“They were learning from us as we were learning from them”: perceived experiences in co-design process

References

• AI4K12. (2020). Five Big Ideas in Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved March 21 from https://ai4k12.org/resources/big-ideas-poster/
   Google Scholar
• Bang M., & Vossoughi S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition & Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• DiGiacomo, D. K., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2016). Relational equity as a design tool within making and tinkering activities. Mind Culture and Activity, 23(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1058398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson, J. E. (2019). Critical digital humanities: The search for a methodology. University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Druga, S., Vu, S. T., Likhith, E., & Qiu, T. (2019). Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world. In Proceedings of the ACM FabLearn 2019 Conference (pp. 104–111). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311904
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Harvester.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, K. D., Becker, B., Espinoza, M., Cortes, K., Cortez, A., Lizárraga, J. R., Rivero, E., Villegas, K., & Yin, P. (2019). Youth as historical actors in the production of possible futures. Mind Culture and Activity, 26(4), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1652327
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, K. D., Cortes, K., Cortez, A., DiGiacomo, D., Higgs, J., Johnson, P., Ramon Lizarraga, J., Mendoza, E., Tien, J., & Vakil, S. (2017). Replacing representation with imagination: Finding ingenuity in everyday practices. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16687523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, K. D., Jurow, A. S., & Vakil, S. (2020). Social design-based experiments: A utopian methodology for understanding new possibilities for learning. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 330–347). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Co-Design and the public realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1355042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishimaru, A. M., Rajendran, A., Nolan, C. M., & Bang, M. (2018). Community design circles: Co-designing justice and wellbeing in family-community-research partnerships. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2018.133
   Google Scholar
• Kalir, R. H., & Garcia, A. (2021). Annotation. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
   Google Scholar
• Lee, U.-S. A., DeLiema, D., & Gomez, K. (2022). Equity conjectures: A methodological tool for centering social change in learning and design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowell, B. R., & McNeill, K. L. (2020). Using the Student Hat to Push on Multiple Goals in Teacher Professional Learning. In M Gresalfi, & I. S Horn (Eds.),The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Nashville, Tennessee (Vol. 4, pp. 2231–2244). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Matuk, C., Gerard, L., Lim-Breitbart, J., & Linn, M. A. (2016). Gathering requirements for teacher tools: Strategies for empowering teachers through co-design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 79–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9459-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mawasi, A., Aguilera, E., Wylie, R., & Gee, E. (2020). Neutrality, “new” digital divide, and openness paradox: equity in learning environments mediated by educational technology. In M. Gresalfi & I. S. Horn (Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2020, 3 (pp. 1617–1620). Nashville, Tennessee: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Mawasi, A., Cortez, A., McKoy, A., & Penuel, W. R. (2022). “It disrupts power dynamics”: Co-Design process as a space for intergenerational learning with distributed expertise. In C. Chinn, E. Tan, C. Chan, Y. Kali (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2022 (pp. 925–928). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Mawasi, A., Penuel, W., Cortez, A., & McKoy, A. (under review). “We get to dream it up”: Young learners and educators critical perspectives of AI and technology during co-design.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, K., Hanny, C., & Lewis, C. (2011). Doing “business as usual”: Dynamics of voice in community organizing talk. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01122.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Henson, K., Campanella, M., Patton, R., Rademaker, K., Zivic, A., Reed, W., Watkins, D., Wingert, K., Reiser, B., & Zivic, A. (2022). Learning practical design knowledge through co-designing storyline science curriculum units. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 148–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000300
   Google Scholar
• Philip, T. M., Olivares-Pasillas, M. C., & Rocha, J. (2016). Becoming racially literate about data and data-literate about race: Data visualizations in the classroom as a site of racial-ideological micro-contestations. Cognition and Instruction, 34(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1210418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philip, T. M., Pham, J. H., Scott, M., & Cortez, A. (2022). Intentionally addressing nested systems of power in schooling through teacher solidarity co-design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polikoff, M. (2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of education governance and the promise of curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potvin, A. S., Teeters, L., & Penuel, W. R. (2021). Designing for Compassion in Schools: A Humanizing Approach to Co-Design. In E. de Vries, Y. Hod, & J. Ahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2021, Bochum, Germany (pp. 131–138). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A., & Penuel, W. R. (2021). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1884784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryoo, J., Choi, M., & McLeod, E. (2015). Building Equity in Research-Practice Partnerships. http://researchandpractice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BuildingEquity_Oct2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, R. (2018). Whose global village?: Rethinking how technology shapes our world. NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, M. (2013). Co-Design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tejeda, C., Espinoza, M., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2003). Toward a decolonizing pedagogy: Social justice reconsidered. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social justice (pp. 9–38). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vakil, S., & de Royston, M. M. (2019). Exploring politicized trust in a racially diverse computer science classroom. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 22(4), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vakil, S., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2022). Youth as philosophers of technology. Mind Culture and Activity, 29(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2022.2066134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossoughi, S., Davis, N. R., Jackson, A., Echevarria, R., Muñoz, A., & Escudé, M. (2021). Beyond the binary of adult versus child centered learning: Pedagogies of joint activity in the context of making. Cognition and Instruction, 39(3), 211–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1860052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson, M. H. (2017). Teachers, students, and after-school professionals as designers of digital tools for learning. In B. DiSalvo, J. Yip, E. Bonsignore, & C. DiSalvo (Eds.), Participatory design for learning: Perspectives from practice and research (pp. 125–138). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yip, J. C., Sobel, K., Pitt, C., Lee, K. J., Chen, S., Nasu, K., & Pina, L. R. (2017). Examining adult-child interactions in intergenerational participatory design. In G. Mark, S. R. Fussell, & C. Lampe, M. C. schraefel, J. P., Hourcade, C. Appert, & D. Wigdor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA (pp. 5742–5754). Association of Computing Machinery. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025787
   Google Scholar