Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice

Learning, Design, and Technology

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed a strong increase in research that moves toward mutually beneficial collaboration between researchers and practitioners. This chapter focuses on such collaborations that aim to design resources for use in schools while also advancing theoretical understanding of the dynamics within such partnership. We refer to such endeavors as design-centric research-practice partnerships (DC-RPPs). To guide the development of productive DC-RPPs, we synthesize insights from three theoretical lenses: (1) scholarship of teaching and practitioner research, (2) change laboratory formative interventions, and (3) multilevel boundary crossing. These lenses, together with a framework that characterizes DC-RPPs based on the practical constructs of (1) processes, (2) roles, and (3) habits-of-mind, are used in a 3 × 3 theory-practice matrix to elicit and articulate nine design principles that can support productive DC-RPPs. We describe two cases that illustrate how the design principles come to life in authentic DC-RPPs (one with 3 middle schools, focusing on interdisciplinary learning, and the other with 22 high schools, focusing on physics) and conclude with a discussion of emerging work that could support DC-RPPs and recommendations for future research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, S. F., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Zitter, I. (2013). The complexity of educational design research. Quality and Quantity, 47(1), 421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, T., & Van Veen, K. (2004). Het leren van leraren in een context van onderwijsvernieuwingen: Waarom is het zo moeilijk? [Teacher learning in the context of educational innovations: Why is it so difficult?]. VELON: Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 25(4), 29–39.

    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 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action professional development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 15–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Exploring the role of knowledge communities in educational design. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 382–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Rockman, S., & Knox, A. (2007). Lessons learned from studying how innovations can achieve scale. Threshold, 5(1), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, S., Snow, C., & Daro, P. (2014). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National society for the study of education yearbook (pp. 400–425). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, MA/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eylon, B., & Bagno, E. (2006). Research-design model for professional development of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education research. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2, 020106-1–020106-14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of teachers in two countries. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(5), 577–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrick, E., Munoz, M. A., & Cobb, P. (2016). A better research-practice partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(3), 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISSOTL. (2017). International society of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.issotl.com

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 423–438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners. The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016 (Vol. 1, pp. 4–5). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56, 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2018). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. Educational Design Research, 1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S. (2016). Researcher-practitioner collaboration in educational design research: Processes, roles, values & expectations. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 155–188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Pareja-Roblin, N. (2018). Connecting research and practice: Teacher inquiry and design-based research. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. Lai (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (2nd ed.). London, England: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, D. E., & Shaffer, P. S. (2011). Teacher education in physics: Research, curriculum and practice. College Park, MD: American Physics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence. How research can inform public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R. (2015). Infrastructuring as a practice for promoting transformation and equity in design-based implementation research. Keynote address at the ISDDE annual conference. September 22–25, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1–2), 182–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P., & Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development and the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8406, 10508406.2016.1204547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can improve their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2011). Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reflection. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1) (Article 30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns & L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Greisemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Braak, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2012). Het profiel van onderwijsonderzoekers en hun opvattingen over samenwerking met de onderwijspraktijk. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(6), 364–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderlinde, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virkkunen, J. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Yael Kali & Adi Kidron

  2. The Science Teaching Department, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Bat-Sheva Eylon

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

    Susan McKenney

Authors
  1. Yael Kali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bat-Sheva Eylon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan McKenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adi Kidron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Kali .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Info, Ste G150, Univ of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Michael J Spector

  2. School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Barbara B Lockee

  3. School of Education, Baker University, Overland Park, Kansas, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Section Editor information

  1. College of Education, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Drew Polly Ph.D., M.Ed., B.S.

  2. Psychiatry, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Robert Doyle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Kali, Y., Eylon, BS., McKenney, S., Kidron, A. (2018). Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice
    Published:
    07 July 2023

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-2

  2. Original

    Design-Centric Research-Practice Partnerships: Three Key Lenses for Building Productive Bridges Between Theory and Practice
    Published:
    19 May 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1

Search

Navigation