Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 2, Issue , 2006, Pages 606-612

  Roschelle, Jeremy ^a   Penuel, William R ^b   Shechtman, Nicole ^b  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CO-DESIGNS; COLLABORATIVE APPROACH; DYNAMIC TENSION; EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS; KEY PROCESS; LEARNING SCIENCE; TEACHERS';

EID: 84884312719     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Atkin, J. M. (2001, 2001, April). How science teachers improve their formative assessment practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
2. Blumenfeld, P., and Fishman., B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
3. Carr, A. A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 5-22.
4. Carroll, J. M. (1995). Scenario-based design. New York: Wiley.
5. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
6. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
8. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
9. Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In P. S. Adler & T. A. Winograd (Eds.), Usability: Turning technologies into tools (pp. 96-132). New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1996). Human values and the design of computer technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Means, B., and Penuel., W. R., & Padilla, C. (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12. Millen, D. R. (2000). Rapid ethnography: Time deepening strategies for HCI field research. In Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 280-286). New York, NY: ACM Press.
13. Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24-28.
14. Reiser, B. J., and Spillane., J. P., Steinmuler, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers' design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences. (pp. 342-349). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Roschelle, J., DiGiano, C., Koutlis, M., Repenning, A., Phillips, J., Jackiw, N., et al (1999). Developing educational software components. IEEE Computer, 32(9), 50-58.
16. Shepard, L. (1997). Insights gained from a classroom-based assessment project. CSE Technical Report 451. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
17. Shrader, G., Williams, K., Lachance-Whitcomb, J., Finn, L.-E., & Gomez, L. (2001). Participatory design of science curricula: The case for research for practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
18. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-47.
19. Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). Assessing the school environment: Embedded contexts and bottom-up research strategies. In (pp. 197-227).