Problem solving is design and design is solving problems. It was very appropriate that the my last course in the DDLS sequence was Designing for Problem Solving because it incorporated all the other "ends" pieces that we had already learned about; I thought about how I would teach literacy, information using, and community participation during the whole Spring 2020 semester.
A unique piece of designing for problem solving in the 21st century classroom is the mindset that you must approach it with. Problem solving is a people activity. Students, who engage in problem solving activities, learn to collaborate, communicate, think critically, and create. Collaboration happens between students, who are writing code in Scratch; it happens be between a gamer's virtual identity and a non-player character in a computer or video game; and it happens between teachers, who are learning to design problem solving activities.
Something very unique happened in the latter half of the Spring 2020 semester: our class was forced online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March and May 2020, I realized the importance of people power for problem solving more than ever. I had to make a new plan because thinking alone was not cutting it. As I faced developing Hyperdocs for six preps, learning to code, and creating a computer game, I had to design opportunities for myself to interact with my coworkers, GMU classmates, and instructor in order to create a meaningful online learning environment for my students and myself. I asked questions, made observations and connections, and brought all the pieces together to create a thinking design document, which I actually used in my online AVID class, and a hypermedia content game, which I look forward to completing and using with my students when school is back in session.
When it comes to problem solving, thinking together trumps thinking alone any day.
Daniel Pink's "A Whole New Mind" recommends that everyone, from doctors to businessmen, should sharpen their right-brain habits of mind in order to survive in the Conceptual Age. To be a "knower" of the bygone Information Age is no longer sufficient in an age when facts change quickly and information is free. We will all go the way of the medieval monastery scribes (replaced by the printing press) or library card catalogs (replaced by electronic systems) unless we learn the art of MOPEDS: meaning, symphony, play, empathy, design, and story.
As I read Pink's recommendations, I had DDLS buzzwords going off in my head. All of these right-brain habits of mind can be integrated in digital learning. Situating knowledge in authentic, contextual experiences enables us to learn through play (computer games, anyone?) and make meaning from the experiences. As we engage in online information using, we move from being Google search “knowledge workers” to designers, putting the pieces together in a larger "symphony" of multiple domains. Our stories are how we connect and empathize with other human beings--we make connections through collaborative, shared experiences, which tie knowledge to emotion, engagement, and understanding.
This week's synthesis activity was a perfect example of how to bring MOPEDS into the classroom. I learned many things about myself as a learner while c0-writing a rap to express the key ideas behind "A Whole New Mind." I much preferred to use information to create something novel instead of writing an essay; I was a co-designer of something unique that expressed my group's understanding of Pink's meaning. I liked working with people; while I did find the music (Eminem's "Lose Yourself"), I would have been lost without Brian's playful lyrics. Together, we were able to talk about what we knew in our own terms and synthesize a product; we connected our stories into a symphony. We practiced lots of empathy during this time of asynchronous collaboration, as we were respectful of all group member's novel responsibilities during a new job situation. The combination of these right-brain habits with the left-brain knowledge was the perfect storm for creating understanding.
Coding is a form of design, which Herbert Simon defines as the changing of existing situations into preferred ones. When we write a code, we change existing symbols--variables, commands, scripts--into a preferred set of instructions that can be read and understood by a computer. While the final result is important, it is through the coding process that one learns how to problem solve by combining and troubleshooting elements of a programming language into the preferred, visible result: a graphic, a game, an application, a website, etc.
My first coding experience involved learning how to write code in the MSWLogo programming language. As I was working through two MSW Logo worksheets, I made mistakes and came to several dead ends. My success in learning Logo was greatly due to collaboration with individuals and online resources. In the problem solving process, it is difficult to solve a problem if you do no know what you are looking for. EDIT 783 students had access to synchronous office hours, instructor mentoring, and examples of previous students' work. The Internet makes it possible to collaborate with creators all around the world; I searched a couple of YouTube videos when I was stuck on writing code to create circles and triangles. By seeking help and asking questions, we were able to share our challenges and troubleshoot solutions.
When designing problem solving opportunities for students, it is crucial to provide scaffolding for students to show their thinking. Instructor scaffolding within each Logo worksheet facilitated my successful experimentation in learning to build different shapes and shape combinations. In the first worksheet, I was prompted to write answers that showed my thinking behind each answer. In one case, I had to draw a diagram to represent how the drawing agent (the "turtle") within Logo program worked. While completing the second worksheet, I kept track of my thinking through a thinking routine called "FourThought." After I finished the Logo assignment, I was able to re-read my before, during, and after thought processes--an artifact of the decisions and judgments I had made to meet the assignment's objectives. Good problem solving design incorporates thinking routines to scaffold the problem solving process and promote student metacognition.
Whether writing code to move the turtle in LOGO or demystifying the clues of a digital breakout game, EDIT 783 students fully embraced thinking and problem solving routines this semester. Both coding the digital breakouts were new to me. I once again became a student as I engaged in the reflective problem solving and thinking actions that Gee (2007) characterizes as probe, hypothesize, reprobe, and accept or rethink (p. 88). Coders and gamers constantly engage in this cycle in order to write successful code or make progress in a game, but where does the visible thinking piece come in?
In the case of the LOGO assignment, the code that I had written and the graphic results were one form of visible thinking. My code was the result of countless iterations of the probe-hypothesize-reprobe cycle; each time I failed, I had to come up with another solution. As aforementioned, the FourThought reflective routine helped us to keep track of our pre-, during, and post-thinking about coding; this documentation served as yet another way to make thinking visible. While I played through three digital breakout games on Breakout EDU, I tracked my thinking as a student playing the game and also as a teacher designing such a game. I had multiple experiences to develop the HUMBRAVO understanding skills by completing a reflection and engaging in a peer discussion in a Blackboard forum.
While I really enjoyed the LOGO assignment, my digital breakout experience was another story. I experienced consistent confusion with the puzzles that I tried, and I am still deciding whether it is me or the game. As someone who really likes puzzle-type challenges, I was completely baffled at how to approach Breakouts. My first strategy was to figure out the symbol system of the puzzle. When I failed to make connections between one lock and its unlock combination, I moved on to the next lock. At the end of my playtime, I ended up emailing my instructor for one answer key. As I unlocked solutions with the answer key, I realized that I had thought that I could solve each puzzle with prior knowledge alone. Breakout games are less about knowing content and more about applying problem solving skills to unlock a solution. The answers are not Google-able and definitely require the use of thinking routines.
Both the LOGO and digital breakouts assignments required collaboration for success. Designing for problem solving means creating opportunities for learners to develop their own ideas AND share ideas or ask for help when stuck. This "hard fun," as Greg Toppo labels games that are fun but appropriately challenging, is a key feature of problem solving activities. LOGO was just challenging enough that we still needed some collaboration for success; the LOGO assignment sheet provided us with helpful instructions, there were tutorials on Blackboard, and the instructor even hosted a LOGO Happy Hour in Blackboard Collaborate. The digital breakout games could be better used in a collaborative, face-to-face learning environment, where students can ask each other questions, share success strategies, and engage in thinking routines. If I were to use digital breakouts in the classroom, I might start a puzzle with the See-Think-Wonder or Think-Puzzle-Explore thinking routines to introduce students to the type of thinking that they should be applying to solving.
Despite experiencing LOGO success and breakout F.A.I.L. (First Attempt In Learning), I reached an understanding of problem solving by applying the "understanding map" skills of Making Thinking Visible:
Making Thinking Visible (MTV) was one of the most valuable books that I have read thus far in the DDLS program. My understanding of "thinking" has drastically changed as I have learned about and applied the concepts and thinking routines from this book. “Thinking” is not a singular process or a hierarchy (sorry, Bloom), but rather a nonlinear series of actions that inform our understanding of the world around us. Thinking is not a static, sequential process; one does not proceed from one level to the next without returning to the other levels. The dynamic nature of thinking also reminds me of the constant encoding/decoding process in literacy and the nonlinear nature of hypermedia: ways of thinking are always in flux, contributing different but equal parts to understanding.
After reading chapters 1-3 of MTV, I was reminded of the DDLS program motto, "Thinking Differently Made Visible." A goal of this MEd program is to change our thinking about thinking: to make our thinking different and to make it visible. The application of DDLS concepts, like thinking, is not hierarchical; we are not waiting until graduation to give a big portfolio presentation. We make our thinking visible with every observation, connection, and product we make, all the while tying back to and applying previously learned concepts.
I made my understanding of thinking routines visible in my EDIT 783 Thinking Design Document, which I wrote for an AVID unit about paying for college through financial aid. Writing a lesson design is one thing--we write one or two per semester--but actually being able to use a design in my teaching practice has contributed even more to my understanding of thinking routines. I incorporated the three thinking mini-lessons in my AVID distance learning classroom in April and May 2020:
The evidence of the success of thinking routines is in these student products. Although we were not together in a physical classroom, students used thinking routines to make their thinking visible.
The capstone project of EDIT 783 was designing and creating a hypermedia content game in Power Point. The project was a combination of two literacies, hypermedia and gaming--two powerful tools in a designer's toolbox--and designing for thinking and problem solving. Greg Toppo's book The Game Believes in You argued that video and computer games engage students in hard fun; students want to engage in action-based, fun opportunities that are still rigorous and appropriately challenging. Games allow students to learn through play in a low-risk environment.
The degree of thinking and problem solving within games cannot be replicated by listening to a lecture and taking notes. Gaming gives students ownership over their learning experience. As a student assumes a virtual identity, he or she makes decisions and takes actions within a simulation or interactive fiction game, which drives learning and understanding of a concept. An example that stood out to me was the DragonBox iPad application, which teaches the concepts of algebra in 100 levels to preschool students, who played the game outside of school. Concepts of mathematics were not explained as algebra is typically taught in American middle or high schools; preschool-aged children applied concepts of substitution and distribution without learning definitions or taking notes. If all our students can have the same excitement and agency over their learning, why would we not use games more in the classroom?
In my own teaching practice, I have not found many accessible games for the Latin or AVID classroom; most games are out of my budget or require hardware that the school does not provide. Most of the available Latin language games are skill-based games, in which students engage in matching, sorting, or answering activities to check their understanding. This sort of game is not as engaging as simulating the spread of the Roman empire or playing as a fifth century BCE mercenary, trying to reunite his or her family. So what would happen if I were to design and create my own game?
“Caesar’s Cursus” is a choose-your-own-adventure interactive fiction game in which students play as the virtual character of Gaius Julius Caesar. Students make progress in the game by leveling up through political offices of the cursus honorum (CH), the ancient Roman “path of promotion.” The goal of the game is to become a consul, restore family honor, and earn the favor of the Roman gods. Students learn via game play to:
While the game’s primary focus is the CH, it also reviews Latin vocabulary, religion, architecture, and the role of the military as a part of the “Caesar’s Cursus” universe.
I have used various methods to teach the CH in the past: slide decks, worksheets, content questions, and a “create your own board game” project. As with any new concept and vocabulary words--and especially words in a different language--it is difficult to learn the concepts without experiencing the authentic activity of a culture. We cannot time-travel to ancient Rome to participate in elections. My real design problem was: “How do I facilitate students’ ability to conceptualize hierarchical power in the Roman world and make connections to other subjects?”
The Hypermedia Content Game is a way to experience the authentic activity of a culture. Students travel back to the year 81 B.C.E. and become Gaius Julius Caesar, the most famous dictator of ancient Rome. This virtual identity is:
I created a game with an authentic feel to engage learners. Students assume a virtual identity and progress through a fictive narrative that is compelling and based on historical events. Students engage in thinking actions and problem solving activities as they choose their virtual identity’s path. I selected multimedia--images and sounds--that would convey meaning within the game experience. I utilized graphic editing tools, such as the website Remove.bg and an image transparency tool, to create a visually appealing game environment. I used PowerPoint as an assembly tool to combine all game pieces and employed PowerPoint features, such as object animations and hyperlinking, to connect all nonlinear elements into a networked game experience.
For best results, the "Caesar's Cursus" game should be downloaded and played in Microsoft PowerPoint desktop version.
If you load it in Google Slides, the custom animations will not work as I originally intended.
I first heard of the DEAPR process at the end of EDIT 784, Designing for Community Participation. I remember thinking, “When am I ever going to use this? I can skip steps--it will be fine.” Boy, was I in for a surprise! The DEAPR design process has influenced all products in the DDLS course sequence. A signature product of every DDLS course has been one or more design documents, which must be completed prior to entering the Assembly phase of DEAPR. I have become increasingly metacognitive about the DEAPR process with each design I create.
In EDIT 784, my partner and I wrote a design for a podcast about the FDR Memorial to answer the invitation of one “Sara von Bruggen.” We encoded our research into a script and gathered sound effects, which we assembled with our own vocals via the sound editing program Audacity. First we published our work to ourselves, then revised for imperfections, and finally presented to the whole EDIT 784 class. Through this activity, we learned how to teach community of place and got our first taste of using DEAPR.
Throughout the the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 semesters, I used DEAPR to create several other designs prior to assembling a product:
The products I created in Summer and Fall 2019 were fairly linear in their design and assembly. As I have progressed through the DDLS sequence--and especially in Designing for Literacy and Problem Solving--the products have become more complex with the incorporation of multimedia, hypermedia, and nonlinear components. The DEAPR process became critical to the success of each product; each step had to be completed before moving on to the next step. I had to create a design for “Caesar’s Cursus” before I could encode (gather pieces), assemble (put the pieces together), or publish (present to the class) the final product.
My favorite part of “Caesar’s Cursus” was the design phase: doing the research, creating a Padlet storyboard, thinking about connections between game content (how would one slide link correctly to the next?), and crafting a compelling virtual identity and game experience that my students would actually want to engage in. The design and encoding (gathering pieces) phases of this project went very well. I spent a lot of time on my game design document and in collecting or creating images. If I had not spent as much time designing, I would have been completely lost while assembling all the pieces; I had to refer to the storyboard for every button I needed to set up as an action item to link to another slide.
The DEAPR game design process truly incorporated all “ends” pieces of DDLS:
The Hypermedia Content Game was the perfect “final project” to end the DDLS course sequence. I used the sum of all my knowledge to produce an ultimate example of an authentic design for use in my classroom.