Skip to main content

Robust Designs for Scalability

Abstract

One-size-fits-all educational innovations do not work because they ignore contextual factors that determine an intervention’s efficacy in a particular local situation. Identifying variables within the intervention’s setting that represent important conditions for success and summarizing the extent to which the impact of the intervention is attenuated by variation in them can provide prospective adopters of the innovation a better sense of what level of effectiveness they are likely to enjoy in their own particular circumstances. This study presents a research framework on how to conduct such an analysis and how to design educational innovations for scalability through enhancing their adaptability for effective usage in a wide variety of settings. The River City MUVE, a technology-based curriculum designed to enhance engagement and learning in middle school science, is presented as a case study.

Keywords

  • Educational innovations
  • Adaptability
  • Scalability
  • Engagement
  • Learning
  • Heuristics
  • Dimensions of scale
  • Sustainability
  • Robust design
  • Instructional design
  • Instructional technology
  • Technology infrastructure
  • Multi-user virtual environment (MUVE)
  • Ruggedization
  • Professional development
  • K-12
  • Teacher ownership
  • Collaboration
  • Sustainability

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_3
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-387-09667-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 60–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campione, J. (1987). Metacognitive components of instructional research with problem learners. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 117–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. (2006). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using MUVEs to teach middle school science. Unpublished Qualifying Paper presented to the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology, 46(3), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coalition for Evidence-based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user-friendly guide. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 551–566). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Fostering motivation, learning, and transfer in multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Honan, J., & Peters. L., (Eds). (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillashaw, F. G., & Okey, J. R. (1980). Test of integrated process skills for secondary science students. Science Education, 64(5), 601–608.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1981). TOSRA: Test of science related attitudes. Hawthorne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. (2004). Assessing science self-efficacy in a virtual environment: a measurement pilot. Unpublished Qualifying Paper presented to the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J.B. (1990). By design: Planning research on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., & Penuel, W.R. (2005). Scaling up technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Gheen, M., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. A. (1999). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Erlandson, B. (2007). Robust design strategies for scaling educational innovations: The River City case study. In B. E. Shelton & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of computer simulation games (pp. 224–246). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Reciprocal teaching. In Teaching reading as thinking. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984): Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote read(ing) with your mind. In T.L. Harris & E.J. Cooper (Eds.), Reading, thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New York: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., Ranson, K., & Derber, S. (1989): Collaborative research and development of reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer Jr., R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2003) Use, support, and effect of instructional technology study: An overview of the USEIT study and the participating districts. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved August 29, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/studies/USEIT/description.shtml.

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992), Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, ed., NY: Macmillan, pp. 334–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman, H. C., Lin, M.-F., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–117.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wiske, M. S., & Perkins, D. (2005). Dewey goes digital: Scaling up constructivist pedagogies and the promise of new technologies. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our development of the scalability index would not be possible without the participation and insight of Dr. John Willett and Ms. Liane Moody at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jody Clarke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clarke, J., Dede, C. (2009). Robust Designs for Scalability. In: Moller, L., Huett, J., Harvey, D. (eds) Learning and Instructional Technologies for the 21st Century. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_3

Download citation