A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers’ designing of technology-enhanced learning
- 768 Downloads
Teachers often find themselves in a position in which they need to adapt technology-enhanced materials to meet the needs of their students. As new technologies—especially those not specifically designed for learning—find their way into schools, teachers need to be able to design learning experiences that use these new technologies in their local contexts. We leverage previous work and new analyses of three cases in this area to identify a ‘fingerprint pattern’ of supports for teachers’ designing, investigating research questions: (1) What are common constructs that can be identified as the ‘fingerprint pattern’ of formal programs aimed at supporting teachers as designers of technology-enhanced learning? (2) What types of learning can such programs support? Although design work was diverse, all studies involved technology as a support for teacher learning and design work, and as a component of their designs for learning. Across studies, our supports involved modeling practice, supporting dialogue, scaffolding design process, and design for real-world use. We view these constructs as a ‘fingerprint pattern’ of design courses. Together, these supported teachers’ deeper understanding and adoption of new pedagogical approaches and inclination to adopt a teacher-as-designer professional identity.
KeywordsDesign Professional development Teachers Supports
The first author would like to acknowledge support provided by an Interdisciplinary Research Grant from the College of Education in cooperation with the Office of the Provost, University of New Mexico. The second author wishes to acknowledge support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada through an ‘‘Initiative on the New Economy’’ Grant (512-2002-1016). The third and fourth authors acknowledge support from the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation Grant 1716/12. All authors would like to especially thank the teachers and students who participated in this study.
- Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
- Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H. J., & Könings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0.
- Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers as (re-) designers of an ICT-rich learning environment for early literacy.Google Scholar
- Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, M. Koppal, & J. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 94–122). NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill (pp. 41–77). Participatory design: Principles and practices.Google Scholar
- Eilks, I., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., & Ralle, B. (2004). Changing teachers’ attitudes and professional skills by involving teachers into projects of curriculum innovation in Germany. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice oriented research in science education (pp. 29–40). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
- Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design. Stockholm.Google Scholar
- Fina, A. D. (2012). Discourse and identity. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
- Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press.Google Scholar
- Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M.-H. (2011). Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative design for technology-enhanced learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference (pp. 831–835). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 258.Google Scholar
- Luehmann, A. L. (2002). Understanding the appraisal and customization process of secondary science teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
- Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9338-1.
- McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2.
- Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Minstrell, J., Anderson, R., & Li, M. (2011). Building on learner thinking: A framework for assessment in instruction. Commissioned paper for the Committee on Highly Successful STEM Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L., & Moses, R. P. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics and science. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 89–125). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Penuel, W. R., & Yarnall, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment: Analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 3(5), 3–45.Google Scholar
- Reeve, R. (2012). Supporting the implementation of the knowledge building communities model: Analysis of principle-based study group interactions. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.Google Scholar
- Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., Steinmuller, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 342–349). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Roschelle, J., & Penuel, W. R. (2006). Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. In S. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 606–612). Bloomington: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2006). A multi-method and multi-source approach for studying fidelity of implementation. CSE Report 677: Regents of the University of California.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2014). Teachers as Design-Researchers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Shrader, G., Williams, K., Lachance-Whitcomb, J., Finn, L. E., & Gomez, L. (2001). Participatory design of science curricula: The case for research for practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Researchers’ Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Stake, R. E. (2008). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119–150). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Supovitz, J. A., & Weinbaum, E. H. (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Svihla, V., Petrosino, A. J., Martin, T., & Diller, K. R. (2009). Learning to design: Interactions that promote innovation. In W. Aung, K.-S. Kim, J. Mecsi, J. Moscinski, & I. Rouse (Eds.), Innovations 2009: World innovations in engineering education and research (pp. 375–391). Arlington: International Network for Engineering Education and Research.Google Scholar
- Svihla, V., Kvam, N., Dahlgren, M., Bowles, J., & Kniss, J. (2013). We can’t just go shooting asteroids like space cowboys: The role of narrative in immersive, interactive simulations for learning. In C. C. Williams, A. Ochsner, J. Dietmeier, & C. A. Steinkuehler (Eds.), Proceedings of games, learning, society 9. Madison: ETC Press.Google Scholar
- Svihla, V., Knottenbelt, S., & Buntjer, J. (2014). Problem framing: Learning through designerly practices. Paper presented at the AERA, Philadelphia, PA, April 3–7.Google Scholar
- Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Assessing the school environment: Embedded contexts and bottom-up research strategies. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (Vol. xvii, pp. 197–227). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7.
- Walton, J. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 121–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar