Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this study was to reach a better understanding of the intuitive decisions teachers make when designing a technology-rich learning environment. A multiple case-study design was employed to examine what kinds of factors (external priorities, existing orientations or practical concerns) influence design interactions of teams of kindergarten teachers. This study combines semi-structured interview data on teachers’ existing orientations with analysis of teachers’ design discussions during the design of learning material for a technology-rich learning environment. Three teams of teachers voluntarily participated. Findings on the existing orientations suggest that knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning related to knowledge and beliefs on technology and early literacy. The analysis of teachers’ discussions revealed that the process could be characterized to a large extent as brainstorms; and that problems are not addressed in-depth. Rather they are resolved through brainstorming, and most argumentation falls in the realm of practical concerns: how to organize learning activities and how to respond to contingencies. The findings of this study suggest that teachers’ explicated design reasoning is mostly influenced by practical concerns, yet their own knowledge and beliefs play an important role at the start of the design process. However, these existing orientations as well as the practical concerns that emerge during the conversation tend to be narrow in scope. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in light of how this study provides understanding of how to support these teachers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher, 33(8), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). London: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, T. K., Burts, D. C., Bidner, J., White, V. F., & Charlesworth, R. (1998). Predictors of the developmental appropriateness of the beliefs and practices of first, second, and third grade teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 459–483. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80052-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–395). New-York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for emergent literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 31–54. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9208-3.

    Article  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. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2005). New learning and choices of secondary school teachers when arranging learning environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 799–816. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deketelaere, A., & Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Collaborative curriculum development: An encounter of different professional knowledge systems. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2(1), 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12. doi:10.1007/bf01189290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Lubben, F. (2002). Facilitating teachers’ professional growth through their involvement in creating context-based materials in science. International Journal of Educational Development, 22(6), 659–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams (PhD Doctoral). Universiteit Twente, Enschede.

  • Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9202-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Application of an instructional systems design approach by teachers in higher education: Individual versus team design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 581–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van Merriënboer, 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(4), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi:10.1007/bf02300500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lera, S. G. (1981). Empirical and theoretical studies of design judgement: A review. Design Studies, 2(1), 19–26. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(81)90025-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946. doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00052-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2009). Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal initiative. Computers & Education, 52, 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. New Jersey: University Press Group Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., Maina, M., Lotz, N., & Bacchelli, A. (2013). Team design communication patterns in e-learning design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 581–605. doi:10.1080/0158791960170103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. New York: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turbill, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the kindergarten literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(3), 255–279. doi:10.1177/14687984010013002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. F. (1971). A study of deliberation in three curriculum projects. Curriculum Theory Network, 7, 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instructional Technology, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of Twente, Postbus 217, 7500AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Ferry Boschman & Susan McKenney

  2. Center for Learning Sciences & Technologies (CELSTEC), Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Susan McKenney

  3. Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  4. Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Postbus 10090, 8000 GB, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

Authors
  1. Ferry Boschman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan McKenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joke Voogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ferry Boschman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boschman, F., McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 393–416 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation