Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the fact that teaching is increasingly referred to as a design science, teacher education programs devote relatively little time to developing expertise in the design of instruction, beyond lesson planning. Yet today’s teachers not only plan lessons that incorporate existing classroom activities and instructional resources, they also design new learning activities and create their own (technology enhanced) learning materials. Different approaches have been tried to support pre- and in-service teacher design learning. Past efforts to develop teacher skills in design had limited success, probably due to poor alignment of traditional instructional design models with teachers’ knowledge, needs and natural ways of engaging with design tasks. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate and develop ways to build on teacher expertise to support them in their design efforts. Yet to date, little has been done to capitalize on what is already understood about teachers as designers nor to draw on the wealth of literature on designers and designing outside the field of education. With the ultimate aim of supporting the work of teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning, this contribution synthesizes research on design from classical design fields, instructional design, and teachers’ designing. These perspectives are brought together in an ecological framework that can be used by researchers to study teacher design knowledge and work across projects. This synthesis could also provide an articulated framework for developers and facilitators of teacher professional development programs for identifying key areas for support to teacher-designers in specific settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, T., Ehn, P., De Michelis, G., Jacucci, G., Linde, G., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.A. (2010). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, (pp. 41-50). ACM, New York.

  • Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8(2–3), 127–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision-making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 393–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Computers & Education, 82, 250–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Mosberg, S., Copland, M., Honig, M., Nelson, H., Gawel, D., & Vye, N. (2010). Adaptive people and adaptive systems: Issues of learning and design. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 825–856). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100. doi:10.3102/0091732x024001061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H. (2009). On strategic design. Educational Designer,1(3). Retrieved 12 Dec 2014 from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article9

  • Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), 081004. doi:10.1115/1.4004396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’ attitudes toward computers questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra, C. U., & Hanseth, O. (1998). From tool to: Agendas for managing the information infrastructure. Information Technology & People, 11(4), 305–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Dunn, S. (1991). Second-generation research on teacher planning. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 183–201). Berkeley, CA: McCuthan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Chapter 5: Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damşa, C., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186. doi:10.1080/10508401003708381.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design thinking for educators (2013). Retrieved 12 Dec 2014 from http://designthinkingforeducators.com.

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., & Manley, M. (2003). Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(3), 284–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, C. M. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI (Vol. 69, pp. 669–690). Washington, DC.

  • Eastman, C. M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design processes. In G. Moore (Ed.), Emerging methods in environmental design and planning (pp. 21–37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, C. M. (2001). New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education (pp. 147–198). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1976). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10, 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. D., Stepich, C., York, A., Stickman, X., Wu, S., Zurek, & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 17–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1267). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2009). Teachers’ design knowledge, epistemic fluency and reflections on students’ experiences. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Conference, Darwin, Australia.

  • Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

  • Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4087–4095). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved 16 Oct 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/31298

  • Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 287–297. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2001). The effects of a web-based training in an instructional systems design approach on teachers’ instructional design behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 363–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, I. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. The Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2013). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art, and architecture. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011a). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 129–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M-H. (2011). Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative design for technology-enhanced learning. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference (pp. 831–835). Hong Kong: ISLS.

  • Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. The International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(1), 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design. Instructional Science, 10(4), 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, J.W.M. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In J.J.H. Van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.) Design and development methodology in education (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50(1), 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsey, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2008a). Increasing innovation: Presentation and evaluation of the WordTree design-by-analogy method. Paper presented at the ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology Conference, New York, NY.

  • Linsey, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2008b). Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(2), 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundwall, B., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Tapping into the mental resources of teachers’ working knowledge: Insights into the generative power of intuitive pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 237–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.01.001

  • Masterman, E., Jameson, J., & Walker, S. (2009). Capturing teachers’ experience of learning design through case studies. Distance Education, 30, 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P., & Dalziel, J. (2006). Patterns, designs and activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2/3), 216–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S. (2013). Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation. Research in Learning Technology Supplement, 21, 17374. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17374.

  • McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from the curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 67–90). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational research design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of the design process. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Faculty development by design, integrating technology in higher education. Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieveen, N., Van der Hoeven, M., Ten Voorde, M., Koopmans, A., & Van Lanschot Hubrecht, V. (2013). Docent als ontwerper: Raamwerk voor doordenking ontwerptaken (Teacher designer: Framework for considering design tasks). Enschede: SLO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2010). Design thinking: Understand-improve-apply. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (1994). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez-Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit Memory and Metacognition (pp. 45–77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. M. (2008). Helping education students understand learning through designing. Educational Technology, 48(2), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5, 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2014, April). Teachers as design-researchers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia.

  • Sawyer, K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43(3), 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir-Inbal, T., Dayan, J., & Kali, Y. (2009). Assimilating online technologies into school culture. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 207–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children’s strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969/1996). The sciences of the artificial. (1st/3rd eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies, 29, 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Australia: Harwood Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., & Goyal, A. (2011). Product design and development (Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2013a). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(2), 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., van Braak, J., Heitink, M., Verplanken, L., Fisser, P., & Walraven, A. (2013b). Didactische ICT-bekwaamheid van docenten [Pedagogical technology competencies of teachers]. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Kennisnet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, a, Walraven, a, McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. The School Review, 80(1), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2007). Designing a computer support system for multimedia curriculum development in Shanghai. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 275–295.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the other authors of this special issue who commented on initial ideas for this manuscript, as well as to the anonymous reviewers who provided extensive constructive feedback on earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Susan McKenney

  2. University of Twente, IST/GW/UT, PO Box 217, 7500AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Susan McKenney

  3. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Yael Kali

  4. The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Lina Markauskaite

  5. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  6. Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

Authors
  1. Susan McKenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yael Kali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lina Markauskaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joke Voogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan McKenney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L. et al. Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instr Sci 43, 181–202 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2

Search

Navigation