Abstract
EdTech companies can develop tools and services for educational institutions. The EdTech sector needs teachers as end-users to create services and tools that serve the users’ real needs. Co-creation in the EdTech sector is essential for bridging the gap between developers’ and educators’ needs. By collaboratively designing learning technologies, we can ensure that tools address end-user requirements. In the EdTech industry, teachers and researchers need to work together to assess the effect of practice and services on learning and teaching and co-create solutions with a more evidence-based approach. This study emphasizes co-creation as a research setting to extract design principles and comprehend stakeholder dynamics within multi-participant systems. Implementing Activity Theory, we aim to analyze stakeholder roles and their intersections. The essence of co-creation lies in collaborative meaning-making, shared ownership, and sustainable development with scalability potential. Our co-creation program targeted the collaborative design of education technologies, engaging teachers, the EdTech sector, researchers, and policymakers. We seek to understand the core dynamics of such partnerships and how interdisciplinary co-creation elevates stakeholders’ professional experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data available on request from the authors.
References
Alderman, M. K. (2013). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203823132
Anderson, L., Bennett, N., & Wise, C. (2002). School-LEA partnerships: Recipe for success or chimera? Management in Education, 16(2), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206020160020901.
Baker, A., Weisgrau, J., & Brister Philyaw, K. (2022). Feedback loops: Mapping transformative interactions in education innovation. Digital Promise. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12265/155.
Beacham, B., Kalucy, E., & McIntyre, E. (2005). Understanding and measuring research impact. Focus On…, 2005(2), 1–12.
Biag, M., Gomez, L. M., Imig, D. G., & Vasudeva, A. (2021). Responding to COVID-19 with the aid of mutually beneficial partnerships in education. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.621361.
Bowen, S., & Zwi, A. B. (2005). Pathways to evidence-informed policy and practice: A framework for action. PLoS Medicine, 2(7), e166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166.
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., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Fostering educational improvement with research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211007332.
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9107-0.
Cooper, A., MacGregor, S., & Shewchuk, S. (2021). A research model to study research-practice partnerships in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(1), 44–63.
Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., & Clark-Wilson, A. (2019). Creating the golden triangle of evidence-informed education technology with educate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12727.
Davies, H. T., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used. Unpublished Working Paper. William T. Grant Foundation.
De Koning, J. I. J. C., Wever, R., & Crul, M. (2016). Models of co-creation. Service design geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference, 266–278.
Dede, C., & Barab, S. (2009). Emerging technologies for learning science: A time of rapid advances. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9172-4.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Durall, G. E., Bauters, M., Hietala, I., Leinonen, T., & Kapros, E. (2020). Co creation and co design in technology-enhanced learning: Innovating science learning outside the classroom. ID and A Interaction Design & Architecture, 42, 202–226.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619847
Engeström, Y. (2010). From teams to knots, acitivity theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge University Press.
Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X187610.
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12087.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M., Johnson, M., & Alier, M. (2013). Knowledge co-creation process based on informal learning competences tagging and recognition. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 4(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijhcitp.2013100102.
Glatter, R. (2003). Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. Management in Education, 17(5), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206030170050601.
Guerrero-Hernández, G. R., & Fernández-Ugalde, R. A. (2020). Teachers as researchers: Reflecting on the challenges of research-practice partnerships between school and university in Chile. London Review of Education, 18(3), 423–438.
Hashim, N. H., & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis.
Huhtelin, M., & Nenonen, S. (2015). A co-creation entre for university–industry collaboration–A framework for concept development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00160-4.
Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287754.
Jensen, K., & Bennett, L. (2016). Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113537.
Joyce, K. E., & Cartwright, N. (2020). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1045–1082. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866687.
Jæger, K., & Pedersen, A. G. J. (2020). Understanding organizational boundaries. Globe: A Journal of Language Culture and Communication, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.globe.v9i.4286.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.
Kramer, D. M., & Wells, R. P. (2005). Achieving buy-in: Building networks to facilitate knowledge transfer. Science Communication, 26(4), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275427.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer Interaction, 1744, 9–22.
Leonard, J., & Reardon, R. M. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring the community impact of research-practice partnerships in education. IAP.
Leoste, J., Tammets, K., & Ley, T. (2019, September). Co-creation of learning designs: Analyzing knowledge appropriation in teacher training programs. In EC-TEL (Practitioner Proceedings).
Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information, 49(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018410370726.
Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education–A research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 550–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911.
De Lima, J. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9099-1.
McQuaid, R. W. (2000). Theory of partnerships–Why have partnerships? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), Public-private partnerships for public services: An international perspective (pp. 9–35).
Mesibov, G. B., & Shea, V. (2011). Evidence-based practices and autism. Autism, 15(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309348070.
Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health, 82, ii3–ii12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034.
Morf, M. E., & Weber, W. G. (2000). I/O psychology and the bridging of A. N. Leont’Ev’s activity theory. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 41(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088234.
Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2019). From the market to the classroom: How ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09649-4.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. The MIT Press.
Nelson, J., & Campbell, C. (2017). Evidence-informed practice in education: Meanings and applications. Educational Research, 59(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1314115.
O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023). Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: Barriers and enablers deconstructed. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 900–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09932-2.
Pater, M. (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles. Or.what is successful co-creation made of? https://www.futurelab.net/blog/2009/05/co-creations-5-guiding-principles-or-what-successful-co-creation-made/.
Pautz Stephenson, S., Banks, R., & Coenraad, M. (2022). Outcomes of increased practitioner engagement in Edtech development: How strong, sustainable research-practice-industry partnerships will build a better Edtech Future. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/2050012265/158.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334.
Penuel, W., Farrell, C. C., Allen, A. R., Toyama, Y., & Coburn, C. (2018). What research district leaders find useful. Educational Policy, 32(4), 540–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816673580.
Peppler, K., & Schindler, E. (2022). Research practice industry partnership: An innovative, connected learning environment for educators. Symposium. American Educational Research Association.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–90.
Ralston, N. C., Tarasawa, B., Waggoner, J. M., Smith, R., & Naegele, Z. (2016a). Developing practitioner-scholars through university-school district research partnerships. Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, 6, 94–107.
Rossoni, A. L., de Vasconcellos, E. P. G., & de Rossoni, C., R. L (2023). Barriers and facilitators of university-industry collaboration for research, development and innovation: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00349-1.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273.
Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019). What makes industry–University collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 89(2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.
Sanders, L., & Simons, G. (2009). Social vision for value co-creation in design. The Open Source Business Resource, 27. (December 2009).
Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Special issue editors’ introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9079-5.
Saunders, M. (2006). From ‘organisms’ to ‘boundaries’: The uneven development of theory narratives in education, learning and work connections. Journal of Education and work, 19(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080500523026.
Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C., & Ferguson, R. (2013). Beyond prototypes: Enabling innovation in technology-enhanced learning. Open university.
Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2022). Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships–A systematic literature review. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2023103
Stern, R., & Green, J. (2005). Boundary workers and the management of frustration: A case study of two healthy city partnerships. Health Promotion International, 20(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai011.
Sutinen, P., Erkkilä, K., Wollstén, P., Hagman, K., Hirvikoski, T., & Äyväri, A. (2016). KYKY Living Lab handbook for co-creation by schools and companies. Espoo: City of Espoo.
Townsend, A. (2019). Situating partnership activity, an activity theory inspired analysis of school to school inquiry networks. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1576424. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1576424.
Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Pergamon Press.
Ulvik, M., Riese, H., & Roness, D. (2018). Action research–connecting practice and theory. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1323657.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682. Springer Boston.
Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Brown, S., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D., & Middleton, D. (2004). Interagency Collaboration: a review of the literature. Bath: Learning in and for Interagency Working Project.
Weatherby, K., Clark-Wilson, A., Cukurova, M., & Luckin, R. (2022). The importance of boundary objects in industry-academia collaborations to support evidencing the efficacy of educational technology. TechTrends, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11528-022-00705-0/TABLES/2.
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of Edtech. Educause Review Online, 53(4), 34–48.
Welsh, R. O. (2021). Assessing the quality of education research through its relevance to practice: An integrative review of research-practice partnerships. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985082.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.
Wentworth, L., Khanna, R., Nayfack, M., & Schwartz, D. (2021). Closing the research-practice gap in education. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 19(2), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.48558/EH5B-Y819.
Funding
The authors have not disclosed any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to declare by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sillaots, P., Tammets, K., Väljataga, T. et al. Co-Creation of Learning Technologies in School–University–Industry Partnerships: An Activity System Perspective. Tech Know Learn (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09722-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09722-1