Abstract
Conventionally, science education research has largely assumed that there is a fundamental separation between design and implementation processes, which take place in isolation from each other at university and school respectively. This standpoint has proven ineffective, particularly in terms of promoting long-term change that is both locally and globally meaningful. Over the last decades, an increasing amount of research has shown the importance of teachers’ active participation in innovation and its ownership. As a result, different forms of school-university participatory approaches have been proposed, mostly around the idea of professional learning communities (PLCs). Despite proving to be demanding for both teachers and researchers, such initiatives have been shown to be consistent with teacher development, empowerment and sustainability of change efforts. The argument of this paper is that these truly participatory approaches are also particularly suitable within a design research framework for science education research and innovation, being not only compatible but desirable for both the quality and validity of research results and products. However, as the professional development agenda that guides these fruitful collaborative scenarios can be in conflict with a design research agenda, this proposal is not exempt from tensions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As discussed by Psillos and Kariotoglou (chapter “Theoretical Issues Related to Designing and Developing Teaching-Learning Sequences”, this volume), DBR and TLS research are two design research frameworks that, despite having many aspects in common, belong to different research traditions that scarcely refer to each other. In the following, we will refer to “design research” as encompassing these and other research traditions (such as developmental research or didactical engineering) that emphasise the need for a close link between design and research efforts, due to the fact that for the matter of our discussion (the organisation of the participatory culture that could better support those efforts) the distinction is not needed. This does not mean, however, that there are no differences and specificities of each of these research frameworks that should be taken into account when discussing other aspects.
- 2.
Here we include both authors who use the notion of community of practice to explore existing groups and those who intentionally define, orchestrate and analyse particular community constructs to favour particular purposes.
- 3.
Although most of the literature refers to PLCs that are school-based and school-wide communities, we do not adopt this view here because it narrows the field of action and thought. A school-based community is not a situation that is feasible, or suitable in every school system, for every school level or for all schools. We prefer to use, then, an extended notion of community which, however, struggles to maintain the idea of aiming for a systemic approach, at the possible systemic level that can be achieved in each educational scenario.
References
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to community of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–56). Mawhaw/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barab, S., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J., & Cunningham, D. (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96.
Barab, S., Barnett, M. G., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a community of practice. Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Science, 11(4), 489–542.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press.
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject. Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.
Blankstein, A. M., Houston, P. D., & Cole, R. W. (Eds.). (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining professional learning communities. Research Report Number 637. London: General Teaching Council for England, Department for Education and Skills.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(22), 141–178.
Burkhardt, H. (2006). From design research to large-scale impact: Engineering research in education. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. MeKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 185–228). London: Routledge.
Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J.-F. (2004). Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 579–604.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York: Macmillan.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Inquiry as Stance. Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teacher College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202–235). New York: Teachers College Press.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5–8.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 1(32), 5–8.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A Bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal, 39(1), 4–8.
Engeström, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice. London: Falmer Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1).
Fink, D. (2000). Good schools/real schools: Why school reform doesn’t last. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York/London: Teachers College Press/RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. San Francisco: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: Routledge.
Fulton, F., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: A knowledge synthesis. Washington, DC: NCTAF.
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community different from a gathering of teachers? In CFTSOTA Policy (Ed.), Center for the study of teaching and policy. Washington, DC: University of Washington.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.
Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities. Divergences, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–196). New York: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. London: Wiley.
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1–41.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–28.
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86–93.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 115–142.
Lerman, S., & Zehetmeier, S. (2008). Face-to-face communities and networks of practising mathematics teachers. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 133–154). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the national writing project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lijnse, P. (2010). Methodological aspects of design research in physics education. In K. Kortland & K. Klaassen (Eds.), Designing theory-based TLS for science education (pp. 143–156). Utrecht: CDBeta Press.
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.
Little, J. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 401–419.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357–382.
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. V. D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 67–90). London/New York: Routledge.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Strategic sites for teachers’ professional development. In P. P. Grimmett & J. Neufeld (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change (pp. 31–51). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching-learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535.
Millar, R. (2010). Using research to improve practice in science education: Where should we begin, and what should we aim to produce? In K. Kortland & K. Klaassen (Eds.), Designing theory-based TLS for science education (pp. 55–68). Utrecht: CDBeta Press.
Nelson, T. H. (2009). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be optimistic? Science Education, 93(3), 548–580.
Nieveen, N., McKenney, S., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research: Discussion in review. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 151–158). London: Routledge.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers education and training policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37(2), 142–146.
Ogborn, J. (2010). Curriculum development as practical activity. In K. Kortland & K. Klaassen (Eds.), Designing theory-based TLS for science education (pp. 69–78). Utrecht: CDBeta Press.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Pintó, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1–12.
Putnam, R., & 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.
Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., & Steinmuller, F. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor (Eds.), 4th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 342–349). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171–1204.
Seashore, K. R., Anderson, A. R., & Riedel, E. (2003, January). Implementing arts for academic achievement: The impact of mental models, professional community and interdisciplinary teaming. In 17th international conference for school effectiveness and improvement. New York: Rotterdam.
Sloane, F. (2006). Normal and design science in education: Why both are necessary. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 151–158). London: Routledge.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for results: Teaching, learning, and relationships in schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (Professional learning). New York: Open University Press.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., & Wallace, M. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.
Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a community of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 21–32.
Thompson, L., &Wiliam, D. (2005) Tight but loose: a conceptual framework of scaling-up school reforms. In E. C. Wylie (Ed.), Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts (Vol. RR-08-29, pp. 1–44). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. Van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van den Akker, J., McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Gravemeijer, K. (2006). Introduction to educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2006). A review of the research on the impact of professional learning communities: What do we know? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Viennot, L., Chauvet, F., Colin, P., & Rebmann, G. (2005). Designing strategies and tools for teacher training: The role of critical details. Science Education, 89(1), 13–27.
Visscher, A. J., & Witziers, B. (2004). Subject departments as professional communities? British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 785–800.
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.
Wallace, C. (2012). Authoritarian science curriculum standards as barriers to teaching and learning: An interpretation of personal experience. Science Education, 96(2), 291–310.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Wells, C., & Feun, L. (2007). Implementation of learning community principles: A study of six high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 91(2), 141–160.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: AERA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Couso, D. (2016). Participatory Approaches to Curriculum Design From a Design Research Perspective. In: Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P. (eds) Iterative Design of Teaching-Learning Sequences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7807-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7808-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)