findings.

Using the case study method (Yin, 2013), primary data will be collected from graded student coursework and two additional activities: graduate student reflection about learning and instructor-TA reflection about teaching.

The outcomes of this project will include a description of the authentic practice research activity, summaries on the role of the instructional changes and the kinds of learning, and materials from the reflection activities. The study findings and project outcomes can be used to inform practitioners and researchers who are interested in using authentic learning activities for complex learning goals. It also has implications to those who want to promote collaboration between their graduate research methods course and undergraduate course.  

  1  

Project Description Purpose

Situating learners in an authentic context poses challenges to instructors, as it requires designing a learning activity that is both authentic and manageable in class and supporting it in a different way. In this regard, we examine a course redesign case where disciplinary research methods are taught through authentic learning activity (i.e., practice research) that targets an undergraduate course as its research site.

Previously, the redesign process, including the theoretical considerations and judgments made about the instructional changes, has been described (see Appendix). As a next step, the following questions will be asked regarding the implementation of this redesigned course:

• What roles did the instructor assume about the instructional changes? • What roles did the students perceive about the instructional changes? • What do learning outcomes look like? • Where do students attribute their learning?

Significance of the Study

This study emphasizes the role of instructor in consciously designing an authentic activity for a course with novice learners and complex learning goals. The study also focuses on the openness of the learning outcomes and how learners construct knowledge. Attempts to tie the learning outcomes observed back to the instructional changes will also be made. In general, the findings could inform practitioners who attempt to design and implement such learning activities, as well as researchers who investigate instructional design for authentic learning activities.

Moreover, this trial serves as precedent in describing how graduate learning could be tied to undergraduate learning in a potentially enhancing manner. The unique design of the authentic learning activity allows the learning outcomes of R690 students to feed back to the learning experiences of W200 students, through W200 instructors. In other words, W200 provides a venue for authentic research experience in R690; and the outcomes of this authentic research activity can be used to improve future teaching and learning in W200. Specifically, sharing of the R690 outcomes will be carried out at a post-semester presentation with the W200 instructors in 2014 Spring. Project Outcomes

• A written report describing the final budget and student learning • Proposal submissions to conferences (e.g., AECT, AERA; see Budget Narrative) • A project website to disseminate the outcomes • Artifacts from the project outcomes to promote real-world usage, such as:

  2  

Description Contribution (Usage) From the study findings

Summaries on the role of the instructional changes and the kinds of learning

Instructors can use it a just-in-time guide in designing authentic activities.

From the process

Description of the authentic learning activity used with annotations on the design judgments made to balance between authentic activity vs. classroom activity

Researchers can use it as an example of an authentic activity on learning how to social sciences research. (For a draft, see Appendix)

Two sets of prompting questions for the reflection activities to guide the reflective thinking about the teaching and learning experiences

These questions can be used as templates for other practitioners who attempt to have a similar kind of reflection activity.

Research Method

To address the research questions, Yin’s (2013) guideline to the case study methods was adopted. The case is the redesign course (e.g., R690) and the unit of analysis is the shared experience of each participant role within the redesigned course.

Context. A redesigned course. R690 (Application to Research Methods to IST Issues) is a

required course in the Instructional Systems Technology Ph.D program at IU. To teach a variety of disciplinary research methods, the course had adopted instructional design suggestions from situated learning proponents. As a result, the following instructional changes were made: (1) authentic practice research that continues throughout the semester, is focused on a single research topic, and involves using a number of research techniques; (2) role distribution and weekly curriculum discussion meetings between the instructor and TAs; (3) end-of-the-semester reflection on the overall learning experience; and (4) post-semester sharing of the practice research findings (optional for R690 students). The design considerations and judgments are described in the Appendix. In this regard, the course is currently structured around one authentic learning activity that involve graduate students investigating the concept of case-based reasoning from an IU undergraduate course, W200 (Technology Integrate in K-12 Education), as it uses cases to teach reasoning of how to appropriately integrate technology to curriculum.

Classroom, participants, and roles. The classroom allows for a flexible

positioning of the tables and chairs to afford various teaching approaches, such as mini-lectures, small group or full class discussions, and access to an instructor computer, a projector, and the wireless Internet. Total of 11 people are participating in the study. Eight of them are 1st year doctoral students who have not had graduate-level research methods courses before. Three of them are investigators in this project and are also the instructor and TAs of the course. The two voluntary TAs are advanced doctoral students who have had taken the course and are at different stages in the doctoral program (4th year and 2nd year). The instructor and TAs have weekly meetings during the semester to reflect

  3  

on the previous class and discuss strategies for the next one. The instructor and TAs will also have a retrospective reflection on the course redesign and learning outcomes observed after the semester with the course materials and student samples. TAs are as involved in the classroom conversations and activities as the instructor, while the instructor takes the leading role. In other words, the different social roles typically played by a single instructor are now distributed amongst these three.

Authentic learning activity. Based on the instructional changes adopted (see

Appendix), R690 is designed around an authentic learning activity (i.e., practice research) that continues through out the semester, is focused on a single research topic (i.e., case-based reasoning), and involves using a number of research techniques, both qualitative and quantitative. The activity embedded in the course will broadly follow the sequence of preparation, learning of qualitative data collection and analysis (Phase I), learning of quantitative data collection and analysis (Phase II), and reflection (Table 1). Table1. Authentic learning activity: Practice research on case-based reasoning Preparation • Literature review

• Collaboratively finalizing research questions and interview questions (IRB approval)

Phase I (Qualitative)

• Individually conducting and transcribing interviews (by R690 students with W200 students)

• Collaboratively analyzing transcripts for themes and designing a survey instrument

Phase II (Quantitative)

• Administer the survey to a larger W200 sample • Analyze patterns using SPSS

Reflection • Reflect on the applied research methods and considerations made during the process

Data sources. Data will be collected from graded student coursework from R690 and two

additional activities: graduate student reflection about learning and instructor-TA reflection about teaching. Details are described below.

Graded student coursework. Four graded items on the syllabus that takes up 70% of the R690 course grade are pertinent to addressing the research questions: (1) Thematic analysis of the interview data (15% of the course grade); (2) Pattern analysis of the survey data (25%); (3) critique on a research study (10%); (4) mini-proposal (20%). Among them, the first three show how well learners can apply the knowledge and skills. The mini-proposal has the characteristics of the culminating activity that show evidence of integration of the knowledge and skills learned from the authentic activity. Based on these, a narrative for each student’s learning trajectory and the kinds of learning will be crafted in a narrative format.

  4  

Reflection activities. Graduate students will engage in a semi-structured reflection activity near the end of the semester. The prompting questions will be used to guide students to think about their learning and the teaching methods used by the instructor and TAs. After the semester, the instructor and TAs will engage in a reflective discussion about their overall teaching experience, as well as how they perceived students were learning from their approach. Both activities will be audio-recorded and transcribed for further analysis.

Data Analysis. Graduate student raw data (from coursework and reflection) will be crafted into

individual narratives using a researcher-developed analytic framework (Figure 1) to make explicit the kinds of learning outcomes and the learning trajectory, based on the taxonomy from learning and instruction theories (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999; Reigeluth & Moore, 1999).

Figure 1. Sample analytic framework for student data

The instructor and TA data from the reflection activity will be thematically analyzed (Richards, 2005) through the observed instructor’s action, particularly around the teaching methods they used, to support learning, such as modeling, coaching, and scaffolding (See Appendix for detailed descriptions). We also recognize these conceptions are inter-related (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991; Hatton & Smith, 1995); therefore, the themes can overlap.

Trustworthiness of the researcher interpretation will be addressed by investigators collaboratively discuss the interpretations and use member checking (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2005).

  5  

Success Criteria for the Project The success of the project can be assessed based on:

• Was the project carried out as planned? • Do the investigators agree that the instructional changes served its intended goals? • Would the instructor maintain the instructional changes? • The quality of graduate student data (coursework & reflection)

o Does it show the complexity of their learning? o Does it show the trajectory of their learning?

• The quality of presentation. Did the real audience (W200 instructors): o perceive the findings meaningful? o made any instructional changes based on the findings?

Dissemination Upon the completion of the data analysis, the project will seek for appropriate venues for dissemination.

• Within the IU communities, the findings of the practice research will be presented to the W200 instructors.

• Beyond IU, the findings can be submitted to professional conferences, such as 2014 Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) conference in Jacksonville, FL (Fall, exact time not determined) and 2015 American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in Chicago, IL (April 16-20).

• It will also be publicly available through a project website. Reflective Teaching Practices The redesign was initiated based on the instructor’s reflection on teaching of the same course in the past. Attempts were made to best accommodate the suggestions from the instructional design theory within the natural setting of the higher education (i.e., limited resource and time). Advanced graduates volunteered for TA positions, as they too need the experience of curriculum designing and teaching for the future. The IST topic, case-based reasoning, is chosen as context because it currently receives interest of many scholars in the field, as well as the interest of the instructor-TA. This makes it worthwhile to learn in addition to the primary course goal, learning how to research. Whether the outcomes are as intended or not remains further observation and reflection.

  6  

References Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making

thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38-46. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2005). How to design and evaluate research in

education. (6th Edition). HcGraw-Hill Higher Education. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and

implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. Martin, B.L., & Reigeluth, C. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain:

Implications for instructional design theories and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp. 485-511). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp. 485-511). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yin, R. L. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods: Applied social research methods. (5th Edition). Sage Publications.

  7  

Budget Narrative Data Collection and Analysis • Reward for Interviewees ($5 * 4 gift cards): Using a real research context has a

disadvantage of going off-road, as investigators cannot control the setting. However, we needed each an every graduate student researcher in R690 to have an interview. To satisfactorily recruit interviewee for the practice research, we offered a chance to win $5 worth gift card as the reward for participation (which is also commonly done in the real world research). Total of four gift cards will be purchased.

• NVivo License ($70 * 2 accounts + $125): NVivo is a powerful qualitative data analysis tool. IU provides NVivo for students license for $70 per account, per year. For faculty, it is $125 per year. (see http://rt.uits.iu.edu/visualization/analytics/iu-only/software-prices.php)

• Project Assistants ($12 * 40 hours * 2 people): After the semester, two project assistants will be hired for project data analysis. The assistants will be receiving $12 per hour.

Community Sharing –Presentation of the Practice Research Findings The presentation will be in an informal workshop format. To prepare, $50 will be used for printing, snack & beverage for audience. The presentation audience will be around 10 associate instructors and the supervisors. Total of 21~25 people will participate in the presentation, including the presenters (R690 graduate students, instructor, and TAs). Conference Presentations 2014 Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) conference in Jacksonville, FL (Fall, exact time not determined) and/or 2015 American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in Chicago, IL (April 16-20) are targeted for study dissemination. The funding will be used for the investigators and presenters among the graduate student researchers to support their conference related expenses including conference registration, travel and lodging. *AECT & AERA 2013 Convention Early Registration Rates: AECT: http://aectorg.yourwebhosting.com/events/registration/default.asp#login AERA: http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/AnnualMeeting/2013AnnualMeetingDetails/Registration/tabid/14672/Default.aspx#Rates $400 – AECT Conference (Regular) $195 – AECT Conference (Student) $195 – AERA Conference (Regular) $ 80 – AERA Conference (Student) Travel and Lodging: $250 per conference per person Total expected expenses are shown in Table 2 on the next page.

  8  

Table 2. Project Budget Activity Estimated Cost

Unit Data Collection and Analysis

Reward for interviewees NVivo license (IU student)

NVivo license (IU faculty) Project Assistants (Hourly)

$5

$70 $125 $12

* 4 cards * 2 students * 1 faculty member * 40 hours * 2 people

$20 $140 $125 $960

Subtotal: $1245 Community Sharing $50 * 1 workshop presentation $50

Subtotal: $50 Conference Presentation

AECT Regular AECT Student AERA Regular AERA Student

Travel and Lodging

$400 $195 $195 $80

$250

* 1 person * 4 people * 1 person * 4 people * 8 people

$400 $780 $195 $320 $2000

Subtotal: $3695 Total Expected Expenses: $4990

  9  

Research Timeline Date Plan September, 2013 October, 2013 November, 2013 December, 2013

R690 Coursework

- Preparation (Lit review, study design, IRB, etc.) - Interview, transcribe, and thematic analysis - Develop and administer a survey & SPSS analysis - Graduate learning & teaching reflections

Data collection & analysis (NVivo)

- Graded student coursework and two additional activities: graduate student reflection about learning and instructor-TA reflection about teaching

January, 2014 Presentation - Sharing with W200 instructors February, 2014 August, 2014 July, 2014

Dissemination - AECT proposal due (Conference: Oct. 2014) - Website development - AERA proposal due (Conference: Apr. 2015)

Investigator CVs & Nominating Letter * See the attached documents after the Appendix.

  10  

Appendix  Definitions:  Instructional  Changes,  Instruction,  and  Learning  • Instructional  changes  is  used  broadly  to  capture  any  strategic  decisions  the  instructor  

had  made  prior  to  and  during  the  instruction  to  promote  positive  changes  in  student  learning  experience  towards  the  learning  goals  of  the  course.    

• Instruction  is  operationally  used  to  refer  to  any  actions  the  instructor  takes  or  decisions  made  in  attempts  to  invoke  targeted  learning  experience.  

• Learning  is  understood  as  construction  rather  than  a  predetermined  set  of  outcomes  of  instruction.  In  other  words,  we  assume  (and  value)  that  learning  outcomes  could  vary  although  the  instructor  implemented  an  intentional,  unified  set  of  instructional  approaches.    

   Redesign  Process:  Theoretical  Considerations  and  Design  Judgments  To  show  how  the  instructional  changes  were  made,  the  original  course,  theoretical  considerations,  and  design  judgments  towards  the  instructional  changes  adopted  in  R690  are  described.    Original  Course  New  doctoral  students  in  the  Instructional  Systems  Technology  (IST)  program  are  required  to  take  R690:  Application  to  Research  Methods  to  IST  Issues  to  learn  how  to  conduct  discipline-­‐specific  research.  However,  as  a  relatively  starter  course  in  the  program  (i.e.,  it  should  be  taken  two  years  before  the  qualifying  exam),  the  following  instructional  challenges  had  surfaced  in  the  past:  Most  learners,  while  some  of  them  are  experienced  educators,  (1)  are  novices  as  researchers  and  (2)  lack  knowledge  on  topics  and  issues  that  are  typically  investigated  in  the  IST  field.  Moreover,  they  (3)  have  not  yet  developed  their  taste  in  the  kind  of  research  they  want  to  do  (4)  nor  deepened  their  knowledge  on  the  area  of  their  research  interest.  These  are  problematic,  as  acquiring  both  breadth  and  depth  in  their  expertise  in  the  field  is  considered  crucial  in  the  program.  Moreover,  R690  is  the  first  and  the  only  methods-­‐learning  course  in  the  IST  research  seminar  sequence.  After  R690,  students  are  expected  to  conduct  research  on  their  own.  In  this  regard,  a  program-­‐level  need  for  instructional  changes  that  could  mitigate  the  aforementioned  problems  was  raised.      Theoretical  Considerations  Major  preconditions  of  the  course  are  that  the  learners  are  generally  novices  in  the  disciplinary  inquiry  and  the  course  content  is  fairy  complex,  requiring  integration  of  skills  and  knowledge.  These  make  adopting  instructional  approaches  from  the  situated  learning  theory  (Brown,  Collins,  &  Duguid,  1989;  Collins,  Brown,  &  Holum,  1991)  an  appropriate  choice.  Among  the  core  components  of  a  situated  learning  environment  is  designing  authentic  learning  activities  (Brown  et  al.,  1989;  Herrington,  &  Oliver,  2000;  Reeves,  Herrington,  &  Oliver,  2002).  Reeves  and  his  colleagues  (2002)  summarized  ten  characteristics  of  authentic  learning,  which  could  be  used  as  guidelines  in  designing  an  authentic  learning  activity.  According  to  the  authors,  authentic  activities  (p.  565):    

1. Have  real-­‐world  relevance  2. Are  ill-­‐defined,  requiring  students  to  define  the  tasks  and  sub-­‐tasks  needed  to  complete  the  

activity    3. Comprise  complex  tasks  to  be  investigated  by  students  over  a  sustained  period  of  time  

  11  

4. Provide  the  opportunity  for  students  to  examine  the  task  from  different  perspectives,  using  a  variety  of  resources  

5. Provide  the  opportunity  to  collaborate  6. Provide  the  opportunity  to  reflect  and  involve  students’  beliefs  and  values  7. Can  be  integrated  and  applied  across  different  subject  areas  and  lead  beyond  domain-­‐

specific  outcomes  8. Are  seamlessly  integrated  with  assessment    9. Create  polished  products  valuable  in  their  own  right  rather  than  as  preparation  for  

something  else  10. Allow  competing  solutions  and  diversity  of  outcome  

 Design  Judgments  These  guidelines  are  selectively  adopted  to  design  the  authentic  learning  activity  based  on  its  relevancy  to  the  learning  context.  Particularly,  #1  and  #5  was  emphasized  in  that  the  designed  activity  requires  learners  to  collaboratively  research  a  disciplinary  issue  (e.g.,  case-­‐based  reasoning)  throughout  a  semester,  in  which  the  sub-­‐tasks  involve  applying  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  collection  and  analysis  skills  and  knowledge.  #7  will  be  embedded  in  the  context  as  a  stand-­‐alone  activity  that  involves  the  instructor  using  prefabricated  prompting  questions  to  support  student  reflection  on  their  overall  learning  experience.  #8  is  incorporated  into  the  curriculum  as  a  culminating  activity  where  each  student  needs  to  submit  a  mini  research  proposal  to  demonstrate  his  or  her  knowledge  about  disciplinary  research  methods.  A  rubric  will  be  designed  and  used  for  assessment.      Due  to  the  unique  nature  of  the  educational  research,  the  disciplinary  issues  for  inquiry  can  be  observed  in  the  IU  undergraduate  courses.  For  example,  case-­‐based  reasoning  is  one  of  the  learning  outcomes  W200  instructors  assume  their  students  to  acquire  through  the  course.  This  condition  met,  we  were  able  to  connect  the  graduate  learning  with  the  undergraduate  learning.  (We  understand  this  is  a  unique  situation.  But,  we  believe  this  part  of  the  redesign  is  worth  mentioning  as  it  suggest  potential  for  more  cohesive  learning  community  building  within  the  institution.)  Moreover,  an  attempt  was  made  so  that  both  investigators  and  graduate  learners  could  have  a  post-­‐semester  group  presentation  of  the  research  findings  on  case-­‐based  reasoning  with  the  W200  instructors.      Instructional  Changes  Adopted  Based  on  the  conceptual  guidelines  from  the  authentic  learning  approach,  the  following  instructional  changes  have  been  made  to  accommodate  the  diverse  features  of  the  approach:    

 A. An  authentic  whole  task  (=  practice  research)  that    

a. continues  throughout  the  semester,      b. is  focused  on  a  single  research  topic,  and  c. involves  using  a  number  of  research  techniques;  

B. The  instructor  and  two  TAs  with  a. distributed  roles  and  b. weekly  discussion  on  the  curriculum;  

C. Student  opportunities  for  a. reflection  on  the  overall  process  and  b. post-­‐semester  group  presentation  to  real  audience  .  

   

  12  

Instructor  Roles    Compared  to  didactic  classrooms,  a  different  kind  of  instructor  roles  is  assumed  in  the  situated  learning  environment  where  authentic  learning  activity  is  implemented  (Brown  et  al.,  1989).  These  instructor  roles  can  be  inferred  from  the  teaching  methods  instructors  use:  • Modeling  is  seen  as  a  instructor-­‐driven  teaching  method  that  typically  consumes  a  fixed  

amount  of  time  in  class  with  an  intention  of  guiding  learner’s  thinking  process  for  a  specific  learning  task.  

• Coaching,  compared  to  modeling,  assumes  more  informal  interaction  between  instructor  and  learner  but  still  with  the  intention  of  guiding  learner’s  thinking  process  for  a  specific  learning  task.    

• Scaffolding,  compared  to  coaching,  involves  more  conscious  designing  of  the  curriculum  and  activities  from  the  instructor.  Some  researchers  define  scaffolding  includes  what  instructors  had  planned  in  advance  or  what  they  perform  just-­‐in-­‐time  (Saye  &  Brush,  2002),  but  the  latter  overlaps  with  coaching  in  that  they  both  capture  what  instructors  do  to  support  learning  during  its  process.  Therefore,  in  this  paper,  scaffolding  is  seen  as  involving  only  what  has  been  planned  in  advance.  

 Theoretical  Grounds  Essentially  in  situated  learning  environments,  instructors  has  to  be  more  conscious  about  designing  the  learning  activity  and  its  environment  and  use  teaching  strategies  that  gives  students  opportunities  “to  observe,  engage  in,  and  invest  or  discover  expert  strategies  in  context”  (p.  13,  Collins  et  al.,  1991).  Collins  and  his  colleagues  (1991)  suggested  using  modeling,  coaching,  and  scaffolding  as  the  core  teaching  methods,  use  articulation  and  reflection  to  raise  consciousness  about  what  is  being  learned,  and  use  exploration  to  encourage  learner  autonomy.  The  former  three  is  associated  with  what  instructors  do,  whereas  the  latter  three  relates  to  what  instructors  need  to  observe  from  learners  as  evidence  of  learning.        References    Brown,  J.,  Collins,  A.,  &  Duguid,  P.  (1989).  Situated  cognition  and  the  culture  of  learning.  

Educational  Researchers,  18(1),  32-­‐42.  Collins,  A.,  Brown,  J.  S.,  &  Holum,  A.  (1991).  Cognitive  apprenticeship:  Making  thinking  

visible.  American  Educator,  6(11),  38-­‐46.  Herrington,  J.,  &  Oliver,  R.  (2000).  An  instructional  design  framework  for  authentic  learning  

environments.  Educational  Technology  Research  and  Development,  48(3).  23-­‐48.  Reeves,  T.  C.,  Herrington,  J.,  &  Oliver,  R.  (2002).  Authentic  activities  and  online  learning.  The  

HERDSA  2002  Conference  Proceedings,  562-­‐567.  Richards,  L.  (2005).  Handling  qualitative  data:  A  practical  guide.  Sage  Publications.  Saye,  J.  W.,  &  Brush,  T.  (2002).  Scaffolding  critical  reasoning  about  history  and  social  issues  

in  multimedia-­‐supported  learning  environments.  Educational  Technology  Research  and  Development,  50(3),  77-­‐96.  

 

Glazewski page 1 of Shortened  CV      

KRISTA D. GLAZEWSKI, PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

EMAIL: GLAZE@INDIANA.EDU

1130 W 6TH STREET INS. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

BLOOMINGTON, IN 47404 INDIANA UNIVERSITY

(M) 765-409-2641 201 N. ROSE

(O) 812-856-8457 BLOOMINGTON, IN 47401      EDUCATION  

Ph.D. 2003 Dissertation: The Impact of Scaffolding and Student Ability in a Hypermedia, Problem-Based Learning Unit Learning and Instructional Technology Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona Advisor: James Klein M.A. 1998 Secondary Education University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico B.A. 1995 Education, Magna Cum Laude Endorsement in Teaching English as a Second Language University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico

 

 CERTIFICATIONS AND AWARDS  

2009 Rising Star Award Office of the Vice Provost for Research, New Mexico State University

2008 Dean’s Award for Excellence in Teaching Award College of Education, New Mexico State University

2007 Leadership Award American Educational Research Association SIG – Instructional Technology for service to the SIG from 2004-2006.

2006 Curriculum & Instruction Excellence in Teaching Award Nominee Purdue University

2005 Service Learning Fellowship Purdue University

2004 National Science Foundation Junior Faculty Fellow International Conference of the Learning Sciences

2004 Instructional Technology Young Researcher Award American Educational Research Association, SIG-Instructional Technology  

2003-04 Award for Research Excellence (in recognition of dissertation research) Arizona State University, Division of Psychology in Education, College of Education

2002-03 P.E.O. National Scholar Award: Arizona State Nominee 2002-03 Preparing Future Faculty Fellow, Arizona State University 1996-99 New Mexico State Teaching Certification (inactive)

Teaching English as a Second Language, Language Arts, and Social Studies  

 

Glazewski page 2 of Shortened  CV  ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS  

Associate Professor of Instructional Systems Technology Fall 2011 – present Indiana University, Department of Instructional Systems Technology Associate Professor of Learning Technologies Fall 2009 – Spring 2011 New Mexico State University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Assistant Professor of Learning Technologies Fall 2006 – Spring 2009 New Mexico State University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Assistant Professor of Educational Technology Fall 2003 – Spring 2006 Purdue University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction

 Project Coordinator, PT3@ASU Fall 2002 – Spring 2003 Arizona State University, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Department of Education Grant Project Managed research and evaluation of field-based technology integration grant project for preservice teacher preparation program. Trained and evaluated teaching assistants. Assisted in coordinating university / school partnerships and field-based courses.

 Teacher 1996 - 1999 Albuquerque Public School District Grade 6: Language Arts, Literature, Social Studies Grades 6-8: English as a Second Language

REFEREED PUBLICATIONS  Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation:

testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667-694.

 Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Glazewski, K., & Newby, T. (2010). Preservice technology integration course revision: A conceptual guide. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5-33.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335.

Glazewski, K. D. & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Fostering socioscientific reasoning in problem-based learning: Examining teacher practice. The International Journal of Learning, 16(12), 269-282.

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: Roles of students in mixed-ability groups. Journal of Middle Level Education, 32(9), 1-19.

Ertmer, P., Glazewski, K. D. & others. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning (PBL) in the K-12 classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20, 35-54.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure pre-service teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25, 112-125.

Belland, B., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401-422. (NOTE: the first author was awarded the 2007 Educational Technology Research & Development Young Scholar Award for this article).

Simons✝, K. D. & Klein, J. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a hypermedia, problem-based learning unit. Instructional Science, 35, 41-72.

Belland, B., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons✝, K. D. (2006). Problem-based learning and perceptions of its value by students with special needs and their teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 1-18.

Ertmer, P. A. & Simons✝, K. D. (2006). Jumping the implementation hurdle: Supporting PBL in K-12 classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 1(1), 40-54.

Simons✝, K. D. & Ertmer, P. A. (2005/2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based environments. The International Journal of Learning. 12(6), 298-305.

Ertmer, P. A. & Simons✝, K. D. (2005/2006). Scaffolding teachers’ efforts to implement problem-based learning. The International Journal of Learning. 12(4), 319-327.

Glazewski page 3 of Shortened  CV  Simons✝, K. D. & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. Computers in the

Schools, 21(3/4), 23-36. [NOTE: Concurrently published as a book chapter in E-learning and K-12 Education, published by Haworth Press].

Simons✝, K. D., Klein, J., & Brush, T. (2004). Instructional strategies utilized during the implementation of a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 213-233.

Brinkerhoff, J. & Glazewski, K. (2004). Support of expert and novice teachers within a technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: A case study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(2), 219-230.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., & others. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1),

57-72. Brush, T., Igoe, A., Brinkerhoff, J., Glazewski, K., & others. (2001). Lessons from the field: Integrating

technology into pre-service teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 16-20.  BOOKS  Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. (Eds.) (2014). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design

(4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publishing.

BOOK CHAPTERS  Brush, T. A., Glazewski, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Baker, J. (in press). Using technology to support the

unique needs of gifted learners: Promise and challenges. In C. Callahan & J. Plucker (Eds.), Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Glazewski, K. D. & Salter, S. M. (in press). Natalie Morales: Managing training in a manufacturing setting. In P. A. Ertmer, J. Quinn, & K. D. Glazewski (Eds.), The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Glazewski, K. & Brush, T. (2005). A review of seven integrated, field-based models for technology preparation. In C. Vrasidas & G. Glass (Eds.), Preparing Teachers to Teach with Technology, (pp. 191-204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. (NOTE: The book volume was awarded with the 2007 Outstanding Book Award from the Association of Educational Communications and Technology).

Simons✝, K. D. & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. In J. Blanchard & J. Marshall (Eds.), E-learning and K-12 Education (pp. 23-36). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. (Note: Concurrently published as a journal article in Computers in the Schools).

 RESEARCH PROJECTS IN PROGRESS

Planning and Implementation of PBL: Voices from the Field. Fostering Technology-Enhanced, Socioscientific Inquiry in Graduate Teacher Preparation. Bioinformatics in the K-12 Classroom: Exploring Biology – Education – Teacher Partnerships. Expressions of Emerging Agency, Identity, and Participation among Latino Children in an Afterschool Film Program.

 EXTERNAL GRANTS, FUNDED

Brush, T. A. (principal investigator), Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (co-principal investigator), Saye, J. (co- principal investigator), & Glazewski, K. D. (co-principal investigator). (2010). The PBL Tech Network for Supporting Teacher Innovation. $750,000 over 3 years. Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), U. S. Department of Education.

Glazewski, K. D. (principal investigator) & Shuster, M. (co-principal investigator). (2009). Conexiones: Fostering Technology-Enhanced Socioscientific Inquiry in Graduate Teacher Preparation. $268,000 over 2 years. Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), U. S. Department of Education.

Rutledge, D., (co-principal investigator), Glazewski, K. D. (co-principal investigator), & Pedersen, S. (co- principal investigator). (2008). Evaluation of the LANL Math Science Academies program. $25,000 over 1 year. Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation.

Glazewski, K. D. (co-principal investigator) & Rutledge, D. (co-principal investigator). (2006). Evaluation of the Emergency Management Interactive Training online program. $76,000 over 18 months. Sponsored by the Army Research Institute in collaboration with the NMSU Creative Media Institute.

Glazewski page 4 of Shortened  CV    INTERNAL GRANTS, FUNDED  Glazewski, K. D., Aslan, S. & Zachmeier, A. (2012). Technology Integration Concerns: A Dialogue

Between Pre-Service Teachers and Exemplary In-Service Teachers. $2,000. Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, Indiana University.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. & Simons✝, K. D. (2006). Creation of a Developmental Model for Exemplary Technology-Using Teachers. $14,040 over one year. Purdue Research Foundation.

Simons✝, K. D. (2005). Service learning: An Engineering-Education Partnership. $2,000. Purdue University Center for Instructional Excellence.

Simons✝, K. D. (2004). International Travel Grant. Purdue Research Foundation International Travel Grant Competition, $1,000. Purdue Research Foundation.

Glazewski, K. (2003). Evaluating the Impact of Videocase Modeling on Preservice Teachers' Self- Efficacy Toward Technology Integration, $1,000. P3T3 Mini-Grant Competition, Purdue University.

 EXTERNAL GRANTS, SUBMITTED  

Glazewski, K. D. (principal investigator), Brush, T. A., Sadler, T., & Shuster, M. (2012). Mobile Applications for Disciplined Inquiry (MADI): Scaffolding Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision-Making among Secondary Students. NSF Cyberlearning. $548,000 over 3 years.

 

 EXTERNAL GRANTS, NOT FUNDED

 Glazewski, K. D. (principal investigator), Brush, T. A., Blevis, E. B., & Shuster, M. (2011). Mobile

Applications for Disciplined Inquiry (MADI): Scaffolding Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision-Making among Secondary Students. NSF Cyberlearning. $547,354 over 3 years.

Brush, T. A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2011). The PBL-Bio-Tech Project: Exploring Sustainable Models for Authentic and Enduring Science Participation. (2011-2014). Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation: Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers. $2 million over 5 years.

Glazewski, K. D., Shuster, M., & Throop, H. (2009). Project KITE: Kids as Innovative Technologists and Ecologists. NSF. $1.3 million over 5 years.

Kline, C., Peters, J., Baha, Z., Rausch, A., & Simons✝, K. D. (2006). Afghanistan Community-Based Education Initiative. USAID; $23.5 million over 5 years.

Madhaven, K. P. C., Simons✝, K. D., Bertoline, B. R., Campbell, J. P, & Dark, M. J. (2005). High Performance Classroom: Integrating high performance computational sciences in the 7 – 12 curricula. National Science Foundation; $1.2 million over 3 years.

Simons✝, K. D. VanFossen, P., Richardson, J. C., Kline, C., & Baha, Z. (2005). Fostering the Advancement of a Participatory Afghan Citizenry (Project A-PAC), U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; $264,271 over 18 months.

VanFossen, P., Simons✝, K. D., Ertmer, P. E., & Richardson, J., C. (2004). Improving Civic Education Using Problem-Based, Digital Case Studies. [Pre-proposal] U. S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE); $842,891 over three years.

Ertmer, P., Richardson, J. C., Glazewski, K. & Capobianco, B. (2004) Coaching for Digital Age Literacy Skills: Impact on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement. U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Grants; $2,977,735 over 4 years.

Newby, T., Glazewski, K., Richardson, J. C. & Kline, C. (2003). Project PACE: Purdue-Afghanistan collaborative exchange. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; $390,390 over 3 years.

Glazewski, K., VanFossen, P., Kline, C., & Baha, Z. (2004). Capacity Building for Women’s Resource Centers in Afghanistan: Developing Educational Leadership, Digital Literacy, and Civic Engagement. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; $217,121 over 17 months.

 

Jiyoon Jung CV Page 1

Curriculum Vitae April, 2013

Jiyoon Jung 1603 E. 3rd Street #218 Bloomington, IN 47401 Phone: (812) 340-9534

E-mail: jung33@indiana.edu EDUCATION

INDIANA UNIVERSITY Bloomington, Indiana School of Education 2010-Present

• 3rd year doctoral student, Instructional Systems Technology • Associate Instructor & Research Assistant

EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY Seoul, South Korea School of Education 2007-2009

• Master of Arts in Educational Technology • Research Assistant & Graduate Assistant

School of Education 2003-2007 • Bachelor of Arts in English Education as a Foreign Language

(double major in Multimedia) WORK EXPERIENCE

INDIANA UNIVERSITY Bloomington, Indiana Associate Instructor Fall 2010, Spring 2011, Fall 2011, Fall 2012, Spring 2013

• W200: Taught pre-service teachers how to integrate technology in class • TeachTechLab Staff: Assisted college students with technology-related learning

needs Editorial Assistant Spring 2013

• Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning • Dr. Michael Grant (Editor, University of Memphis), Dr. Krista Glazewski (Co-Editor, Indiana University)

Research Assistant Spring 2012 • Assisting Dr. Leftwich with teacher education related studies (TPACK)

Design & Development Summer 2011, Summer 2012 • IDCL Research Group: online doctoral reading course redesign • PBL-Tech Research Group

o Help page and User Manual construction o PIHNet Workshop at Auburn University, assisted teachers with tools

KOREA EDUCATION & RESEARCH SERVICES (KERIS) Seoul, South Korea Researcher 2009-2010

• Managed developing online contents for English Language Learners • Researched and drafted reports on educational use of Web 2.0 technology • Co-authored a book on educational technology trends in Korea

Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI/OECD) Paris, France Trainee Fall 2008

• Managed developing online contents for English Language Learners

Jiyoon Jung CV Page 2

• Researched and drafted reports on educational use of Web 2.0 technology

EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY Seoul, South Korea BrainKorea 21 Graduate Researcher 2008

• Designed and tested Learning Presence scale for college students • Contributed to designing, implementing, validating New Millennium Learner &

Performances survey (Korea-OECD Collaboration) and draft writing of the results

EWHA MULTIMEDIA LEARNING CENTER Seoul, South Korea Graduate Assistant 2007

• Managed developing online contents for English Language Learners • Researched and drafted reports on educational use of Web 2.0 technology • Participated in the Cyber Engineering Education (CEEP) project, sponsored by Korea

Research Council for Industrial Science and Technology TEACHING EXPERIENCE

W200: Computer & Education Bloomington, Indiana Associate Instructor Fall 2010, Spring 2011, Fall 2011, Fall 2012 R521*: Instructional Design and Development I Bloomington, Indiana Teaching Assistant Fall 2012 *Courses are delivered online

KOREAN PUBLICATION

Seo, J., & Jung, J. (2011). Educational Use of Web 2.0. In J. Song et al. (Eds.), New Trends in Information and Communications Technology (Chapter 1). Seoul, Korea: Educational Sciences. (ISBN: 978-89-254-0439-4).

Seo, J. H., Kim, Y. R., Jung, J. Y., & Park, T. J. (2009). Issue Report: Educational Use of Web 2.0 in Primary and Secondary Education - Concepts. Seoul, Korea: KERIS.

Kang, M., Park, M., Jung, J., & Park, H. (2009). The effect of interaction and learning presence on learning outcome in Web-based project learning. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 15(2), 67-85.

Kang, M., Kim, J., & Jung, J. (2008). Relationships among Self-efficacy, Metacognition, Cognitive presence, Flow, and Learning Outcomes in web-based PBL. Journal of Educational Studies, 39(1), 107-134.

Kang, M. Kim, J., & Jung, J. (2008). Identifying predicting variables of the learning outcome in Web-based PBL. Ewha Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 107-134.

Kang, M., Gu, H., Kim, J., Moon, S., & Jung, J. (2007). Examining the effects of tutor delivery modes on cognitive presence and learning outcomes in online lectures. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 13(4), 155-181.

PROCEEDINGS PUBLICATION

Gray, C.M., Jia, X., Watson, C., Wang, Y., Jung, J., Frick, T.W., Frameworks for Facilitating Research Thinking: Redesigning a Residential Course for Online Use in Higher Education. Proceedings of AECT 2011.

Kang, M. H., Jung, J. Y., Park, M. S., & Park, H. J. (2009). Impact of learning presence on learner interaction and outcome in web-based project learning. In A. Dimitracopoulou, C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings from CSCL ‘09: The 9th International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning - Volume 2, 62-64.

PRESENTATION

Jung. J., Shin, S., Lu, Y., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (October, 2013). A collaborative curriculum design project: Major events, roles, and issues. Concurrent session to be presented in 2013

Jiyoon Jung CV Page 3

AECT Conference, Anaheim, California. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Kopcha, T. J., & Jung. J. (April, 2013). Assessing preservice teachers’

technology integration abilities using TPACK: Comparing three measures. Roundtable session to be presented in 2013 AERA Conference, San Franscisco, California.

Jia, X., Jung, J., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Huh, Y., Shin, S., & Min, M. (April, 2013). Breaking barriers for technology integration in K-12 classrooms. Roundtable session to be presented in 2013 AERA Conference, San Franscisco, California.

Boling, E., Altuwaijri, A., Modell, M. G., Jung. J., & Howard, C. D. (April, 2013). Images for instruction: The concerns of designers and the focus of learners. Roundtable session to be presented in 2013 AERA Conference, San Franscisco, California.

Jung, J., Shin, S., Brush, T., Glazewski, K., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, L. (March, 2012). Understanding the Content-Specific Frameworks from an Instructional Designer’s Perspective. Research paper presented in 2012 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Lee, D., Jung, J., Shin, S., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Glazewski, K. (March, 2012). Building a Sustainable and Fulfilling Online Community for K-12 Teachers. Research paper presented in 2012 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Boling, E., Atuwaijri, A., Jung, J., Yildirim, C., Gray, C., Modell, M., & Howard, C. (March, 2012). Strategies for Interpreting Instructional Images Used to Support Language Learning. Research paper presented in 2012 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Jung, J., Gray, C., Howard, C., Kwon, S., Modell, M. G., & Boling, E. (November, 2011). Preparation of visual materials to study how EFL learners use images in the learning process. Roundtable accepted in 2011 AECT Convention, Jacksonville, Florida.

Watson, C., Gray, C., Jia, X., Jung, J., Wang, Y., & Frick, T. (November, 2011) A case study in designing online instruction using van Merriënboer's ten steps to complex learning. Concurrent session accepted in 2011 AECT Convention, Jacksonville, Florida.

Jung, J., & Leftwich, A. (February, 2011). Designing a survey to capture how instructors make technology integration decisions. Roundtable presented in 2011 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Boling, E., Howard, C., Altuwaijri, A., Caldwell, K., Gray, C., Jung, J., Kwon, S., Modell, M., Whiting, J., Wu, T, Yildirim, Y. (February, 2011). Visual for learning. Roundtable presented in 2011 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Watson, C., Frick, T., Gray, C., Jia, X., Jung, J., Wang, Y. (February, 2011). A Case Study in Designing Online Instruction using van Merrienboer’s 4C/ID model. Roundtable presented in 2011 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Altinay, B., Altuwaijri, A., Callison, M., Gray, C., Jung, E., Jung, J., Yildirim, Y. (February, 2011). A needs assessment of distance education in the School of Education at Indiana University Bloomington. Poster presented in 2011 IST Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.

Jung, J., & Kang, M. (November 2008). What we know about presence, yet to discover: A comparative analysis on two models of presence in learning. Poster presented in 2008 AECT International Convention, Orlando, Florida.

Jung, J., & Lee, H. (September 2007). A case study: International online engineering institution for adults. Paper presented in 2007 KAEIM International Conference, Busan, Korea.

D&D PROJECTS

PBL-Tech: Collaborative curriculum development via the SSINet project Spring, 2013 • Biology curriculum development on genetic sequencing and information use

Business Ethics University Online Course Development Summer, 2012 • Storyboarding

University Introduction to Micro-Biology Lab Guide Summer, 2012 • Cover design

Introduction to Micro-Biology University Online Course Development Winter, 2011 • Instructional image illustrations

Samsung Electronics OSHA Course Development Fall, 2010 • Storyboarding

Jiyoon Jung CV Page 4

TEACHER WORKSHOP

July 16-19, 2012 Auburn, Alabama • PBL-Tech: PIHNet Workshop with participating in-service teachers

May 4, 2012 Indianapolis, Indiana • Christel House Teacher Professional Development Workshop on using PBL-Tech

Construction Tools to create curriculum March 2, 2012 Bloomington, Indiana

• 2012 IST Conference Workshop on The PBL-Tech Project: Using Technology to Support Problem-Based Learning in Teacher Education.

March 2, 2012 Bloomington, Indiana • PBL-Tech: SSINet Workshop with Q405 students (Instructor: Dr. Park-Rogers)

SERVICE EXPERIENCE

F500 Bloomington, Indiana Mentoring new W200 Associate Instructors Fall 2012-Spring 2013

Graduate Student Learning Community Bloomington, Indiana Member, sharing and investigating teacher strategies of interest Fall 2012-Spring 2013

IST CONFERENCE Bloomington, Indiana Chair of the Selection Committee Spring 2012

• Planning and managing proposal review processes for 2012 IST Conference (Mar. 2) Manager of Registration Services Spring 2011

• Managed registration services for 2011 IST Conference (Feb. 25)

AECT Bloomington, Indiana Volunteer for 2011 AECT International Convention (Jacksonville, FL) November 2011

• Assisted with room arrangement & technological needs

KIST (Korean IST community) Bloomington, Indiana Co-Chair Fall 2012-Spring 2013

• Assisted in community social activities

~  1  ~  

Yin-Chan (Janet) Liao

Indiana University w 201 North Rose Avenue w Bloomington, IN 47405 w yincliao@indiana.edu

EDUCATION

Ph.D. 2017 (expected) Department of Instructional Systems Technology School of Education Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana M.S.Ed. Dec. 2011 Learning Science and Technologies Graduate School of Education University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thesis: “The Importance of Teacher Beliefs and Teacher Competency in Technology Integration:

Lessons Learned From the U.S. Experience”

B.Ed. June 2008 Elementary Education National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Research Volunteer, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Feb. 2013 – Present “Examining Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning Process in Analyzing Technology Integration Cases“

• Review literature on case-based learning and case-based reasoning • Interview all participants for data collection • Transcribe and analyze research data

Research Volunteer, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Feb. 2013 – Present “Investigating Tech-savvy Pre-service Teachers' Technology Integration Knowledge, Beliefs and Intentions”

• Participate in interviews with participants in this research study • Transcribe and analyze interview data

Research Volunteer, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mar 2012 – May. 2012 “Conditions for Using Digital Games in Schools: A Case Study”

• Reviewed literature on gaming in K-12 classrooms • Analyzed qualitative and quantitative data • Drafted results from research study data for AERA 2012 research proposal

Research Assistant, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sept. 2011 – May 2012 “ITEST-Nano” research project

• Organize research surveys, sort and categorize data in different periods of research • Assist the workshop for teacher professional development in implementing technology into science

classes

Research Assistant, Project of National Science Council, Taipei, Taiwan May 2011 – Aug. 2012 “Supervision Mechanism in Graduate School: Lessons Learned from U.K., U.S., and Taiwan”

• Developed research framework with project director • Reviewed literature on supervision and qualitative research • Collected data for both background information and the primary data set through pilot research,

interviewing, and designing questionnaires • Transcribed and analyzed data for follow-up interviews and data coding

~  2  ~  

Yin-Chan (Janet) Liao w Indiana University w yincliao@indiana.edu

Independent Study, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sept. 2011 – Dec. 2011 “Mobile Technologies in Second Language Learning”, supervised by Dr. Yasmin Kafai

• Initiated the study by gathering information on current educational issues for shaping research topic • Created the timeline to finish the study in one semester and worked independently • Broadened knowledge through reading books and articles related to research topic

Research Assistant, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan 2009 – 2010 “Teacher’s Image in Different Countries”

• Assisted with data collection, mainly by recording and interviewing • Transcribed interview conversations for analysis and organized project meetings

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Associate Instructor Aug. 2013 - Present Department of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

• Develop curriculum and weekly lesson plans for preservice teachers • Teach preservice teachers the topic of Technology Integration in K-12 setting

Graduate Assistant Aug. 2012 – May 2013 Teaching Technology Lab (TTL), School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

• Served as TTL lab manager to coordinate teaching and learning service • Provided 1:1 instruction to undergraduate students • Designed and developed teaching materials • Technology demonstration, such as iMovie, SmartBoard activities, and Prezi, etc.

Tutor Sept. 2010 – Dec. 2010 Penn Alexander Elementary School, Philadelphia, PA

• Tutored a 3rd grade student with learning difficulties in mathematics and reading

Practice Teacher Huai-Sheng Elementary School, Taipei, Taiwan Jul. 2008 – Feb. 2009

• Instructed Chinese, Mathematics and English courses to 6th graders and received the feedback from co-operate teacher for teaching skill improvement

• Developed lesson plans, designed activities, and made teaching materials such as PowerPoint slides and posters

• Supported classroom management by dealing with daily student affairs

Practice Teacher St. Stephen’s CEVA Primary School, Bath, UK Feb. 2008 Winsley Primary School, Bath, UK Fitzmaurice Primary School, Bath, UK

• Constructed a one-month teaching curriculum for Chinese language and Chinese Culture learning • Developed lesson plans, taught Chinese language and culture lessons, and organized

extra-curricular activities • Created video clips, PowerPoint presentations, posters to facilitate teaching in multicultural

classroom • Observed and videotaped in British teachers’ classroom

National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan Assistant to the Chair, Department of Elementary Education 2006 – 2008

• Assisted with undergraduate student affairs in the office three times a week • Built and maintained the chair’s official website

Teaching Assistant of “Action Research” course 2007 – 2008 • Prepared teaching materials and facilitated students’ learning in class • Arranged visiting speakers to give talks in classes and prepared handouts

~  3  ~  

Yin-Chan (Janet) Liao w Indiana University w yincliao@indiana.edu

Teaching Assistant of “Grounded Theory” course 2006 – 2007 • Prepared teaching materials and reviewed articles related to grounded theory and general

qualitative research • Participated and recorded in the class study group

PUBLICATIONS

Shah, M., Foster, A. & Liao, Y.C. (Accepted). Conditions for using digital games in schools: A case study.

Paper to be presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San

Francisco, California, April 27 to May 1 LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE

Vice President of Social & Professional Event Aug. 2013 - Present Graduates of Instructional Systems Technology (GIST), Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

• Organize professional development events, such as invite guest speakers to present on topics related to Instructional Systems Technology field

• Organize workshops on profession growth for graduate students in Department of Instructional Systems Technology and Adult Education program

• Organize social events for faculty members and graduate students in IST to build better connection and relationship with colleagues and scholars

Coordinator of Conference Evening Reception Aug. 2012 – Dec. 2012 Instructional Systems Technology Annual Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

• Organized roundtable discussion sessions • Established connection among IST faculty members, students, and scholars from other institutions • Organized reception catering

Vice President Dec. 2010 – Dec. 2011 UPenn Taiwanese Graduate and Professional Student Association (TGPSA)

• Organized social events such as Chinese New Year Banquet and Cherry Blossom Tour • Established connection between students from other associations, both academically and socially • Acquired sponsorship from Citibank and fundraised from local communities

Student Leader May 2007 – Mar. 2008 Overseas Project “Trans-national Chinese Practice Teaching” in Ministry of Education, Taiwan

• Participated in the overseas teaching project and the proposal writing • Facilitated group discussions • Located schools in England to participate in this project

AWARDS

• Nova Southeastern Award for Outstanding Practice by a Graduate Student in Instructional

Design: Engaging Preservice Teachers in Personal Learning Networks, Association for Educational

Communications and Technology International Convention, Anaheim, CA, 2013  

 SERVICE EXPERIENCE

Facilitator Oct. 2013

Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Convention, Anaheim, CA

• “Strategies for Preservice Teacher Technology Integration”, Teacher Education Division

Facilitator Oct. 2012

Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Convention, Louisville, KY

• “Problem-Based Learning and Teacher Education”, Teacher Education Division