Instructional Science

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 181–202 | Cite as

Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs

  • Susan McKenney
  • Yael Kali
  • Lina Markauskaite
  • Joke Voogt
Article

Abstract

Despite the fact that teaching is increasingly referred to as a design science, teacher education programs devote relatively little time to developing expertise in the design of instruction, beyond lesson planning. Yet today’s teachers not only plan lessons that incorporate existing classroom activities and instructional resources, they also design new learning activities and create their own (technology enhanced) learning materials. Different approaches have been tried to support pre- and in-service teacher design learning. Past efforts to develop teacher skills in design had limited success, probably due to poor alignment of traditional instructional design models with teachers’ knowledge, needs and natural ways of engaging with design tasks. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate and develop ways to build on teacher expertise to support them in their design efforts. Yet to date, little has been done to capitalize on what is already understood about teachers as designers nor to draw on the wealth of literature on designers and designing outside the field of education. With the ultimate aim of supporting the work of teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning, this contribution synthesizes research on design from classical design fields, instructional design, and teachers’ designing. These perspectives are brought together in an ecological framework that can be used by researchers to study teacher design knowledge and work across projects. This synthesis could also provide an articulated framework for developers and facilitators of teacher professional development programs for identifying key areas for support to teacher-designers in specific settings.

Teachers Designers Design Technology-enhanced learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the other authors of this special issue who commented on initial ideas for this manuscript, as well as to the anonymous reviewers who provided extensive constructive feedback on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.Google Scholar
  2. Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925.Google Scholar
  3. Binder, T., Ehn, P., De Michelis, G., Jacucci, G., Linde, G., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.A. (2010). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, (pp. 41-50). ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8(2–3), 127–144.Google Scholar
  6. Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision-making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 393–416.Google Scholar
  7. Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Computers & Education, 82, 250–262.Google Scholar
  8. Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J., Mosberg, S., Copland, M., Honig, M., Nelson, H., Gawel, D., & Vye, N. (2010). Adaptive people and adaptive systems: Issues of learning and design. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 825–856). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100. doi:10.3102/0091732x024001061.Google Scholar
  11. Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  15. Burkhardt, H. (2009). On strategic design. Educational Designer,1(3). Retrieved 12 Dec 2014 from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article9
  16. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53.Google Scholar
  17. Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), 081004. doi:10.1115/1.4004396.Google Scholar
  18. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’ attitudes toward computers questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 143–155.Google Scholar
  19. Ciborra, C. U., & Hanseth, O. (1998). From tool to: Agendas for managing the information infrastructure. Information Technology & People, 11(4), 305–327.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, C. M., & Dunn, S. (1991). Second-generation research on teacher planning. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 183–201). Berkeley, CA: McCuthan.Google Scholar
  21. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.Google Scholar
  22. Cross, N. (2001). Chapter 5: Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  23. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  24. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.Google Scholar
  25. Damşa, C., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186. doi:10.1080/10508401003708381.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797–810.Google Scholar
  27. de Koster, S., Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2012). Concept-guided development of ICT use in ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ primary schools: What types of ICT use do schools develop? Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 28(5), 454–464.Google Scholar
  28. Design thinking for educators (2013). Retrieved 12 Dec 2014 from http://designthinkingforeducators.com.
  29. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., & Manley, M. (2003). Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(3), 284–297.Google Scholar
  31. DiSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179–199.Google Scholar
  33. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.Google Scholar
  34. Eastman, C. M. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI (Vol. 69, pp. 669–690). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Eastman, C. M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design processes. In G. Moore (Ed.), Emerging methods in environmental design and planning (pp. 21–37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Eastman, C. M. (2001). New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education (pp. 147–198). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  37. Eisner, E. W. (1976). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10, 135–150.Google Scholar
  38. Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312–335.Google Scholar
  41. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.Google Scholar
  42. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.Google Scholar
  43. Ertmer, P., Stepich, D., Flanagan, F., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 117–132.Google Scholar
  44. Ertmer, P. D., Stepich, C., York, A., Stickman, X., Wu, S., Zurek, & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 17–42.Google Scholar
  45. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  46. Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1267). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.Google Scholar
  48. Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2009). Teachers’ design knowledge, epistemic fluency and reflections on students’ experiences. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Conference, Darwin, Australia.Google Scholar
  49. Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 16–25). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  51. Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  52. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4087–4095). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved 16 Oct 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/31298
  53. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 287–297. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.002.Google Scholar
  54. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2001). The effects of a web-based training in an instructional systems design approach on teachers’ instructional design behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 363–371.Google Scholar
  55. Horn, I. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. The Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225–259.Google Scholar
  56. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2013). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57.Google Scholar
  57. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art, and architecture. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.Google Scholar
  59. Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011a). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 129–149.Google Scholar
  60. Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M-H. (2011). Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative design for technology-enhanced learning. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference (pp. 831–835). Hong Kong: ISLS.Google Scholar
  61. Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. The International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
  62. Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design. Instructional Science, 10(4), 363–378.Google Scholar
  63. Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
  64. Kessels, J.W.M. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In J.J.H. Van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.) Design and development methodology in education (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  66. Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.Google Scholar
  67. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.Google Scholar
  68. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012.Google Scholar
  69. Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.Google Scholar
  70. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241–264.Google Scholar
  74. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50(1), 65–72.Google Scholar
  75. Linsey, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2008a). Increasing innovation: Presentation and evaluation of the WordTree design-by-analogy method. Paper presented at the ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology Conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  76. Linsey, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2008b). Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(2), 85–100.Google Scholar
  77. Lundwall, B., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42.Google Scholar
  78. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Tapping into the mental resources of teachers’ working knowledge: Insights into the generative power of intuitive pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 237–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.01.001
  79. Masterman, E., Jameson, J., & Walker, S. (2009). Capturing teachers’ experience of learning design through case studies. Distance Education, 30, 223–238.Google Scholar
  80. McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P., & Dalziel, J. (2006). Patterns, designs and activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2/3), 216–242.Google Scholar
  81. McKenney, S. (2013). Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation. Research in Learning Technology Supplement, 21, 17374. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17374.
  82. McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from the curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 67–90). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational research design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of the design process. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519–532.Google Scholar
  85. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.Google Scholar
  86. Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Faculty development by design, integrating technology in higher education. Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. Nieveen, N., Van der Hoeven, M., Ten Voorde, M., Koopmans, A., & Van Lanschot Hubrecht, V. (2013). Docent als ontwerper: Raamwerk voor doordenking ontwerptaken (Teacher designer: Framework for considering design tasks). Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
  89. Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  90. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 1.Google Scholar
  91. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2010). Design thinking: Understand-improve-apply. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (1994). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  93. Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez-Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214–1227.Google Scholar
  94. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  95. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429.Google Scholar
  96. Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit Memory and Metacognition (pp. 45–77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  97. Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. M. (2008). Helping education students understand learning through designing. Educational Technology, 48(2), 26–33.Google Scholar
  98. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5, 65–86.Google Scholar
  99. Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2014, April). Teachers as design-researchers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  100. Sawyer, K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 41–48.Google Scholar
  101. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  103. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  104. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43(3), 197–205.Google Scholar
  105. Shamir-Inbal, T., Dayan, J., & Kali, Y. (2009). Assimilating online technologies into school culture. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 207–334.Google Scholar
  106. Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children’s strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405–410.Google Scholar
  107. Simon, H. A. (1969/1996). The sciences of the artificial. (1st/3rd eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  108. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.Google Scholar
  109. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496.Google Scholar
  110. Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies, 29, 203–221.Google Scholar
  111. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Australia: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
  112. Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., & Goyal, A. (2011). Product design and development (Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  113. Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.Google Scholar
  115. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2013a). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(2), 109–121.Google Scholar
  116. Voogt, J., van Braak, J., Heitink, M., Verplanken, L., Fisser, P., & Walraven, A. (2013b). Didactische ICT-bekwaamheid van docenten [Pedagogical technology competencies of teachers]. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Kennisnet.Google Scholar
  117. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, a, Walraven, a, McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003.Google Scholar
  118. Walker, D. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. The School Review, 80(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
  119. Wang, Q., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2007). Designing a computer support system for multimedia curriculum development in Shanghai. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 275–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan McKenney
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yael Kali
    • 3
  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 4
  • Joke Voogt
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Windesheim University of Applied SciencesZwolleThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations