Multiple Layers: Education Faculty Reflecting on Design-Based Research focused on Curricular Integration
https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.2019.3795
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
What insights emerge through researcher reflections on a Design-Based Research (DBR) curricular integration project that contribute to the professional learning of education faculty/ researchers? To answer this question, two researchers captured their debriefing discussions and reflections after monthly meetings with participating teachers. The meetings familiarized the teachers with DBR methods and enhanced teachers’ understanding of integrating literacy and science instruction. Data were open coded, collapsed into sub-categories and interpretations were then clustered into three themes. The first theme is our acknowledgement of the layers that needed to be peeled back to understand teacher participants’ planning and assessment. The second theme is the realization that the teacher participants were novices with respect to understanding and practicing curricular integration. The final theme honors the value of DBR as a research and professional learning method. Findings are discussed in light of the scant literature that describes the experience of DBR educational researchers.
Downloads
References
Author (2009).
Google Scholar CrossrefAuthors (2016a).
Google Scholar CrossrefAuthors (2016b).
Google Scholar CrossrefAnderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrock, C., Goatley, V., Raphael, T., Trost-Shahata, E., & Weber, C. (2014). Engaging students in disciplinary literacy, K-6. New York: Teachers College Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefBroekkamp, 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.
Google Scholar CrossrefCreswell, J. W., 2012. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar CrossrefDesign-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for
Google Scholar Crossrefeducational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Google Scholar CrossrefDuke, N. K. & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Google Scholar CrossrefFaint, C. (2015). “Infinite Onion.” Retrieved from http://hellopoetry.com/clark-faint/
Google Scholar CrossrefFisher, D., Grant, M., & Frey, N. (2009). Science literacy is strategies. The Clearing House, 82(4), 183-186.
Google Scholar CrossrefHirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10–29, 44–45.
Google Scholar CrossrefKauchak, D., & Eggen, P. (2014). Introduction to teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Google Scholar CrossrefKennedy-Clark, S. (2015). Research by design: Design-based research and the higher degree research student. Journal of Learning Design, 8(3), 108-122.
Google Scholar CrossrefLaBoskey, V.K. (1997). Teaching to teach with purpose and passion: Pedagogy for reflective
Google Scholar Crossrefpractice. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher
Google Scholar Crossrefeducation (pp. 150–163). London: Falmer Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMacDonald, R. (2008). Professional development for information communication technology integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 429-445.
Google Scholar CrossrefMcDonald, C., Kaya, S., Luck, M. Toste, J., Canto, A., Rice, D., Tani, N., & Underwood, P. (2010). Content area literacy: Individualizing student instruction in second-grade science. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 474-485.
Google Scholar CrossrefMcKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefMinistry of Education, Ontario, 2006. The Ontario curriculum, grades 1-8: Language. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language.html
Google Scholar CrossrefMinistry of Education, Ontario, 2007. The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8: Science and technology. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec.html
Google Scholar CrossrefMortari, L. (2012). Learning thoughtful reflection in teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(5), 525-545.
Google Scholar CrossrefMoss, B. (2002). Close up: An interview with Dr. Richard Vacca. California Reader, 36, 54–59.
Google Scholar CrossrefMoss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction
Google Scholar Crossrefin the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 46-55.
Google Scholar CrossrefNational Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefOnguko, B., Jepchumba, L., & Gaceri, P. (2013). “For us it was a learning experience” Design, development and implementation of blended learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(7), 615-634.
Google Scholar CrossrefParsons, S., & Ward, A. (2011). The case for authentic tasks in content literacy. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 462-465.
Google Scholar CrossrefPlomp, T. (2007). Educational design-based research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational Design-based research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shangai . (pp. 9-33). SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Google Scholar CrossrefSaul, E.W. (2006). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Google Scholar CrossrefTemple Smith.
Google Scholar CrossrefTompkins, G. (2016). Language arts: Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
Google Scholar CrossrefUrzua, A. & Vasquez, C. (2008). Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ future-oriented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1935-1946.
Google Scholar CrossrefVanderlinde, 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.
Google Scholar CrossrefWang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced
Google Scholar Crossreflearning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
Google Scholar Crossref(4), 5–43.
Google Scholar CrossrefWenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity.
Google Scholar CrossrefCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefWiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
Google Scholar CrossrefZheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004-2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 399-420.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.