These slides accompany a paper presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Please cite this presentation as follows: Zuiker, S. J., & Wright, K. (2015, April). Connected Gardening: Cultivating interest and investment in data-infused gardening. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. The paper associated with this presentation will appear in the October 2015 issue of Interactive Learning Environments and can be cited as follows: Zuiker, S. J., & Wright, K. (accepted). Learning in and beyond School Gardens with Cyber-Physical Systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 23 (5).

1. Steve Zuiker
Kyle Wright
Connected Gardening
Cultivating interest & investment in data-infused gardening
Session 26.024
Friday, April 17, 8:15 to 9:45am
1

2. evolving cyber-
physical systems
from sensor-based technologies
(Pea et al, 1999; Krajick & Tinker, 2001)
and probeware (Linn & Hsi, 2000) to
prospect of national sensor
networks (Borgman et al., 2008),
including cyber-physical systems
(Lee, 2008)
• accumulation of positive
findings
• increasing availability,
affordability, & diversity of
instrumentation
3

3. What are the benefits for science learning of new
data visualizations [and] sensor networks?
(Borgman et al., 2008, p. 25)
4

4. vernier.com
(Tinker, 2000)
5

5. 6

6. garden-
based
lessons
garden
programs
7

7. 1
2 3
4 5 67 89
garden-cycle
laboratories8

8. everyday practices in everyday settings
• everyday practices enable questions like “when is
science?” (McDermott and Webber, 1998, p. 323)
• opportunities to do science and be scientific need
not directly resemble the work of disciplinary
experts
• learners can explore science in everyday
experiences (Feinstein, Allen, & Jenkins, 2013)
9

9. everyday practices in everyday settings
• everyday settings enable questions like “why
here?” (Smith, 2002)
• confluence of a physical and cultural environment
• investigating how to grow vegetables under local
climate and soil conditions (e.g., Rahm, 2002)
10

10. Connected Gardening
a design-based research project (Cobb et al, 2003)
• four phase progression through a full garden cycle (e.g.,
everyday practices & setting)
• learners develop and iterate garden plot design through
observation and measurement
• seasonal plant selection
• seed & row spacing
• irrigation schedule
Connected Gardening
1st Design Iteration
11

11. Connected Gardening
a design-based research project (Cobb et al, 2003)
two embodied conjectures (Sandoval, 2014)
1. authenticity & indeterminacy of gardening recruits
science practices into “a way of being in a social world,
not a way of coming to know about it” (Hanks, 1991, p. 24);
garden “authoring” couples agency with real-world
accountability (Engle, 2006; Greeno, 2006)
2. gardening expansively frames scientific and gardening
practices by organizing interplay between what is in a
garden and what a garden is in (Engle, 2006; Engle, Nguyen,
& Mendelson, 2011)
Connected Ga
1st Design Ite12

12. Methods
• Participants: 22 fourth graders and their teacher
• Data generation: participant-observation, field notes,
student-generated artifacts, interviews, research team &
teacher debriefings, audio/video recordings as appropriate
• Data transformation: content logs, data inventory tables
• Analytical framework: “transactions” (Dewey, 1938) as
ways individuals, materials, and activities influence one
another, especially in relation to Connected Gardening
design
13

13. Findings: a design narrative in two parts
• 1st & 2nd garden plot designs & outcomes
• 3rd garden plot design & outcomes
14

14. 1st & 2nd garden plot designs & outcomes
• both resulted in failure
• 1st iteration; learners did not design garden plot
beyond rows & columns of seeds; seeds failed to
germinate.
• 2nd iteration: seedlings transplanted from a seed tray;
seedlings quickly died.
• Authentic design failures: learner-generated designs &
garden-generated feedback foster agency &
accountability (cf. Greeno, 2006)
15

15. 3rd garden plot design & outcomes
• successfully grew tasty corn
• teacher encouraged students to use probe at outset
• observation coupled with measurement re-mediated
student transactions with garden plot
16

16. 17

17. 3rd garden plot design & outcomes
• teacher facilitates data conversations during monitoring
phase
• connecting observations with measurements in real-
time and over time
• “we've had mushrooms growing so does that
mean that it is getting too much water.” —Student
1
• “is that [low soil fertility level] because of the
weeds?” —Student 2
18

18. single-day sunlight exposure
time
(hours)
sunlightexposure
(510nm)
19

19. Conclusions
• simple cyber-physical system enhances productive
transactions around ecosystem dynamics
• coupling observation and measurement through plot
design recruits scientific practices to solve everyday
gardening problems
• evidenced attunement of whole class participation to
ecosystem dynamics
• ongoing tension between findings things out and getting
things done (cf. Schauble et al., 1995)
20

20. Investigate
Evaluate
Explain
Monitor
Harvest
Plan
Connected Gardening
2nd Design Iteration
21

21. Future Research
• What is the reach of cyber-physical systems?
• potential to locate inputs, outputs, and outcomes of
science projects in a broader and more participatory
setting beyond yet within schools
• “re-scaling” projects gives rise to significance,
productivity, and consequentiality in relation to broader
rubrics of participation
22

22. questions
comments
suggestions
steven.zuiker@asu.edu
@szuiker
paper available at
researchgate.net/SteveZuiker
presentation available at
slideshare.net/szuiker
23

23. Zuiker, S. J., & Wright, K. (accepted). Learning in and
beyond School Gardens with Cyber-Physical Systems.
Interactive Learning Environments, 23 (5).
featured in a special issue on the topic of Learner-Generated Designs in Participatory Culture
edited by Beaumie Kim, Lynde Tan, & Katerine Bielaczyc
24