Advertisement

Connecting Research and Practice: Teacher Inquiry and Design-Based Research

  • Susan McKenneyEmail author
  • Natalie Pareja Roblin
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

The relationship between research and practice presents challenges across the field of education including in the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Educators in the field often see research as being divorced from the reality of their daily practice. Teacher inquiry and design-based research offer opportunities to engage practitioners in research by making more direct links to their own practice. This chapter briefly introduces the broad range of opportunities and hurdles posed by technology integration in K-12 education, and then describes three crucial dimensions that influence the way educators perceive and handle technology use over time; these relate to teacher will, skill, and surrounding infrastructure. Thereafter, ways in which research-practice interactions might contribute to developing these dimensions are discussed, with specific attention to two kinds of interactions: teacher inquiry and design-based research. In addition to offering examples throughout the chapter, attention is also given to the fact that these two approaches used together can have productive synergies. The chapter concludes by pointing to new developments that hold potential implications for future work related to technology integration supported by teacher inquiry, or design-based research, or both.

Keywords

Teacher inquiry Design-based research Technology integration Research-practice interactions 

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannan-Ritland, B., & Baek, J. (2008). Teacher design research: An emerging paradigm for teachers’ professional development. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 246–262). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S., Dodge, T., Thomas, M., Jackson, C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 263–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger, J. G., Boles, K. C., & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change: Paradoxes, problems, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, I., Rogers, M. P., Amador, J., Akerson, V., & Pongsanon, K. (2016). Utilizing an iterative research-based lesson study approach to support preservice teachers’ professional noticing. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 1–25.Google Scholar
  12. Cassidy, C., Christie, D., Coutts, N., Dunn, J., Sinclair, C., Skinner, D., & Wilson, A. (2008). Building communities of educational enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 18(2), 5–25.Google Scholar
  14. Clark-Wilson, A., Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2015). Scaling a technology-based innovation: Windows on the evolution of mathematics teachers’ practices. ZDM, 47(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coburn, C., & Penuel, W. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside. Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.Google Scholar
  18. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers’ experience and reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dawson, K., & Dana, N. (2007). When curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences and teacher inquiry coalesce: An opportunity for conceptual change? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 656–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2013). ARTI: An online tool to support teacher action research for technology integration. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 375–391). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1906-7.ch020.
  22. DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickson, B. (2011). Beginning teachers as enquirers: M-level work in initial teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers and Education, 69, 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dobber, M., Akkerman, S. F., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Student teachers’ collaborative research: Small-scale research projects during teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Enthoven, M., & de Bruijn, E. (2010). Beyond locality: The creation of public practice-based knowledge through practitioner research in professional learning communities and communities of practice. A review of three books on practitioner research and professional communities. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ermeling, B. A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Tondeur, J., Fives, H., & Gill, M. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning. In International handbook of research on teacher beliefs (p. 403–418). New York:RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.  https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
  31. Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kafyulilo, A. (2013). Collaborative design in teams to develop science and mathematics teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills. PhD., University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  34. Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2016). Teacher design in teams as a professional development arrangement for developing technology integration knowledge and skills of science teachers in Tanzania. Education and Information Technologies, 21(2), 301–318.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9321-0.
  35. Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(January), 76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005.
  37. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Fluke, R. (2003, April). Testing a will, skill, tool model of technology integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59–68.Google Scholar
  43. Long, B. T., & Hall, T. (2015). R-NEST: Design-based research for technology-enhanced reflective practice in initial teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5), 572.Google Scholar
  44. Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luckin, R., Clark, W., Avramides, K., Hunter, J., & Oliver, M. (2017). Using teacher inquiry to support technology-enhanced formative assessment: A review of the literature to inform a new method. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
  46. McElhaney, K., Chang, H., Chiu, J., & Linn, M. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKenney, S. (2013). Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation. Research in Learning Technology, 21, supplement 17374, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17374.
  48. McKenney, S. (2016). Researcher-practitioner collaboration in educational design research: Processes, roles, values & expectations. In M. Evans, M. Packer, & K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 155–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. McKenney, S. (2017). Toerusting van STEM docenten: Ontwikkelen van bereidheid, vaardigheid, en infrastructuur [Equipping STEM teachers: Developing will, skill and infrastructure]. Inaugural address at the University of Twente, May 18, Enschede.Google Scholar
  50. McKenney, S., & Mor, Y. (2015). Supporting teachers in data-informed educational design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mor, Y., Ferguson, R., & Wasson, B. (2015). Editorial: Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Neill, D. K. (2016). Understanding design research–practice partnerships in context and time: Why learning sciences scholars should learn from cultural-historical activity theory approaches to design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pareja Roblin, N. N., Ormel, B. J., McKenney, S. E., Voogt, J. M., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Linking research and practice through teacher communities: A place where formal and practical knowledge meet? European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2006). Learning transformation with technology: A question of sociocultural contexts? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2014). Educational design research: Illustrative cases, 2. Enschede: SLO. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr.
  61. Saunders, L., & Somekh, B. (2009). Action research and educational change: Teachers as innovators. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 190–201). Los Angeles: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Somekh, B., & Saunders, L. (2007). Developing knowledge through intervention: Meaning and definition of ‘quality’ in research into change. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swanwick, R. A., Clarke, P. J., & Kitchen, R. (2014). A design-based approach for research into deaf children’s reading comprehension. Hillary Place Papers, 1(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  67. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.Google Scholar
  68. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zeichner, K. M., & Nofke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ELAN, Department of Teacher Professional DevelopmentUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Educational StudiesUniversity of GhentGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Peter Albion
    • 1
  • Jo Tondeur
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Teacher Education and Early ChildhoodUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia
  2. 2.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations