Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:10:07.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Researcher–Practitioner Collaboration in Educational Design Research: Processes, Roles, Values, and Expectations

from PART 2 - PRESENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Susan McKenney
Affiliation:
University of Twente in the Netherlands
Michael A. Evans
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Martin J. Packer
Affiliation:
Universidad de los Andes, Colombia
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

The learning sciences emerged in the early 1990s, at a time when many scientists worldwide considered that basic and applied research were mutually exclusive endeavors. In the fields of learning and instruction, those concerned with basic research typically conducted controlled laboratory experiments, often using undergraduates as human subjects. It was usually a very different group of researchers who worked in real schools and classrooms to inform the development of curricula and resources that would facilitate teaching and learning. Gradually, both basic and applied researchers experienced frustration with the shortcomings of such isolation in their work to improve teaching, learning, and instructional resources.

From their own perspectives, each group began calling for integration of fundamental and applied research. Those who developed curricula and instructional resources led the way from the applied camp, citing the need for empirically derived principles to underpin development. At the same time, the cognitive scientists were those who strongly advocated for change from the basic research tradition. They were especially concerned with finding ways to derive empirical insights that were ecologically valid, and thus had the potential to inform everyday teaching and learning practices. They did so boldly, by defining a new field: the Learning Sciences (LS).

From the beginning, learning scientists were centrally concerned with bridging the research–practice gap, and having an impact in schools (Kolodner, 1991, editorial introduction to first issue of the Journal of the Learning Sciences [JLS]). The desire to contribute to practice positioned LS in stark contrast with the field of Cognition & Instruction (represented by the journal Cognition and Instruction). At the same time, the desire to ground technological developments in cognitive research distinguished LS from the field of instructional technology.

Starting with seminal articles by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992), learning scientists have frequently pointed toward integrated research and design cycles as a promising approach for studies that are methodologically robust and yield relevant knowledge that can be put to use in real-world settings. These arguments, together with those from curriculum and instruction experts in favor of scientifically underpinned design practices, have given rise to a wave of educational design research, especially in the last decade (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakah, M., Voogt, J., & Pieters, J. (2012). Advancing perspectives of sustainability and large-scale implementation of design teams in Ghana's polytechnics: Issues and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannan-Ritland, B., & Baek, J. (2008). Teacher design research: An emerging paradigm for teachers’ professional development. In Kelly, A., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 246–262). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barab, S., Baek, E., Schatz, S., Scheker, R., & Moore, J. (2008). Illuminating the braids of change in a web-supported community: A design experiment by another name. In Kelly, A., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barab, S., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest Editor's Introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P., Hoadley, C., & Linn, M. (2004). Design-based research in education. In Linn, M., Davis, E., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments of science education (pp. 73–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321–327.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 68–95). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coburn, C., Bae, S., & Turner, E. (2008). Authority, status and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In Lagemann, E. & Shulman, L. (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Cviko, A. (2013). Teacher roles and pupil outcomes in technology-rich early literacy learning. Doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
DeBarger, A., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2014). Designing for productive adaptations in curriculum interventions. In Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 298–319). New York: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S., Snow, C., & Daro, P. (2014). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 400–425). New York: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1978). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8, 1–12.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change, 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, L.F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Outline of a method for design research in mathematics education. In Akker, J. v. d., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, R. (2001). Schedules of practical work for the analysis of case studies of learning and development. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Havelock, R. (1969). A comparative study of the literature on the dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.Google Scholar
Havelock, R. (1971). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.Google Scholar
Hickey, D., & Schafer, N. J. (2006). Design-based, participation-centered approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 281–308). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehner, C. M., Brennan, L. K., Brownson, R. C., Handy, S. L., & Killingsworth, R. (2003). Opportunities for integrating public health and urban planning approaches to promote active community environments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(2–3), 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In Kelly, A., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 423–438). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. The International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (1991). The journal of the learning sciences: Effecting changes in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1–6.CrossRef
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagemann, E. (2002). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, M., Davis, E., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McKenney, S. (2008). Shaping computer-based support for curriculum developers. Computers & Education, 50(1), 248–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N. & Van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In Van den Akker, J., , K, Gravemeijer, , McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N., (Eds). Educational design research (pp. 62–90). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Educational design research. In Spector, M., Merril, M., Elen, J., & Bischop, M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications & technology (pp. 131–140). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Oh, E. (2011). Collaborative group work in an online learning environment: A design research study. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormel, B., Pareja Roblin, N., McKenney, S., Voogt, J., & Pieters, J. (2012). Research-practice interactions as reported in recent design studies: Still promising, still hazy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(6), 967–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palincsar, A., Magnusson, S., Collins, K., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., & Gallagher, D. (2014). Negotiating problems of practice in research-practice design partnerships. In Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 237–255). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development and the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, D. C., & Dolle, J. R. (2006). From Plato to Brown and beyond: Theory, practice, and the promise of design experiments. In Verschaffel, L., Dochy, F., Boekaerts, M., & Vosniadou, S. (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 277–292). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Plomp, T. (1992). Onderwijskundig ontwerpen: Een inleiding [Educational design: An introduction]. In Plomp, T., Feteris, A., Pieters, J., & Tomic, W. (Eds.), Ontwerpen van onderwijs en trainingen (pp. 19–38). Utrecht: Lemma.Google Scholar
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2009). Introduction to educational design research. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.Google Scholar
Raval, H. (2010). Supporting para-educators in an Indian NGO: The plan-enact-reflect cycle. Doctoral dissertation. University of Twente: Enschede, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Raval, H., McKenney, S., & Pieters, J. (2011). Contextual factors that foster or inhibit para-teacher professional development: The case of an Indian non-governmental organization. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(1), 1360–3736.Google Scholar
Raval, H., McKenney, S., & Pieters, J. (2014a). Educational design research in India: Retrospective analysis. Zeitschrift fur Berufs-und Wirtschaftspadagogiek.
Raval, H., McKenney, S., & Pieters, J. (2014b). Remedial teaching in Indian under-resourced communities: Professional development of para-teachers. International Journal of Educational Development, 38, 87–93.
Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C. (2011). Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant?. Educational Designer, 1(4). Retrieved from: http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue4/article13/Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C., Reeves, P., & McKenney, S. (2013). Experiential learning and cognitive tools: The impact of simulations on conceptual change in continuing healthcare education. In Spector, J., Lockee, B., Smaldino, S., & Herring, M. (Eds.), Learning, problem solving and mindtools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 55–65). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Stokic, D., Correia, A. T., & Reimer, P. (2013). Social computing solutions for collaborative learning and knowledge building activities in extended organization. Paper presented at the eLmL 2013, The Fifth International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning, Nice, France.
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In van den Akker, J., Branch, R., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Akker, J. (2002). The potential of development research for improving the relation between curriculum research and curriculum development. In Fries, A., Rosenmund, M., & Heller, W. (Eds.), Comparing curriculum making processes (pp. 1–12). Zurich: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Vanderhoven, E. (2014). Raising risk awareness and changing unsafe behavior on social network sites: A design-based research in secondary education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gent, Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Walker, D. (1992). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In Jackson, P. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 98–118). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural – historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaritsky, A., Kelly, A., Flowers, W., Rogers, E., & O'Neill, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences: A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×