Educative curricula support teacher learning as well as the learning of students. High quality educative curricula contain features that help teachers customize learning opportunities and environments in ways that meet the needs of their learners. Designing these features requires expertise related to subject matter content, pedagogy, teacher and student learning, and instructional design. In other words, it requires interdisciplinary team work – which is notoriously challenging. To understand and support collaborative interdisciplinary design processes, a retrospective case study was conducted on interdisciplinary design team work that yielded a high quality educative curriculum for inquiry-based science learning. Design documents and transcripts of interviews with six designers (a cognitive psychologist, a practising physicist, and four science educators) were analyzed to identify their contributions during the phases of analysis, development, and evaluation to create educative features for developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Findings articulate specific educative features that can contribute to supporting PCK and thereby supporting instructional performance. Findings also reveal the proactive and reactive nature of designer contributions, describing different ways in which designers provide specialized inputs from a disciplinary perspective. Further, this study shows how designer contributions intermeshed, with contributions from one discipline shaping the work of colleagues, and thereby coordinating varied inputs to yield coherent educative materials. In addition, theoretical insights and recommendations for research on the nature of collaborative interdisciplinary design processes and implications for practice are given for supporting designers working in interdisciplinary teams to create educative curriculum materials for teacher (and student) learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The dataset analyzed during this study is not publicly available due to confidentiality requirements, as established by the research organization’s Institutional Review Board.
RTOP stands for Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, a standardized instrument to determine the degree of reform in K-20 classroom instruction in science and mathematics. It has a maximum possible score of 100. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447205.
The study reported in this paper was part of a larger research project on science curriculum design. The Cohen’s Kappa was calculated for a set of 13 codes associated with the larger research project.
Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422–449.
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(1), 84–113.
Academiesof Science, Engineering, and Medicine, N. (2017). Seeing students learn science: Integrating assessment and instruction in the classroom. The National Academies Press.
Barber, J. (2015). How to design for breakthrough. Educational Designer, 2(8). Available online at: https://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume2/issue8/article29/. (Accessed 20 October 2018).
Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.
Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palinscar, A. S. (2015). Examining student work for teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846.
Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A model for interdiscplinary collaboration. Social Work, 48(3), 297–306.
Bruner, C. (1991). Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. Education and Human Services Consortium.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
Cash, P., Dekoninck, E., Ahmed-Kristensen, S (2020) Work with the beat: How dynamic patterns in team processes effect shared understanding. Design Studies, 69: 100943
Cervetti, G. N., Kulikowich, J. M., & Bravo, M. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86–98.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
Cochran, K. F., De Ruiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16, 143–170.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, A. M., & Iwashyna, S. K. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–53.
Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.
Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID case book: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2005). Knowledge communication in design communities. In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 213–242). Springer, Boston, MA.
Flood, V. J., Neff, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). Boundary interactions: resolving interdisciplinary collaboration challenges using digitized embodied performances. In T. Koschmann, P. Häkkinen, & P. Tchounikine (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: opportunities and challenges for CSCL, the Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 94–101). Gothenburg, Sweden: ISLS.
Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de Lyon, V., Morrison, D., et al. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year intervention study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267–291.
Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91.
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). Columbus: OH, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Harlen, W. (2006). Teaching, learning and assessing science 5–12 (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Harlen, W., & Altobello, C. (2003). An investigation of “Try Science” studies online and face-to-face. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 559–576.
Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 52(3), 34.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.
Kirschner, S., Borowski, A., Fischer, H. E., Gess-Newsome, J., & von Aufschnaiter, C. (2016). Developing and evaluating a paper-and-pencil test to assess components of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1343–1372.
Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 1–10.
Krajcik, J. S., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
Kruse, R., Howes, E. V., Carlson, J., Roth, K., Bourdelat-Parks, B., Roseman, J. E., & Flanagan, J. C. (2013) Developing and Evaluating an Eighth Grade Curriculum Unit That Links Foundational Chemistry to Biological Growth: Changing the Research-Based Curriculum. Paper presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, USA.
Kulgemeyer, C., Borowski, A., Buschhüter, D., Enkrott, P., Kempin, M., Reinhold, P., & Vogelsang, C. (2020). Professional knowledge affects action‐related skills: The development of preservice physics teachers' explaining skills during a field experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Kvan, T., Vera, A., & West, R. (1997). Expert and situated actions in collaborative design. In P. Siriruchatapong, Z. Lin, & J.-P. Barthes (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on CSCW in Design, 2nd International Workshop on CSCW in Design, International Academic Publishers, Beijing (pp. 400–405).
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teacher. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Kluwer.
Marco-Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 141–168.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.
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, 43(2), 229–257.
McKenney, S. (2017). Een infrastructuur voor de professionele groei van docenten [Infrastructuring teacher professional growth]. Inaugural lecture. Enschede: University of Twente.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.
Park, S., & Oliver, S. J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.
Pareja Roblin, N., Schunn. C., & McKenney, S. (2018). What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes? Science Education, 102, 260–282.
Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the Next Generation Science Standards: Educative curriculum materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 111–141.
Schneider, R. M. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materials: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 323–346.
Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional Design (3rd edition) (3rd editio). Wiley & Sons.
Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKids: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 355–369). Cambridge University Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99–110.
Thijs, A., & van den Akker, J. (2009). Curriculum in development. SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, 45–93.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Merriënboer, J. J. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understandings. Instructional Science, 32(1), 83–98.
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4).
Wang, J. (2014). Engineering Learning: Cross-Community Design, Development, and Implementation of Engineering Design Challenges at a Science Center. Unpublished doctoral disseration.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
This material is based upon work supported by National Science Foundation, through Grants #1252416, 1251562, and 1252373. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors thank Christian Schunn, Jacqueline Barber, and Natalie Pareja Roblin for their constructive feedback. The authors also thank Sara Walkup for her assistance in data analysis and the curriculum designers for participating in this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
The data collection and analysis procedures employed in this study were granted approval by the Institutional Review Board at TERC.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bopardikar, A., Bernstein, D., Drayton, B. et al. Designing educative curriculum materials in interdisciplinary teams: designer processes and contributions. Instr Sci 49, 249–286 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09538-5
- Pedagogical content knowledge
- Science curriculum
- Educative curriculum
- Design process
- Interdisciplinary design