Abstract
The design and use of online materials for blended learning have been in the spotlight of educational development over the last decade. With respect to didactical courses, however, the potential of online and blended learning seems to be underexplored; little is known about its affordances for teacher education, and for domain specific didactical courses in particular. To investigate this potential, as well as the ways to organize the co-design of such learning units, we carried out a small and short-term research project in which teacher educators in the Netherlands engaged in a co-design process of developing and field-testing open online learning units for mathematics and science didactics. We focused on the features of the designed online learning units, on the organization of the co-design process, and on the experiences with the learning units in teacher education practice. A first conclusion was that it was most fruitful to design building blocks rather than ready-to-use courses, and that students should have play a role in the materials. With respect to the co-design process, intensive meetings of small design teams seemed an efficient approach. The experiences in the field tests revealed that the learning units were inspiring, but needed finalization, and educators needed time to prepare the incorporation in their existing educational practices. In the future, the resulting learning units will be maintained and extended, and are expected to contribute to a community of practice of mathematics and science educators.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See https://elbd.sites.uu.nl/ (in Dutch).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
The learning units are accessible from https://elbd.sites.uu.nl/2017/11/13/open-online-betadidactiek.
- 6.
European Credits Transfer System “is a credit system designed to make it easier for students to move between different countries”. See https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system-ects_en.
References
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,4(2), 167–207.
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry,27(3), 331–367.
Baas, M., Van Hees, J., Houwen, G., Ouwehand, M., Van der Spek, E., & Veelo, K. (2017). Good practices. Open leermaterialen binnen vakcommunities. Utrecht: SURFnet.
Berners-Lee, T. (1989). Information management: A proposal. Geneva: CERN.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Hoboken, NY: Wiley.
Butter, R., & Schamhart, R. (2017). Cocreatie als duurzame energiebron voor de toekomst. Utrecht: Hogeschool Utrecht.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Fransisco, CA, USA: Pfeiffer.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher,45(1), 48–54.
Devlin, K. (2012). Introduction to mathematical thinking. Palo Alto, CA: Keith Devlin.
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics,75(2), 213–234.
Drijvers, P., Streun, A. V., & Zwaneveld, B. (Eds.). (2012). Handboek wiskundedidactiek. Utrecht: Epsilon.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,7(2), 95–105.
Hegedus, S., Laborde, C., Brady, C., Dalton, S., Siller, H.-S., Tabach, M., et al. (2017). Uses of technology in upper secondary mathematics education. Uses of technology in upper secondary mathematics education (pp. 1–36). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Kortland, K., Mooldijk, A., & Poorthuis, H. (Eds.). (2017). Handboek natuurkundedidactiek. Utrecht: Epsilon.
Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: What is it? Automation in Construction,9(4), 409–415.
Nwosisi, C., Ferreira, A., Rosenberg, W., & Walsh, K. (2016). A study of the flipped classroom and its effectiveness in flipping thirty percent of the course content. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,6(5), 348–351.
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25 (Supplement C), 85–95.
Penuel, W., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: an analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning,2(1), 51–74.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching (pp. 224–270). New York: McMillan Publishing.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review,24, 86–97.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science,128, 969–977.
Staal, H. (2006). De Kennisbank Wiskunde en competentiegericht opleiden van wiskundeleraren. Verslag van een samenwerking tussen de Educatieve Hogeschool van Amsterdam en het Ruud de Moor Centrum. Heerlen: Open Universiteit.
Swan, K., Van ‘t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Unger, D. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(1), 99–112.
Tolboom, J. L. J. (2004). An organisational model for a digital learning environment, based on a hierarchical decomposition. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning,14(1–2), 68–78.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next,12(1), 82–83.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
van den Bogaart, T., Daemen, J., & Konings, T. (2017). Katern 3: inhoud en vakdidactiek van de lerarenopleidingen. In G. Geerdink & I. Pauw (Eds.), Kennisbasis lerarenopleiders wiskunde (pp. 283–291). Eindhoven: Velon.
Verhoef, N., Drijvers, P., Bakker, A., & Konings, T. (2014). Tussen val en schip. Rapport Onderwijsonderzoekscommissie: Wiskundig-didactisch onderwijsonderzoek in Nederland.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woolley, D. R. (1994). The emergence of on-line community. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine,1(3), 5–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Pre- and Post-field Test Questionnaires
Appendix: Pre- and Post-field Test Questionnaires
1.1 Pre-field Test Questionnaire
-
1.
Which learning unit do you intend to use in a course mathematics didactics?
-
2.
Do you already have an impression of this learning unit and if so, could you describe it? Relevance, consistency, usability? Content, design, appearance?
-
3.
In which subject and for which target group will you use the learning unit? Size in ECTSFootnote 6? In what period?
-
4.
What are the goals you hope to realize with the deployment of the learning unit? What expectations do you have? In what need the learning unit can hopefully provide?
-
5.
How are you going to tackle this?
-
a.
Technically: refer to the online learning unit, or import parts in your own web-based learning environment?
-
b.
Practical: replace parts of the existing course, as additional material, as part of homework, as part of assessment? In what way do the students will work with the learning unit?
-
c.
Content: which content parts of the learning unit do you intend to use?
-
a.
1.2 Post-Field Test Questionnaire
-
1.
Which of the learning units did you use in your course didactics of mathematics?
-
2.
What is, looking back, your opinion about this learning unit? Relevance, consistency, usability? Content, design, appearance?
-
3.
To what extent have the goals you hoped to achieve with the deployment of the learning unit actually been achieved?
-
4.
How did you use the learning unit:
-
a.
Technically: refer to the online learning unit, or import parts in your own web-based learning environment?
-
b.
Practical: replace parts of the existing course, as additional material, as part of homework, as part of assessment? In what way do the students will work with the learning unit?
-
c.
Content: which content parts of the learning unit do you intend to use?
-
a.
-
5.
How did the learning unit please the students? Were there any positive or negative reactions?
-
6.
Do you have assignments to share with us that were given to students regarding the learning unit? Do you have students’ work with respect to these assignments to share with us?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van den Bogaart, T., Drijvers, P., Tolboom, J. (2019). Co-Design and Use of Open Online Materials for Mathematics and Science Didactics Courses in Teacher Education: Product and Process. In: Aldon, G., Trgalová, J. (eds) Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19740-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19741-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)