Advertisement

Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice

  • Yael KaliEmail author
  • Bat-Sheva Eylon
  • Susan McKenney
  • Adi Kidron
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed a strong increase in research that moves toward mutually beneficial collaboration between researchers and practitioners. This chapter focuses on such collaborations that aim to design resources for use in schools while also advancing theoretical understanding of the dynamics within such partnership. We refer to such endeavors as design-centric research-practice partnerships (DC-RPPs). To guide the development of productive DC-RPPs, we synthesize insights from three theoretical lenses: (1) scholarship of teaching and practitioner research, (2) change laboratory formative interventions, and (3) multilevel boundary crossing. These lenses, together with a framework that characterizes DC-RPPs based on the practical constructs of (1) processes, (2) roles, and (3) habits-of-mind, are used in a 3 × 3 theory-practice matrix to elicit and articulate nine design principles that can support productive DC-RPPs. We describe two cases that illustrate how the design principles come to life in authentic DC-RPPs (one with 3 middle schools, focusing on interdisciplinary learning, and the other with 22 high schools, focusing on physics) and conclude with a discussion of emerging work that could support DC-RPPs and recommendations for future research.

Keywords

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) Design-based research (DBR) Design principles Scholarship of teaching Change laboratories Boundary crossing 

References

  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S. F., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Zitter, I. (2013). The complexity of educational design research. Quality and Quantity, 47(1), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkerman, S. F., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergen, T., & Van Veen, K. (2004). Het leren van leraren in een context van onderwijsvernieuwingen: Waarom is het zo moeilijk? [Teacher learning in the context of educational innovations: Why is it so difficult?]. VELON: Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 25(4), 29–39.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Cochran-smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action professional development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Exploring the role of knowledge communities in educational design. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dede, C., Rockman, S., & Knox, A. (2007). Lessons learned from studying how innovations can achieve scale. Threshold, 5(1), 4–10.Google Scholar
  16. Donovan, S., Snow, C., & Daro, P. (2014). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National society for the study of education yearbook (pp. 400–425). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, MA/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.Google Scholar
  20. Eylon, B., & Bagno, E. (2006). Research-design model for professional development of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education research. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2, 020106-1–020106-14.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of teachers in two countries. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(5), 577–591.Google Scholar
  22. Henrick, E., Munoz, M. A., & Cobb, P. (2016). A better research-practice partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(3), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ISSOTL. (2017). International society of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.issotl.com
  25. Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 423–438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners. The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016 (Vol. 1, pp. 4–5). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  29. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 145–161.Google Scholar
  30. Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56, 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2018). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. Educational Design Research, 1(2).Google Scholar
  33. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKenney, S. (2016). Researcher-practitioner collaboration in educational design research: Processes, roles, values & expectations. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 155–188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McKenney, S., & Pareja-Roblin, N. (2018). Connecting research and practice: Teacher inquiry and design-based research. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. Lai (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (2nd ed.). London, England: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Meltzer, D. E., & Shaffer, P. S. (2011). Teacher education in physics: Research, curriculum and practice. College Park, MD: American Physics Society.Google Scholar
  38. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence. How research can inform public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Penuel, W. R. (2015). Infrastructuring as a practice for promoting transformation and equity in design-based implementation research. Keynote address at the ISDDE annual conference. September 22–25, Boulder.Google Scholar
  40. Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1–2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P., & Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development and the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8406, 10508406.2016.1204547.Google Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can improve their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  46. Shulman, L. S. (2011). Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reflection. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1) (Article 30).Google Scholar
  47. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns & L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  48. Star, S. L., & Greisemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Braak, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2012). Het profiel van onderwijsonderzoekers en hun opvattingen over samenwerking met de onderwijspraktijk. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(6), 364–376.Google Scholar
  51. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Virkkunen, J. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yael Kali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bat-Sheva Eylon
    • 2
  • Susan McKenney
    • 3
  • Adi Kidron
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.The Science Teaching DepartmentThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  3. 3.ELAN, Department of Teacher Professional DevelopmentUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Section editors and affiliations

  • Drew Polly
    • 1
  • Robert Doyle
    • 2
  1. 1.College of EducationThe University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.PsychiatryHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations