View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Overcoming Barriers between Volunteer Professionals Advising Project-Based Learning Teams with Regulation Tools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Overcoming Barriers between Volunteer Professionals Advising Project-Based Learning Teams with Regulation Tools
Language: English
Authors: Rees Lewis, Daniel G., Easterday, Matthew W., Harburg, Emily, Gerber, Elizabeth M., Riesbeck, Christopher K.
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. May 2018 49(3):354-369.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2018
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: IIS1320693
IIS1530833
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Barriers, Student Projects, Teaching Methods, Computer Mediated Communication, Goal Orientation, Interviews, Observation, Data Analysis, Active Learning, Teamwork, Specialists, College Students, Program Descriptions, Management Systems, Cues, Coaching (Performance), Professional Personnel
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12550
ISSN: 0007-1013
Abstract: To provide the substantial support required for project-based learning (PBL), educators can incorporate professional experts as "design coaches." However, previous work shows barriers incorporating design coaches who can rarely meet face-to-face: (1) communication online is time-consuming, (2) updating coaches online is not perceived as valuable, (3) students do not seek help, (4) coaches are not proactive online and (5) coaches struggle to gain the awareness from student online communications. How might we design socio-technical systems that can incorporate professionals coaching? In a 6-week university PBL product design program with three teams (four members per team) and five coaches, teams met with coaches on campus for 2-hours a week, but otherwise communicated with teams online. We created and tested "StandUp," a system designed to overcome coaching barriers online that: prompts team planning, goal setting and monitoring of progress and displays this information online to coaches. We collected and analyzed interview, observation and log data. We found "StandUp" helped participants overcome coaching barriers by providing students a way to regulate group learning which in turn automatically emailed reports to coaches thereby supporting coach awareness; coach awareness in turn prompted both online coaching and face-to-face coaching. This work provides evidence from one context. Future work should measure learning and explore different regulation scripts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1175563
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFa8eHm2f4HooMpKq3dBrO4AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBPHhwAGMRDsdkExpAIBEICBmkTmps0AYbeyae3xAFZ8BhHbomohVucDjoUOtcDzlHu-3PoT6dNUaOUeDjKXJy7TsgDiuHAkgN5pWIlYC25c0ZwFAFfGOfLhgZ3qVlPQTkINFuHYOgONDkUg6SUzrBRcvkQUaI4ol7W4eEo5t-CYX-TKmnJrHZep4HUGs78Bl1kQElqCBYDUV-A1ShuEelwVu7kUD20p_S9sTj4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0128997500;58i01may.18;2018Apr12.14:16;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128997500-1">Overcoming barriers between volunteer professionals advising project‐based learning teams with regulation tools </title> <sbt id="AN0128997500-2">Practitioner Notes</sbt> <p>Abstract: To provide the substantial support required for project‐based learning (PBL), educators can incorporate professional experts as <italic>design coaches</italic>. However, previous work shows barriers incorporating design coaches who can rarely meet face‐to‐face: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) communication online is time‐consuming, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) updating coaches online is not perceived as valuable, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) students do not seek help, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) coaches are not proactive online and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) coaches struggle to gain the awareness from student online communications. How might we design socio‐technical systems that can incorporate professionals coaching? In a 6‐week university PBL product design program with three teams (four members per team) and five coaches, teams met with coaches on campus for 2‐hours a week, but otherwise communicated with teams online. We created and tested <italic>StandUp</italic>, a system designed to overcome coaching barriers online that: prompts team planning, goal setting and monitoring of progress and displays this information online to coaches. We collected and analyzed interview, observation and log data. We found <italic>StandUp</italic> helped participants overcome coaching barriers by providing students a way to regulate group learning which in turn automatically emailed reports to coaches thereby supporting coach awareness; coach awareness in turn prompted both online coaching and face‐to‐face coaching. This work provides evidence from one context. Future work should measure learning and explore different regulation scripts.</p> <p>What we already know about the topic</p> <p>Project‐based learning is a common and effective teaching approach for authentic practices (eg, scientific inquiry, product design).</p> <p>Design coaching from an expert is a highly impactful way to support PBL. However, there are barriers for engaging volunteer professionals as design coaches.</p> <p>Online regulation tools that prompt students to externalize their planning, goal setting and monitoring of progress might help overcome coaching barriers.</p> <p>What this paper adds</p> <p>A description and empirical demonstration of a novel regulation system designed to overcome design‐coaching barriers.</p> <p>Evidence that to overcome coaching barriers, systems should support team regulation routines that generate reports sent to design coaches. These reports in turn support design coach awareness and coaching activity.</p> <p>Implications for practice</p> <p>A functional system (StandUp) based on qualitative research in a university program.</p> <p>Designing systems that simultaneously (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) address team regulation and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) support design coach awareness of teams can overcome barriers to incorporating professionals as coaches.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-3">Introduction</hd> <p>In many professional disciplines, such as product design, there are a large number of industry professionals willing to volunteer their time and expertise to advise learners. Thus, professionals offer an untapped resource of great potential, especially for learning environments designed to promote learning of professional practices such as project‐based learning (PBL). Volunteer professionals might play a range of design coaching roles in PBL as they work with teams, such as modeling more challenging tasks, diagnosing student struggles and prompting students to reflect. However, volunteer professionals, who predominantly work in industry, can only periodically meet face‐to‐face and so experience significant barriers to staying involved in design coaching students (Rees Lewis, Harburg, Gerber, & Easterday, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>] ): students both do not spontaneously update coaches about their project as it takes time to communicate, diminishes self‐esteem and they may not view time spent communicating as valuable. Furthermore, volunteer professional coaches may not proactively prompt students for information (as a teacher might).</p> <p>Fortunately, new web technologies may increase our ability to support design coaching for students by professionals who can only occasionally meet face‐to‐face. In the current study, we ask, how might we create socio‐technical systems that support professionals design coaching students in PBL learning environments? To answer this question, we created and tested the StandUp system, an online regulation tool.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-4">Background</hd> <hd id="AN0128997500-5">Project‐based learning</hd> <p>PBL environments should engage students in learning challenging practices that are aligned with real‐world practice (Krajcik & Shin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>] ). For example, in a product design class, students might investigate the needs of real users and create products to meet these needs. Educators in a wide range of domains use PBL, including engineering, science, design and social studies (Sawyer, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>] ). Krajcik and Shin ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>] ) argue that across domains PBL should have the following features: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>) a project triggered by a driving question framing the challenge; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>) practices, content and assessments aligned with a discipline; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>) students create a product to address the driving question; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>) students are supported by peers, teachers, community members and technology (Krajcik & Shin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>] ). PBL is highly challenging, as a result educators cannot always provide students with sufficient support (Edelson & Reiser, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-6">Regulation and regulation tools</hd> <p>PBL requires a significant amount of regulation of learning—a metacognitive process made up of the following phases: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) assessing a task and setting goals; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) evaluating if learner(s) can complete the task; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) planning strategies and tasks to achieve the goal(s); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>) enacting the plan; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>) reflecting on progress and process (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>] ). Regulation of learning occurs at the group and individual level (Miller & Hadwin, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>] ). Groups work together to regulate learning for a shared outcome (socially shared regulation of learning—SSRL) such as in PBL teams, or individuals support the regulation of others (co‐regulation of learning—CoRL), such as with coaches.</p> <p>Researchers have developed regulation tools to support team regulation (SSRL). Regulation tools are socio‐technical systems—combinations of software, pedagogical routines/scripts—designed to promote regulation (Miller & Hadwin, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>] ). Tools support regulation through: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) scripts that guide activities that prompt regulation; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) awareness tools that record student externalization of regulation to help others gain awareness of that regulation. Scripts and awareness tools can work together; scripts prompt students to regulate and externalize regulation and awareness tools compile these written or graphical externalizations. Outside of our previous study (Rees Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>] ), no empirical studies investigate how regulation tools support educators (Panadero & Järvelä, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-7">Design coaching</hd> <p>Educators can support learners through design coaching (Gilbuena, Sherrett, Gummer, Champagne, & Koretsky, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>] ). Receiving advice from an expert is one of the most powerful educational interventions to increase student learning and performance (VanLehn, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>] ). Coaching and related terms (eg, mentoring) are different across research communities. We use the term design coaching from the PBL and engineering education research communities to mean supporting student regulation in order to move them closer to expert performance (Collins, Brown, & Newman, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>] ). The formative frame, stress on relationships and focus on learner‐set goals (Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>] ; Gilbuena et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>] ; Hamilton & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>] ) differentiate design coaching from traditional teaching, and mirrors the relationship building elements of workplace psychology coaching (eg, Berry, Ashby, Gnilka, & Matheny, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Design coaching involves a range of activities including, diagnosing student struggles as they seek to achieve their goals, supporting teams in achieving the goals they set, modeling how to do tasks, building trusting relationships with the team, helping with a formative framing, encouraging students and prompting students to reflect (Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>] ; Gilbuena et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>] ; Hamilton & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>] ). Design coaching is adaptive and cyclical, as the educator gains awareness of student thinking and actions, and involves applying a range of actions to support student regulation. Specifically, design coaches:</p> <p>Work with learner‐set goals: Unlike a teacher, design coaches are not the primary orchestrator of the class, do not set the syllabus, but respond to student goals.</p> <p>Diagnose and monitor students: Much of the work done by the design coach involves working out the specific student struggles, and then reacting accordingly.</p> <p>Provide formative feedback and facilitation: In supporting students in achieving their goals, design coaches provide formative support rather than summative feedback. Design coaches might give direct feedback on subject related activities, or facilitate discussions to help students reach their own conclusions.</p> <p>Build relationship (1‐coach‐to‐1‐team): Unlike classroom teachers that “manage” the class as a whole, design coaches are typically paired with one team and build a relationship with that team.</p> <p>Have relevant expertise: The design coaches have expertise in the practices the learning environment seeks to promote.</p> <p>While teachers might act as coaches in PBL, in this study, we examine industry professionals as unsupervised volunteer coaches (no pay/do not give grades) who give a few potentially highly impactful hours per week. While they can sometimes meet face‐to‐face, these professionals cannot meet face‐to‐face every time students require support. However, they may be able to supplement face‐to‐face meetings with support online.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-8">Previous study reveals design‐coaching barriers to engagement</hd> <p>Unfortunately, there are barriers to volunteer professionals coaching in PBL. In a previous study in the same program (previous year) as the current study, in we identified barriers for volunteer professional design coaches maintaining engagement outside of face‐to‐face meetings (Rees Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>] ). As a result, although coaches agreed to support teams with both weekly face‐to‐face meetings and online between meetings, no significant coaching occurred online.</p> <p>Rees Lewis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>] ) found barriers to volunteer professionals coaching online in a PBL program (Figure ). First, there was a barrier of student communication. It was time‐consuming for teams to communicate relevant information to coaches. For example, over a few days students might interview seven stakeholders, analyze these interviews, re‐define the problem based on interviews and brainstorm five design solutions. Communicating these activities and reasoning takes time. Students spent 45–90 minutes writing weekly update emails to coaches (that coaches did not find useful). Students spent 44 minutes (mean) of the 2‐hour face‐to‐face meetings informing the coach of their activities. Second, there was a barrier of student motivation. Students did not perceive that online communication with coaches supported project work, and stopped communicating online when facilitators stopped encouraging them to do so. Third, there was a barrier of explicit student help‐seeking. Students did not seek help with coaches in emails because they were not always able to recognize they needed help, or did not to surface issues to coaches because it diminished their self‐esteem. Only one of 16 online communications (emails) from students to coaches contained a direct request for help. Fourth, there was a barrier of coach proactivity. Coaches were reactive to students online, and would not proactively prompt students for information outside of meetings (as a teacher might). There were no instances of coaches instigating online communication. Fifth, there was a barrier of coach awareness. Coaches did not gain the appropriate awareness to help with coaching, as student written online externalizations were not detailed or regular enough to inform coaches of up‐to‐date student thinking and behavior. For example, a student email might report that they “tested prototypes” 3 days ago. In total, there were three online coaching comments during the program.</p> <p>The previous study provides baseline measures for the current study (Table ). The previous study occurred in the same program the year before the current study. Building on the previous study, the current study tests a system to overcome these barriers.</p> <p>Baseline measures for design‐coaching barriers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="2"><tr><th>Design‐coaching barriers</th><th>Baseline measure</th></tr><tr><td>Student communication barrier</td><td> ‐ Students reported finding it time‐consuming to keep coaches informed online. ‐ Students spent 45–90 minutes writing weekly update emails to coaches. ‐ Students spent 44 minutes (mean) of face‐to‐face meetings informing the coach of their team's past activity.</td></tr><tr><td>Student motivation barrier</td><td> ‐ When given a choice, students rejected communication technology that they perceived as only useful for informing the coach. ‐ Students reported that they stopped communicating with their coaches online, as they perceived no benefit to their project.</td></tr><tr><td>Explicit student help‐seeking barrier</td><td>‐ Students rarely requested help online. 1‐out‐of‐16 student online communication to coaches contained request for help.</td></tr><tr><td>Coach proactivity barrier</td><td>‐ There were no instances of coach instigated online communication.</td></tr><tr><td>Coach awareness barrier</td><td> ‐ Coaches reported that because student emails were not detailed or regular enough, the coaches did not have the awareness of current student thinking and behavior they needed to coach. ‐ There were a total of three online coaching comments during the program.</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0128997500-9">Purpose</hd> <p>In this study, we aimed to create a system to overcome coaching barriers for expert‐professionals design coaching PBL teams. We sought to design a system that students found useful for regulating their own process, so it would cause them to regularly and indirectly surface information to coaches that in turn encouraged coaching. We propose the following design argument: to support coaching in PBL, we should provide socio‐technical systems that include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>) regular, shared social group regulation scripts for teams to plan, set goals, and monitor progress, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>) templated question prompts that externalize team progress in a report to coaches; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>) automated, online email notifications that prompt coaches to review student externalization.</p> <p>We predict that systems designed in this way will overcome the coaching barriers as follows. Teaching students a regulation script supported by online question prompts will provide teams with a low‐effort way to regulate their group work so students will willingly engage in team regulatory activities (overcoming the student motivation barrier). The templated questions regularly prompt students to reflect on their progress and set goals in their daily project work. This information is automatically sent to coaches, without additional work to communicate (overcoming the student communication barrier). Coaches automatically receive useful information about student teams (overcoming the coach awareness barrier), which elicits coaching (overcoming the coach proactivity barrier). The system bypasses the explicit student help‐seeking barrier, as it does not rely on explicit student help seeking.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-10">The StandUp system</hd> <p>To test our design argument, we implemented a socio‐technical system called StandUp, which included seven components (Figure ):</p> <p>StandUp feed. Facebook‐like feed where students and design coaches could post and receive messages. The feed dated and ordered posts (most recent top), with comment boxes on all posts.</p> <p>StandUp weekly goal setting template. On the feed, students could click a button to make a structured post about their weekly goals. The prompt was: What is your sprint [week] goal? with an open text box to post a response.</p> <p>Weekly goal setting script. Each week, students set their weekly goals using the StandUp feed, following the goal setting script taught by the facilitator. During goal‐setting, teams discussed what reasonable and measurable goal they wanted to achieve for the week (5–10 minutes).</p> <p>StandUp daily template and report. Students could click a button to make a structured post about their daily plans. The prompts were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) What's your sprint [week] goal for this week?; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) Are you on track to achieving your sprint [week] goal? (yes/no); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) What specific progress have you made toward the goal since last stand [yesterday]?; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>) What will you achieve between now and the next stand?; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>) What obstacles are in the way of achieving your sprint goal(s)? Who do you need to talk to or what will you do to overcome these obstacles? Each prompt included an open text box to post a response. Filling out the template created a stand‐report on the feed (Figure ).</p> <p>StandUp blueprint: design coach and student actions and points of interaction [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <p>A stand‐report with design coach comments [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <p>Daily StandUp script. Each day, students set daily goals, planned and monitored their progress following the StandUp daily stand script (5–10 minutes). Students discussed the question prompts, while one student summarized answers in the stand template. Teams used the stand template to simultaneously engage in core team planning, goal setting, monitoring (SSRL), while also creating written reports that the system automatically sent to coaches. Both weekly and daily goal scripts are aligned with software management practices (Rasmusson, ).</p> <p>StandUp email notifications with stand‐report. Each time teams create a stand‐report, the system emailed the stand‐report (questions and written prompts) to the specific coaches paired with that team. The emails included a link to the post.</p> <p>Training. Facilitation of the weekly goal setting script and the daily stand script with teams (weeks 1–3).</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-11">Methodology</hd> <p>To test the effectiveness of the design argument in overcoming design‐coaching barriers, we implemented StandUp and conducted a field study, collecting and analyzing interviews, log data and field observations.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-12">Research site</hd> <p>We observed the StandUp system in a 6‐week PBL extra‐curricular (no credit/grades) US university program. Student teams created a product to solve a local social challenge. Teams worked 40 hours/week in a campus studio. Each team was paired with 1 or 2 coaches. Coaches met with the teams in the studio for 2 hours/week, and agreed to communicate online for another 2‐hours/week. An experienced undergraduate facilitated the program that followed a 6‐phase design process. Teams partnered with local organizations that provided access to the challenge context, users and expertise. Team 1 worked with a medical research center on helping newly diagnosed diabetics with their lifestyle adjustments. Team 2 worked with a food depository to improve customer experience. Team 3 worked with a resettlement program to support transition for newly arrived refugees.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-13">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included 12 US undergraduates aged 18–23, majoring in mechanical engineering (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>), computer science (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>), product design (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>), chemical engineering (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>), mathematics (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>), art (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) and literature (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>). Five professionals who worked in the neighboring city (40–75 minutes travel) acted as volunteer design coaches (unpaid/no credit). Coach ages ranged from 28 to 61, and had between 5 and 34 years of relevant professional experience (eg, product design). No supervision was provided to coaches. All participation was voluntary, and participants were free to opt out of the study at any time.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-14">Intervention</hd> <p>At the beginning of the program, researchers introduced student teams and coaches to StandUp (described previously). Specifically, researchers:</p> <p>Gave students a 15‐minute demo of StandUp's functionality. Researchers showed students how to post weekly goal and daily stand‐report templates.</p> <p>Sent coaches an email invitation to StandUp, and informed coaches verbally that they would receive regular emails from the team (2–3‐minute conversation). Otherwise, coaches were given no training.</p> <p>In both, the demos and consent forms we informed all participants that the research team and all other participants in the program could see posts on StandUp. The questions the teams discussed and wrote on the feed were designed to support project challenges (eg, testing designs), and we did not anticipate the disclosure of any sensitive personal information.</p> <p>Researchers also facilitated the use of the systems, and faded out this facilitation over the course of the 6‐week program. In weeks 1–3 of the program researchers facilitated:</p> <ulist> <item>5–10‐minute weekly goal setting scripts. At the start of weeks 1–3, the facilitator asked the question what is your sprint [week] goal? As teams discussed their weekly goals, the facilitator also asked questions to encourage setting feasible and specific goals (eg, are you sure you can achieve all of that?).</item> <item>5–10‐minute daily stand script. Every day in week 1, and every 2 days in weeks 2 and 3, the facilitator encouraged discussion within the team on the stand script questions (component 4 in systems description above). During discussion, the facilitator asked questions to encourage team accountability, setting feasible and specific goals, and monitoring (eg, are you sure you do not have any obstacles?).</item> </ulist> <p>In both scripts, one student team member summarized the discussion on the StandUp system template. In weeks 4–6, teams conducted the scripts independently.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-15">Data collection</hd> <p>We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with students in weeks 2–6 of the program, which asked about project work, coach interactions and use of StandUp. Student interviews lasted between 20 and 36 minutes. We conducted 6 semistructured interviews (in weeks 2–6) with coaches on coaching experiences, student interactions and use of StandUp. Coach interviews lasted between 20 and 75 minutes. Each coach was interviewed 1–2 times.</p> <p>To record answers pertinent to the participants' experiences and reduce bias, we structured interview protocols to begin with open questions (eg, “How was coaching this week?”) and end with direct questions (eg, “How long does it take to update the coach in meetings?”). Interviewers encouraged participants to be critical of the system, informing them it was a prototype we were testing. We also collected log data from the system (stand‐reports, coach comments).</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-16">Data analysis</hd> <p>We conducted qualitative data analysis on interview and log data. We started our analysis with an initial set of codes based on how the system should work according to the design argument (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>] ). That is, we did not derive all our codes inductively from the data, as we had a hypothesis for how the system would work. We amended our codes as we analyzed the data. For example, our initial coding scheme had codes relating to elements of the system such as coach read stand‐report. We used this coding scheme to code the interview transcripts, clustering similar responses to derive codes nested within these codes and new codes. For example, the code coaches prepare to facilitate meetings emerged to capture an unanticipated reaction of coaches to stand‐reports.</p> <p>We analyzed log data with a coding scheme from theories of regulation (Ambrose et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>] ) to see if coaching (CoRL) occurred online. For example, the code suggesting different goals captured online coaching comments that suggested teams change their goals. We used log data and field notes to check our findings.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-17">Findings</hd> <p>We tested StandUp to see if it helped overcome the 5 design‐coaching barriers found in the previous study (Rees Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>] ): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) student communication—students spent significant time and effort to communicate the project to the coach; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) student motivation—students did not perceive value in spending time updating the coach; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) student help‐seeking—students did not seek help from coaches; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>) coach proactivity—coaches did not proactively prompt students for information online; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>) coach awareness—coaches did not gain useful and up‐to‐date information from students' written externalizations.</p> <p>We found that the StandUp system overcame coaching barriers and supported co‐regulation of learning (CoRL) both online and in face‐to‐face meetings. The StandUp system simultaneously satisfied students' needs to help plan, set goals and monitor progress, and coaches' needs for greater awareness to support coaching (Figure , Table ). To help readers track data sources, we refer to each participant using a personal ID (PID) number (Table ).</p> <p>Summary of evidence that StandUp helped overcome design‐coaching barriers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tr><th>Design coaching barriers</th><th>Baseline measures from the previous study (see background, Rees Lewis, et al., )</th><th>StandUp logic (design argument)</th><th>Findings (current study)</th></tr><tr><td>Student communication barrier</td><td> ‐ Students reported finding it time‐consuming to keep coaches informed online. ‐ Students spent 45–90 minutes writing weekly update emails to coaches. ‐ Students spent 44 minutes (mean) of face‐to‐face meetings informing the coach of their team's past activity.</td><td>The templates scaffold the communication so teams can quickly make a stand‐report. Students communicate with coaches “for free,” as stand‐reports are part of their daily project work.</td><td> ‐ Students reported valuing StandUp for project work. ‐ Students used StandUp after facilitation ended when they were free to reject the system. ‐ On average students spent 12 minutes (mean) of face‐to‐face meetings updating the coach of team activity.</td></tr><tr><td>Student motivation barrier</td><td> ‐ When given a choice, students rejected communication technology that they perceived as only useful for informing the coach. ‐ Students reported that they stopped communicating with their coaches online, as they perceived no benefit to their project.</td><td>The regulation script is inherently useful. Teams gain from conducting the regulation script.</td><td> ‐ Students reported valuing system for project work. ‐ Students used StandUp after facilitation ended when they were free to reject the system.</td></tr><tr><td>Explicit student help‐seeking barrier</td><td>‐ Students rarely requested help online. 1‐out‐of‐16 student online communication to coaches contained request for help.</td><td>The design does not rely on student help seeking. The goal is to scaffold past help seeking.</td><td>‐ Bypassed by students continued use of system that automatically sent emails to coaches.</td></tr><tr><td>Coach proactivity barrier</td><td>‐ There were no instances of coach instigated online communication.</td><td>The design does not rely on coaches to initiate communication; rather the system prompts the coach.</td><td>‐ Bypassed by students and coaches continued and independent use of system.</td></tr><tr><td>Coach awareness barrier</td><td> ‐ Coaches reported that because student emails were not detailed or regular enough, the coaches did not have the awareness of current student thinking and behavior they needed to coach. ‐ There were a total of three online coaching comments during the program.</td><td>Scaffold student answers with question prompts so written externalizations have more relevant information for coaching. The regularity of the system script prompts more regular communication to coaches.</td><td> ‐ Coaches found student externalizations in stand‐report useful for coaching. ‐ Coaching online was supported. There were a total of 63 online coaching comments. ‐ Coaches entered face‐to‐face with more knowledge of the team.</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Participant IDs</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tr><th /><th>Team challenge</th><th>Student PIDs*</th><th>Coach PIDs*</th></tr><tr><td>Team 1</td><td>How can we help newly diagnosed diabetics adjust to their new lifestyle?</td><td>S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4</td><td>C1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Team 2</td><td>How can we improve the experience and attendance of those who receive food from food depositories?</td><td>S2.1, S2.2, S2.3, S2.4</td><td>C2.1, C2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Team 3</td><td>How can we support the transition of newly arrived refugees?</td><td>S3.1, S3.2, S3.3, S3.4</td><td>C3.1, C3.2</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *S = Student; C = Coach. First digit identifies team. S1.2 = student on Team 1; C3.1 = coach on Team 3.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-18">Students valued stand script for project work</hd> <p>The students found that the system was valuable for supporting their project work. When asked open interview questions about project work, students from all teams reported that the system supported their project work (team goal setting, planning and monitoring; S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4, S2.1, S2.2, S2.3, S2.4, S3.1, S3.2). For example, S1.1 noted about the stand‐script:</p> <p>It's [the stand‐script] useful for setting our goals straight, as in we put more thought into our goals… …It's [the feed] good as reference, for instance, we're at the end of the day or in the middle of the day and we're like, “What do we have to do next?” We can just look back and refer to the goals that we've listed out in the morning and figure out what we need to do next. Or if it's the middle of the week, for instance, and we need to double check [the weekly‐sprint goal].</p> <p>Here, the student reported that the stand‐script helped their team set goals and plan, and the stand‐report functioned as a record for the team, reminding team members of the goals they had set. When asked directly, no student reported that using the system produced no value (eg, a waste of time).</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-19">Students continued using the system when not facilitated</hd> <p>In the baseline established by the previous study, students and coaches stopped using the system if not encouraged to do so by a facilitator. In the current study, the students continued using the StandUp system after the researchers stopped facilitating its use at the end of week 3 of the 6‐week program. As in the previous study, participants were free to stop using the system. Students continued to conduct stands after facilitators stopped facilitating, as shown by analysis of log data and field notes. When asked an open question about teamwork in week 6 of the program, S1.3 stated: “We were very adamant about doing our stands every morning… …it was definitely very, very integral to our team dynamic.” Continued use of the system is significant; self‐sustained coaching between volunteer expert professionals and students significantly reduces the orchestration burden on teachers while producing learning and performance benefits.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-20">Coaches gained awareness from stand‐reports</hd> <p>In interviews, coaches described how reading the stand‐reports helped them gain awareness of team actions. All coaches reported that they regularly (minimum every 2 days) read the emails with the stand‐reports. This is not insignificant; it is entirely possible that emails sit unopened in coaches' inboxes. All coaches reported that reviewing stand‐reports helped them gain awareness of team behavior and cognition. For example, C2.2 talked about reviewing the stand‐reports in weeks 4 and 5 of the program:</p> <p>they're pretty useful…. the stands. Where it talked about goals for the week, being on track, something can achieve and what obstacles, that was very informative. And for me I could see it going out like “okay, yeah I think they're on track” or “Wow, they're still having trouble with the fact that nobody on the team speaks Spanish. (C2.2)</p> <p>In this example, the coach talked about how in week 4 she became aware that her team was still working on how to interview their Spanish‐speaking users. In the previous study, coaches did not find that students' online updates provided useful information for coaching, and consequently ignored these updates.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-21">Online comments</hd> <p>In the previous study, we observed three online comments from coaches in the 6‐week program. In the current study, we identified 63 instances of online coaching through the system in response to the stand‐reports, suggesting that the StandUp system helped coaches gain sufficient awareness of the team to engage in online coaching. The log data showed instances of coaches reacting to the stand‐reports by regulating student teams (CoRL; Ambrose et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>] ) by: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) suggesting different goals, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) suggesting that teams evaluate their abilities, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) suggesting ways to improve planning and enactment, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>) suggesting how to view team progress (eg, praise), and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>) suggesting team reflection on their project or process (Table ).</p> <p>Online design‐coaching comments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="3"><tr><th>Type of coach comment</th><th>No. of comments</th><th>Example coach comments</th></tr><tr><td>(1) Suggesting goals: comments that suggest setting a different daily goal.</td><td>5</td><td>“Also, think about drafting a stakeholder map [before brainstorming]” C3.2</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Suggesting the evaluation of team abilities: comments that suggest teams should evaluate their own abilities, or in which the coach explicitly evaluates the team's abilities.</td><td>4</td><td>“define methods you'd like to strengthen or explore… as it relates to the specific things you're working on” C1</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Suggesting ways to improve planning and enactment: comments that suggest ways to plan or enact that are either different from, or unspecified by, the team. These are suggestions to help the team achieve their stated goals.</td><td>16</td><td>“thinking about the possible language barriers [for interviews]… consider using an image deck” C2.2</td></tr><tr><td>(4) Suggesting how to view team progress: comments that frame how to think about work, such as praise or framing team struggles as normal.</td><td>19</td><td> “Team, Great that you were able to present 3 mock‐ups of your concepts” C3.2 “I want to commend you for your endurance and hard work over these past few days meeting with researchers, patients/caregivers, and health professionals! It's going to pay off.” C1</td></tr><tr><td>(5) Suggesting reflection on project or process: comments that suggest the team reflects on their project or process.</td><td>19</td><td>“summarize what you've done together… you can diagram it on the whiteboard” C1</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0128997500-22">Coaches enter meetings with increased awareness and planning</hd> <p>StandUp also supported face‐to‐face coaching. All coaches spontaneously described how reviewing reports gave them greater awareness of the project, which in turn informed face‐to‐face meetings. Coach C1.1 stated: “If I didn't see some of this stuff [stand‐reports] and I walked in on Tuesday… I'd be a little bit lost for sure, a lot of lost.” C2.1 talked about how reading a stand‐report made them aware that the teams had tested a prototype earlier than expected:</p> <p>When they said [in stand‐report] that they had tested some of the concepts… then when I saw them, I was like… …talk a little bit more about what you learned. I would sometimes remember what they said up here [stand‐reports] and then ask them for more detail when I saw them in person… it would impact my next exchange with them.</p> <p>In this example, the stand‐report made the coach aware that the team changed plans—a common occurrence in product design. The coach entered the meeting with awareness of the team behavior and changed their coaching accordingly.</p> <p>Beyond starting meetings with greater awareness of team activity and using this to support coaching, coaches also used this awareness to inform their planning for face‐to‐face meetings (C1, C3.1, C3.2). In total, coaches reported planning 4 face‐to‐face meetings in reaction to stand‐reports (C1 on team management and brainstorming; C3.1 and C3.2 on data analysis and client management). This was significant given educator planning can positively impact student learning.</p> <p>Student accounts of face‐to‐face meetings also indicated that the StandUp system supported face‐to‐face coaching. When asked open interview questions about meetings, students stated that coaches came to meetings with an understanding of the project from reading the stand‐reports (S1.3, S2.2, S2.4, S3.2, S3.3). For example, S3.3 reflected on a meeting:</p> <p>They were concerned with – this was last week. Last Tuesday, where we really dove into the dissertation we had and they really wanted to talk about concerns of relying too much on the dissertation and not primary research. Yeah, that was something they came up with that they want to talk about based on our post [stand‐report].</p> <p>In this example, the student reported that their coaches entered the meeting having seen the stand‐report and suggested that the team change their goals. The team had written in the stand‐report that they had focused most of their efforts on reading a PhD dissertation about refugee transitions. The coaches came to the meeting and suggested that the team prioritize a different goal (user interviews), a suggestion that aligns with professional practice in design research.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-23">Meetings were more efficient</hd> <p>StandUp also supported face‐to‐face coaching by reducing the time that students spent updating coaches on their activities. From open interview questions, students reported spending less time updating the coaches because of the system (S2.2, S2.4, S3.3). As S2.4 stated “it [StandUp] helped the coaches know where we were at and it helps get up to speed on–during the meetings – quicker and more efficiently.” On average, participants estimated that it took 12 minutes (mean) to update coaches at the start of face‐to‐face meetings. The baseline measure established in the previous study was 44 minutes. More quickly, updating coaches and moving on to other coaching activities represents potentially better use of face‐to‐face coaching time.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-24">Conclusion</hd> <p>The findings suggest that StandUp helped overcome design‐coaching barriers (Table ). StandUp succeeded in supporting students regulating their process, and causing students to regularly and inadvertently surface information to coaches. This information in turn encouraged coaching. StandUp overcame student communication and motivation barriers as students viewed the system as valuable enough for their project to continue to use it after facilitation ended. The system bypassed the explicit student help seeking and coach proactivity barriers through scripting team regulation and surfacing this regulation to coaches. Findings suggested the information led to coach awareness that supported coaching; coaches found the regular externalizations useful for coaching face‐to‐face and online. This paper shows how regulation tools and theories offer viable approaches to help overcome design‐coaching barriers; regulation tools appear particularly effective when coaches need to continually monitor and diagnose team issues to offer regular support, but cannot regularly meet face‐to‐face. The findings stress the potential of designing systems that combine team regulation which double as communications with coaches.</p> <p>Future work should further develop and measure similar designs. First, there is a need to examine the system in more contexts; in this study the program was atypical. Second, researchers should explore script variables, such as the frequency of the routine, and facilitation quality. Third, this study focused on creating a working system; future work will seek to measure learning outcomes. Nevertheless, this study is a significant advance in our ability to engage volunteer professionals as design coaches in PBL.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-25">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank Bruce Sherin, Natalia Smirnov, Julie S. Hui, Carolyn Mazanec and Delta Lab for their feedback and support. This work is supported by US National Science Foundation Grant Nos. IIS‐1320693 and IIS‐1530833.</p> <hd id="AN0128997500-26">Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest</hd> <p>Regretfully, due to consent agreements participants signed we cannot make our data open.</p> <p>The study was reviewed by and is in compliance with Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants gave their consent to participate, and could opt out of the study at any time.</p> <p>The technology was an early prototype of software authors Rees Lewis, Easterday and Gerber are currently working with Northwestern University's Innovation Office to license and form a company. They do not hold shares in the company or receive financial compensation.</p> <ref id="AN0128997500-27"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research‐based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Berry, R. M., Ashby, J. S., Gnilka, P. B., & Matheny, K. B. (2011). A comparison of face‐to‐face and distance coaching practices: Coaches' perceptions of the role of the working alliance in problem resolution. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 243. doi:10.1037/a0026735 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 8, 2–10. doi:10.5840/thinking19888129 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Gilbuena, D. M., Sherrett, B. U., Gummer, E. S., Champagne, A. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2015). Feedback on professional skills as enculturation into communities of practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 104, 7–34. doi:10.1002/jee.20061 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Hamilton, M. A., & Hamilton, S. F. (1997). When is work a learning experience? The Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 682–689. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project‐based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref29" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20, 190–203. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000226 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Rasmusson, J. (2010). The agile samurai: How agile masters deliver great software. Frisco, TX: Pragmatic Bookshelf. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref8" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Rees Lewis, D., Harburg, E., Gerber, E. M., & Easterday, M. (2015). Building support tools to connect novice designers with professional coaches. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition 2015 (pp. 43–52). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2757226.2757248 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref10" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Learning how to create: Toward a learning sciences of art and design. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2012, Sydney, Australia. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref31" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197–221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Previous study identified coaching barriers for volunteer professionals coaching PBL (Rees Lewis et al., ) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): StandUp overcame design‐coaching barriers by simultaneously supporting teams' work and externalizing regulation online, increasing coach awareness and in turn supported coaching [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <aug> <p>By Daniel G. Rees Lewis; Matthew W. Easterday; Emily Harburg; Elizabeth M. Gerber and Christopher K. Riesbeck</p> <p></p> <p>Daniel G. Rees Lewis is a PhD student at Learning Sciences, Delta Lab, School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University.</p> <p>Mathew Easterday is an assistant professor at Delta Lab, School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University.</p> <p>Emily Harburg is a PhD student at Technology & Social Behavior, Delta Lab, School of Communications, Northwestern University.</p> <p>Elizabeth Gerber is an associate professor at Delta Lab, School of Engineering, Northwestern University.</p> <p>Christopher K. Riesbeck is an associate professor at School of Engineering.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1175563
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Overcoming Barriers between Volunteer Professionals Advising Project-Based Learning Teams with Regulation Tools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rees+Lewis%2C+Daniel+G%2E%22">Rees Lewis, Daniel G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Easterday%2C+Matthew+W%2E%22">Easterday, Matthew W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harburg%2C+Emily%22">Harburg, Emily</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerber%2C+Elizabeth+M%2E%22">Gerber, Elizabeth M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Riesbeck%2C+Christopher+K%2E%22">Riesbeck, Christopher K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. May 2018 49(3):354-369.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: IIS1320693<br />IIS1530833
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Projects%22">Student Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Observation%22">Observation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Analysis%22">Data Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Specialists%22">Specialists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Management+Systems%22">Management Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cues%22">Cues</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Personnel%22">Professional Personnel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.12550
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To provide the substantial support required for project-based learning (PBL), educators can incorporate professional experts as "design coaches." However, previous work shows barriers incorporating design coaches who can rarely meet face-to-face: (1) communication online is time-consuming, (2) updating coaches online is not perceived as valuable, (3) students do not seek help, (4) coaches are not proactive online and (5) coaches struggle to gain the awareness from student online communications. How might we design socio-technical systems that can incorporate professionals coaching? In a 6-week university PBL product design program with three teams (four members per team) and five coaches, teams met with coaches on campus for 2-hours a week, but otherwise communicated with teams online. We created and tested "StandUp," a system designed to overcome coaching barriers online that: prompts team planning, goal setting and monitoring of progress and displays this information online to coaches. We collected and analyzed interview, observation and log data. We found "StandUp" helped participants overcome coaching barriers by providing students a way to regulate group learning which in turn automatically emailed reports to coaches thereby supporting coach awareness; coach awareness in turn prompted both online coaching and face-to-face coaching. This work provides evidence from one context. Future work should measure learning and explore different regulation scripts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1175563
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1175563
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.12550
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 354
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Observation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Specialists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Management Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cues
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Personnel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Overcoming Barriers between Volunteer Professionals Advising Project-Based Learning Teams with Regulation Tools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rees Lewis, Daniel G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Easterday, Matthew W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harburg, Emily
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerber, Elizabeth M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Riesbeck, Christopher K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1