Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 283–307 | Cite as

A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers’ designing of technology-enhanced learning

  • Vanessa SvihlaEmail author
  • Richard Reeve
  • Ornit Sagy
  • Yael Kali
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Design Professional development Teachers Supports 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K–6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 751–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basista, B., & Mathews, S. (2010). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Chaim, D., Joffe, N., & Zoller, U. (1994). Empowerment of elementary school teachers to implement science curriculum reforms. School Science and Mathematics, 94(7), 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2008). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A Review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying Qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers as (re-) designers of an ICT-rich learning environment for early literacy.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Deketelaere, A., & Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Collaborative curriculum development: An encounter of different professional knowledge systems. Teachers and Teaching, 2(1), 71–85. doi: 10.1080/1354060960020106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill (pp. 41–77). Participatory design: Principles and practices.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Fina, A. D. (2012). Discourse and identity. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, S. E. (1998). Preparing student teachers for curriculum-making. Journal of curriculum studies, 30(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hiller, N. A. (1995). The battle to reform science education: Notes from the trenches. Theory into Practice, 43(1), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Exploring teachers’ instructional design practices from a systems design perspective. Instructional Science, 30(4), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Virginia Dickson-Swift, D. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 9, 23606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, C. C. (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 629–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-8993-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, 25(5), 1067–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3), 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 258.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.
  51. 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.  
  52. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school earth science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2014). Teachers as Design-Researchers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  67. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  68. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Supovitz, J. A., & Weinbaum, E. H. (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Svihla, V. (2010). Collaboration as a dimension of design innovation. CoDesign, 6(4), 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.
  82. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa Svihla
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard Reeve
    • 2
  • Ornit Sagy
    • 3
  • Yael Kali
    • 3
  1. 1.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations