Abstract
The last decade has witnessed a strong increase in research that moves toward mutually beneficial collaboration between researchers and practitioners. This chapter focuses on such collaborations that aim to design resources for use in schools while also advancing theoretical understanding of the dynamics within such partnership. We refer to such endeavors as design-centric research-practice partnerships (DC-RPPs). To guide the development of productive DC-RPPs, we synthesize insights from three theoretical lenses: (1) scholarship of teaching and practitioner research, (2) change laboratory formative interventions, and (3) multilevel boundary crossing. These lenses, together with a framework that characterizes DC-RPPs based on the practical constructs of (1) processes, (2) roles, and (3) habits-of-mind, are used in a 3 × 3 theory-practice matrix to elicit and articulate nine design principles that can support productive DC-RPPs. We describe two cases that illustrate how the design principles come to life in authentic DC-RPPs (one with 3 middle schools, focusing on interdisciplinary learning, and the other with 22 high schools, focusing on physics) and conclude with a discussion of emerging work that could support DC-RPPs and recommendations for future research.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Akkerman, S. F., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Zitter, I. (2013). The complexity of educational design research. Quality and Quantity, 47(1), 421–439.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284.
Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 221–236.
Bergen, T., & Van Veen, K. (2004). Het leren van leraren in een context van onderwijsvernieuwingen: Waarom is het zo moeilijk? [Teacher learning in the context of educational innovations: Why is it so difficult?]. VELON: Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 25(4), 29–39.
Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 203–220.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
Cochran-smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action professional development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 443–459.
DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
de Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Exploring the role of knowledge communities in educational design. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 382–392.
Dede, C., Rockman, S., & Knox, A. (2007). Lessons learned from studying how innovations can achieve scale. Threshold, 5(1), 4–10.
Donovan, S., Snow, C., & Daro, P. (2014). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National society for the study of education yearbook (pp. 400–425). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, MA/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.
Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.
Eylon, B., & Bagno, E. (2006). Research-design model for professional development of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education research. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2, 020106-1–020106-14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020106
Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of teachers in two countries. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(5), 577–591.
Henrick, E., Munoz, M. A., & Cobb, P. (2016). A better research-practice partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(3), 23–27.
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.
ISSOTL. (2017). International society of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.issotl.com
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.
Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 423–438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners. The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016 (Vol. 1, pp. 4–5). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 55–65.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 145–161.
Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56, 539–546.
Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–17.
Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2018). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. Educational Design Research, 1(2).
Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.
McKenney, S. (2016). Researcher-practitioner collaboration in educational design research: Processes, roles, values & expectations. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 155–188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McKenney, S., & Pareja-Roblin, N. (2018). Connecting research and practice: Teacher inquiry and design-based research. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. Lai (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (2nd ed.). London, England: Springer.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London, England: Routledge.
Meltzer, D. E., & Shaffer, P. S. (2011). Teacher education in physics: Research, curriculum and practice. College Park, MD: American Physics Society.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence. How research can inform public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Penuel, W. R. (2015). Infrastructuring as a practice for promoting transformation and equity in design-based implementation research. Keynote address at the ISDDE annual conference. September 22–25, Boulder.
Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1–2), 182–197.
Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P., & Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 251–278.
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.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8406, 10508406.2016.1204547.
Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can improve their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.
Shulman, L. S. (2011). Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reflection. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1) (Article 30).
Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns & L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Star, S. L., & Greisemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155–168.
van Braak, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2012). Het profiel van onderwijsonderzoekers en hun opvattingen over samenwerking met de onderwijspraktijk. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(6), 364–376.
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.
Virkkunen, J. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Kali, Y., Eylon, BS., McKenney, S., Kidron, A. (2018). Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice- Published:
- 07 July 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-2
-
Original
Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice- Published:
- 19 May 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1