Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education pp 1–14Cite as

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

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 18(2), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C., & Penuel, W. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45, 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside. Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. (2011). Beginning teachers as enquirers: M-level work in initial teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers and Education, 69, 485–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermeling, B. A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McKenney, S., & Mor, Y. (2015). Supporting teachers in data-informed educational design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2014). Educational design research: Illustrative cases, 2. Enschede: SLO. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ELAN, Department of Teacher Professional Development, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Susan McKenney

  2. Department of Educational Studies, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Natalie Pareja Roblin

  3. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Natalie Pareja Roblin

Authors
  1. Susan McKenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natalie Pareja Roblin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan McKenney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  2. University of North Texas , Denton, Texas, USA

    Gerald Knezek

  3. University of North Texas , Denton, Texas, USA

    Rhonda Christensen

  4. University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand

    Kwok-Wing Lai

Section Editor information

  1. School of Teacher Education and Early Childhood, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, W, Australia

    Peter Albion

  2. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Jo Tondeur

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

McKenney, S., Pareja Roblin, N. (2018). Connecting Research and Practice: Teacher Inquiry and Design-Based Research. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_30-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_30-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53803-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53803-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Connecting Research and Practice: Teacher Inquiry and Design-Based Research
    Published:
    21 February 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_30-2

  2. Original

    Connecting Research and Practice: Teacher Inquiry and Design-Based Research
    Published:
    12 January 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_30-1

Search

Navigation