Instructional Science

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 173–179 | Cite as

Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning

  • Yael Kali
  • Susan McKenney
  • Ornit Sagy


While the benefits of teacher involvement in designing technology enhanced learning are acknowledged in the literature, far less is known about shaping that involvement to yield those benefits. Research is needed to understand how teachers learn through design; how teacher design activities may be supported; and how teacher involvement in design in various ways impacts the quality of the artifacts created, their implementation, and ultimately, student learning. Existing conceptual foundations for teacher design work are urgently in need of bolstering, and will definitely play a critical role in the future of instructional science. This special issue presents the work of a large collaborative group of researchers, which, since 2012, has explored divergence and convergence among multiple research projects involving teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning (TaD of TEL), and has endeavored to extend existing knowledge to strengthen TaD of TEL as a field of research.


Teacher learning Professional development Technology enhanced learning Design Co-design Participatory design Learning environments Customization 


  1. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & I. van Merriénboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Pregamon.Google Scholar
  3. Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners (pp. 229–270)., Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carl, A. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Kenwyn, RSA: Juta.Google Scholar
  6. Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The Future of Children, 19(1), 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  8. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014a). Teachers as co-designers of a technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197.Google Scholar
  9. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014b). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, M. Koppal, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 94–122). N.Y.: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P., Stepich, D., York, C., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2014–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kafyulilo, A. C. (2013). Collaborative design in teams to develop science and mathematics teachers’technology integration knowledge and skills. Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  24. Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M-H. (2011). Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative design for technology-enhanced learning. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference (pp. 831–835). New York: ISLS.Google Scholar
  25. Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. The International Journal of Learning Technology (IJLT), 6(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koehler, M., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, P. J., Fasse, D., Gray, B., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). Participatory instructional redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: Effects on perceptions of instruction. Instructional Science, 39, 737–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curriculum and teacher development: Software to help educators learn while designing teacher guides. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nihuka, K. A., & Voogt, J. (2012). Collaborative e-learning course design: Impacts on instructors. Australiasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 232–248.Google Scholar
  33. Penuel, W., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sagy, O., McKenney, S. & Kali, Y. (2012). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 16–20, April.Google Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67–98.Google Scholar
  38. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Voogt, J., Almekinders, M., van den Akker, J., & Moonen, B. (2005). A blended in-service arrangement for classroom technology integration: impacts on teachers and students. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Voogt, J., McKenney, S., & Kali, Y., Breleux, A., Cober, R., Eylon, B-S., Itow, R., Könings, K., Laferrière, T., Linn, M. C., Markauskaite, L., Matuk, C., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., Slotta, J., So, H-J., Svihla, V. & Tan, E., (2014). Teachers as designers. Presentation during an invited session. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.) Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (vol 1, p. 14). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations