2 Classic Design of Curriculum Innovations: Investigation of Teacher Involvement… 25

the main goal (e.g., develop ownership, create awareness, train teachers) and format
(e.g., workshop, school meetings, curriculum materials) of each activity.
Common patterns and themes were identified across projects through constant
comparison (cf. Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). After analyzing all nine articles, findings
were discussed first within the research team and then in a working conference
involving scholars with expertise on (bridging) the research-practice gap.

Findings

Characteristics of the Projects Included in the Review

As illustrated in Table 2.2, the nine projects studied reflect ample variation in loca-
tion, target educational level, and subject area, including projects from the USA
(n = 4), The Netherlands (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 1). The target
educational level ranged from pre-school to higher education. Almost half of the
projects (n = 4) focused on physical education, while the remaining projects focused
on diverse subject areas such as mathematics, cartography and pediatrics. All proj-
ects had a clear focus on the design of curriculum innovations intended for large-­
scale use, a distinctive feature of the RD&D model. Initiatives and/or conditions for
systematically disseminating the innovation to a larger number of schools, teachers
and students were explicitly addressed in all the studies.

Table 2.2 Overview of project characteristics

Type of Target
curriculum educational
innovation Authors Country level Subject area Phase reported
Curriculum Balram and Canada Higher Cartography Pilot
framework Dragicevic education implementation
Kittredge USA Higher Pediatrics Dissemination
et al. education
Stone et al. USA High school Mathematics Summative
evaluation
Mooij Netherlands Pre-school Gifted Pilot
students implementation
Health Berger et al. Germany High school Not specified Formative
promotion evaluation
program Jurg et al. Netherlands Primary Physical Formative
schools education evaluation
Jansen et al. Netherlands Primary Physical Summative
schools education evaluation
Carlson et al. USA Primary Physical Formative
schools education evaluation
Williams USA Pre-school Physical Formative
et al. education evaluation
26 N. Pareja Roblin and S. McKenney

When looking at the nature of the curriculum innovations developed, two differ-
ent types of projects can be identified. One type may be labeled as health promotion
projects, and includes projects concerned with the development of school-based
interventions focused on the primary prevention of eating disorders (Berger, Sowa,
Bormann, Brix, & Strauss, 2008) or on the promotion of physical activity and
healthy nutrition (Carlson et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2008; Jurg, De Meij, Van Der
Wal, & Koelen, 2008; Williams, Carter, Kibbe, & Dennison, 2009). A second type
may be labeled as curriculum framework projects and includes projects concerned
with the development of frameworks to assist teachers in the design of innovative
learning activities (Balram & Dragicevic, 2008; Kittredge, Baldwin, Bar-On,
Trimm, & Beach, 2009; Mooij, 2008; Stone, Alfeld, & Pearson, 2008).

Participants’ Roles

Three major groups of participants can be identified across the nine projects: univer-
sity researchers, content specialists (e.g., health care professionals, educational con-
sultants, programming experts), and teachers. In addition to these groups, three
projects (Berger et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2008; Jurg et al., 2008) referred to the
involvement of local organizations during implementation and/or diffusion activi-
ties (e.g., local health services, sport clubs). Even though slight variations can be
identified across projects, the overall roles and activities within each of these groups
of participants were largely comparable.
In all projects, university researchers adopted a central role in assessing the qual-
ity, utility, feasibility and/or effectiveness of the curriculum innovation. Hence, they
were responsible for designing pilot and effectiveness studies, collecting data, and
reporting findings. In addition to these activities, university researchers were
actively involved in the design process, often in collaboration with content special-
ists. Moreover, a couple of projects referred to the role of university researchers as
trainers (Williams et al., 2009) or facilitators (Mooij, 2008) who coached teachers
and/or assisted other experts in teacher training activities during (pilot)
implementation.
Along with university researchers, seven out of nine projects reported the partici-
pation of content specialists. These included educational consultants (Kittredge
et al., 2009; Stone et al., 2008), partners for math teachers (Stone et al., 2008), and
health care professionals (Berger et al., 2008; Carlson et al., 2008; Jansen et al.,
2008; Jurg et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009). The role of content specialists usually
consisted of contributing to the design of the curriculum innovation (Carlson et al.,
2008; Jurg et al., 2008; Kittredge et al., 2009; Stone et al., 2008; Williams et al.,
2009), assisting researchers with data collection (Jansen et al., 2008), and/or provid-
ing professional advice to teachers and students during implementation (Berger
et al., 2008; Carlson et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2008).
More than a half of the studies explicitly referred to teacher involvement in the
design of the curriculum innovations, through their participation in the project team
(Williams et al., 2009; Kittredge et al., 2009), their contributions to focus group
2 Classic Design of Curriculum Innovations: Investigation of Teacher Involvement… 27

discussions about their specific needs and viewpoints (Carlson et al., 2008), or their
feedback on the quality and effectiveness of earlier prototype versions of the cur-
riculum innovation (Jurg et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009). In one project (Stone
et al., 2008), teachers were actively involved in translating the curriculum frame-
work developed by the research team into concrete lesson plans to be implemented
in their own classrooms. Finally, two studies reported teacher involvement in dis-
seminating information about the curriculum innovation to other teachers (Kittredge
et al., 2009; Mooij, 2008).
The involvement of local organizations, such as municipal health services or
sport clubs, was reported in three health promotion projects (Berger et al., 2008;
Jansen et al., 2008; Jurg et al., 2008). When involved, these organizations were typi-
cally responsible for assisting teachers and project leaders with the implementation
of sports activities, or for the diffusion of the program to a larger number of schools
in the region.

Sources of Knowledge Used to Inform the Design Process

Table 2.3 presents an overview of the various sources of knowledge informing the
design of the curriculum innovations. As it could be expected, in all projects the
design process was largely informed by the scientific research literature. General
theories derived from the fields of education (e.g., contextual learning, constructiv-
ism) and psychology (e.g., theory of planned behavior, social cognitive theory), as
well as recent research findings related to the projects’ particular area of focus (e.g.,
mathematics education, pediatrics, gifted students) guided curriculum design
choices.

Table 2.3 Knowledge sources informing the development of curriculum innovations

Type of Data from Data from pilot Expertise of
curriculum Research needs study/formative multidisciplinary
innovation Author literature assessment evaluation team
Curriculum Balram and X X
framework Dragicevic
Kittredge X X X X
et al.
Stone et al. X X
Mooij X
Health Berger et al. X X
promotion Jurg et al. X X
program Jansen et al. X
Carlson X X X
et al.
Williams X X
et al.
Note: X = used to inform the curriculum design process
28 N. Pareja Roblin and S. McKenney

Along with relevant scientific research literature, six out of nine projects explic-
itly reported the use of data collected during the project to inform the curriculum
design process. More specifically, data from needs assessments (Balram &
Dragicevic, 2008; Carlson et al., 2008; Kittredge et al., 2009) and/or formative eval-
uations (Berger et al., 2008; Carlson et al., 2008; Jurg et al., 2008; Kittredge et al.,
2009; Williams et al., 2009) were instrumental in tailoring the curriculum innova-
tions to the specific needs, expectations, motivation level, and/or educational back-
ground of potential users. Interestingly, only two projects (Kittredge et al., 2009;
Stone et al., 2008) explicitly acknowledged that curriculum design was also
informed by the practical knowledge of researchers and content specialists from
various disciplines participating in the project team. Although the remaining proj-
ects also often involved experts from multiple disciplines, the ways in which their
specific expertise informed the design process was not addressed in the articles.
In sum, scientific research knowledge typically shaped the development process
in two ways. On the one hand, research literature and general educational or psy-
chological theories were used to inform curriculum design choices. On the other
hand, findings from needs assessments and/or formative evaluations were used to
adjust the characteristics of the curriculum innovation to the context of implementa-
tion and to the specific needs and characteristics of potential users. By anticipating
large-scale implementation through the identification of user needs and factors that
could potentially influence later use, projects attempted to strengthen the relation-
ships between research and practice.

Diffusion Activities

Across projects, various activities were systematically planned to facilitate the dif-
fusion of the developed curriculum innovations. These activities aimed at generat-
ing a sense of ownership, creating awareness of the availability and benefits of the
innovation among school staff and parents, and providing teachers with professional
development and support.

Teacher Ownership

Over half of the projects (n = 5) reported active teacher involvement in the design
process. Teacher involvement was encouraged in various ways across projects,
including: (i) inviting teachers to participate in the project team (e.g., Williams
et al., 2009) or in curriculum writing/reviewing subcommittees (e.g., Kittredge
et al., 2009); (ii) organizing teacher teams to encourage the application of the cur-
riculum framework in the design of enhanced lesson plans (e.g., Stone et al., 2008);
and (iii) arranging focus group discussions (e.g., Carlson et al., 2008) or individual
meetings (e.g., Mooij, 2008) to give teachers and other stakeholders the opportunity
to express their viewpoints and concerns with regard to the (ideal) characteristics of
2 Classic Design of Curriculum Innovations: Investigation of Teacher Involvement… 29

the curriculum innovation. Despite the differences between these initiatives, they all
shared the goal of facilitating active teacher engagement beginning at early stages
in the design process.

Awareness

Activities to generate awareness about the need for and the benefits of the curricu-
lum innovation among teachers, school staff and (particularly) parents were mainly
reported across health promotion projects. Awareness was generally facilitated
through school meetings (Berger et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2008) and monthly
newsletters (Carlson et al., 2008). During these activities, parents and school staff
members received further information about the goals of the curriculum innovation,
its characteristics and importance. Finally, in Williams et al. (2009), awareness of
the innovation and its importance was encouraged by asking teachers to count their
daily steps with the use of pedometers, thereby motivating them to increase their
alertness regarding physical activity patterns in their students.

Professional Development and Support

Teacher training and support activities took the form of workshops (e.g., Kittredge
et al., 2009; Stone et al., 2008), exemplary curriculum materials (Berger et al., 2008;
Carlson et al., 2008; Jurg et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009), demonstrations (e.g.,
Kittredge et al., 2009; Stone et al., 2008), and coaching (e.g., Mooij, 2008; Stone
et al., 2008). Workshops were usually brief in duration (e.g., 1 or 2 h) and were often
led by a member of the project team. The goal of these workshops was to provide
teachers with general information about the curriculum innovation and how it could
be used in their own classrooms.
Exemplary curriculum materials were typically designed by the project team to
assist teachers in the implementation of the curriculum innovation. These materials
could include: a suite of instruments to follow up on students’ physical activity
together with a list of recommended school exercise activities (e.g., Jurg et al.,
2008); copies of the curriculum and a list with instructions on how to use it (e.g.,
Carlson et al., 2008); curriculum units and exemplary physical activities (e.g.,
Williams et al., 2009); and/or posters and guidelines to encourage group discussions
(e.g., Berger et al., 2008). Besides exemplary curriculum materials, demonstration
activities were sometimes organized to provide teachers with the opportunity to see
live examples of how the curriculum innovation could be implemented.
Demonstrations took the form of showcase events (e.g., Kittredge et al., 2009) or
teacher presentations (e.g., Stone et al., 2008).
Coaching activities took place during (pilot) implementation and aimed at sup-
porting teachers with the use of the curriculum innovation. In the project described
by Mooij (2008), the coaching role was adopted by the researcher himself, whereas
in Stone et al. (2008), partners for math teachers adopted this role. Finally, Carlson
30 N. Pareja Roblin and S. McKenney

et al. (2008) reported coaching activities in which graduate students from health-­
related professions (e.g., kinesiology, dietetics) acted as mentors/coaches of teach-
ers and students during the implementation of the new learning activities.

Discussion

The present study aimed to explore how research and practice relationships materi-
alize across curriculum innovation projects that feature core characteristics of the
RD&D model. These relationships were analyzed in relation to the participants
involved in the project and their roles, the types of knowledge used to inform cur-
riculum design, and the activities undertaken to facilitate diffusion and adoption.
The rigorously defined set of articles that were included in our study provides a
clear overview of what RD&D-model based projects look like. Using this informa-
tion, we discuss the contributions of the RD&D model to strengthening research
and practice relationships in education, as well as the criticisms of this model.
Overall, our findings confirm that the RD&D model lives up to its potential to
promote active utilization of scientific research for the development of curriculum
innovations. All projects that were analyzed reported the use of scientific research
literature as a major source of knowledge guiding the curriculum design process. In
addition to this literature, the knowledge derived from systematic formative evalua-
tion studies was central for tailoring the characteristics of the curriculum innovation
to the context and needs of the target audience. Our findings also reveal that in some
cases the design process was informed by the practical knowledge and expertise of
the project team, particularly when design activities were undertaken by a multidis-
ciplinary group. Notably, in over half of the studies, teachers’ opinions, suggestions
and practical experiences were used to inform the design process.
Another key finding of our study is concerned with the identification of the par-
ticipants involved in RD&D-based projects and their specific roles. Three different
groups of participants were common to all projects: researchers, content specialists
and teachers. This was to be expected from RD&D projects. More surprising were
the roles played by each of the participant groups. Teacher participation moved
beyond the role of “consumers of research” typically attributed to them in the tradi-
tional RD&D model. More than half of the projects analyzed reported some sort of
teacher involvement in curriculum design, either reactively (e.g., by providing feed-
back after appraising prototypes of the educational solution) or proactively (e.g., by
specifying their needs or translating the curriculum framework developed by
researchers into concrete lesson plans). This indicates the presence of extended
forms of communication between researchers and teachers throughout the RD&D
process. While in the traditional RD&D model, communication was mainly charac-
terized as being unidirectional and as primarily taking place at the diffusion phase
of the RD&D process, the projects studied show a tendency towards increased com-
munication and (in some cases) collaboration between teachers and researchers
from the early stages of the RD&D process onwards.
2 Classic Design of Curriculum Innovations: Investigation of Teacher Involvement… 31

Researchers also adopted multiple roles. They were actively involved in the
design of the curriculum innovations and were also responsible for assessing its
quality, utility, feasibility and/or effectiveness in natural settings. In addition, in a
couple of projects researchers were even involved in diffusion activities, adopting
the role of teacher trainers or facilitators during (pilot) implementation. Hence, their
responsibilities went far beyond carrying out the R in RD&D. Similarly, content
specialists’ roles ranged from contributing with their knowledge and expertise dur-
ing the curriculum design process, to providing professional advice during (pilot)
implementation, to assisting researchers with data collection. This multiplicity of
roles and activities reveals that, in contrast to the rather clear division of tasks sug-
gested in the traditional RD&D model, in the projects studied both the researchers
and the content specialists have been actively involved across multiple phases.
Further research could contribute to exploring how consistently this expanded role
of researchers is observed, and how it contributes to strengthened research and prac-
tice relationships.
As mentioned at the start of this chapter, the RD&D model and related evidence-­
based practices have long been strongly criticized for adopting a “teacher proof”
approach (Biesta, 2010; Gottschalk et al., 1981; Posner, 2004; Schumacher, 1972).
In contrast, the projects examined in this study actively involved teachers (e.g.,
teachers were invited to participate in the development team or in revision subcom-
mittees); built in mechanisms for making site-specific modifications (e.g., data col-
lected during formative evaluations was used to tailor the characteristics of the
curriculum innovation to the needs, expectations, and background of potential
users); and, assuming that adoption would be challenging, worked to render the
innovations appealing and practical (e.g., teachers were provided with the opportu-
nity to see how the curriculum innovation could be used in their classroom through
demonstrations or teacher participation in communities of practice). Previous
researchers have called for a modified RD&D model that emphasizes the organiza-
tional and individual factors influencing implementation (Gottschalk et al., 1981),
one that is grounded in a rigorous and systematic use of scientific research and
evaluation methods, but also actively encourages involvement of practitioners in the
design process (Blakely et al., 1987). Our study shows that the projects analyzed do
exhibit these principles.
We see a need to disentangle the criticism of the RD&D model from personal
views concerning the goals and nature of research, the kinds of knowledge worth
pursuing, and the acceptable methods for conducting scientific inquiry. Despite
large epistemological differences between various approaches for bridging the
research and practice gap, there seems to be increasing consensus about the need to
intensify communication and collaboration among teachers, researchers and other
stakeholders from the educational system (de Vries & Pieters, 2007; Levin, 2013;
Lieberman, 1992; Penuel et al., 2015). Our findings reveal that projects based on the
modified RD&D approach consider the needs of teachers and schools and involve
them in the design process, although to different extents. This is a meaningful step
forward in enabling new forms of communication between teachers and research-
ers. However, it should also be mentioned that most of the time, teachers’ roles in
32 N. Pareja Roblin and S. McKenney

the design process are still rather instrumental, insofar they are mainly considered
in order to ensure successful implementation and “buy-in”. We strongly encourage
teacher involvement that extends to both knowledge use and knowledge production
through active participation in research and design activities, as suggested by the
teacher research (cf. Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and design research (cf.
McKenney & Reeves, 2012) movements. Teacher adaptation of evidence-based
practices would prevent the educational system from unwarranted expectations
about the role of evidence in their practices and its uncritical use (Biesta, 2007,
2010).
Although the limited number of projects included in our study prevents us from
making generalizations, the findings of the current study contribute a fresh look at
the classic RD&D model. Alongside the work of others (cf. Gottschalk et al., 1981),
this study can inspire novel ways of thinking about core RD&D assumptions,
including: how to facilitate more active use of scientific research to inform curricu-
lum development; the different ways the interactions between research, develop-
ment and diffusion may be shaped; increased attention to the context; and new
models of diffusion. Additionally, it can pave new paths for knowledge mobilization
to let the educational system and particularly teachers benefit from the evidence
produced by educational research (Levin, 2011). Yet, criticism of the RD&D model
is not without reason. Based on our study, we suggest that the problem lies not in the
RD&D model as a basic mechanism, but in narrow or outdated conceptualizations
of the core processes (research, development and diffusion) and their interactions.
This study provides both general findings and specific examples to spark discus-
sions on what those processes can entail in fruitful RD&D.

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific

Research (NWO) for funding this study (Project Number 411-08-601). The authors also thank Bart
Ormel for his contribution to data collection and analysis.

References

Balram, S., & Dragicevic, S. (2008). Collaborative spaces for GIS-based multimedia cartography
in blended environments. Computers & Education, 50(1), 371–385.
Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting
perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 221–236.
Berger, U., Sowa, M., Bormann, B., Brix, C., & Strauss, B. (2008). Primary prevention of eating
disorders: Characteristics of effective programmes and how to bring them to broader dissemi-
nation. European Eating Disorders Review, 16(3), 173–183.
Biesta, G. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: The
need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 295–301.
Biesta, G. (2010). Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value-­
based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 491–503.
2 Classic Design of Curriculum Innovations: Investigation of Teacher Involvement… 33

Blakely, C., Mayer, J., Gottschalk, R., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitman, D., et al. (1987). The
fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social pro-
grams. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(3), 253–268.
Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and prac-
tice: A literature review, symposium and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation,
13, 203–220.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful,
more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
Carlson, J., Eisenmann, J., Pfeiffer, K., Jager, K., Sehnert, S., Yee, K., et al. (2008). (S)Partners for
Heart Health: A school-based program for enhancing physical activity and nutrition to promote
cardiovascular health in 5th grade students. BMC Public Health, 8, 1–12.
Clark, D., & Hopkins, J. (1969). A report on educational research, development and diffusion
manpower. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Foundation.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice. Teacher learning
in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
De Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Exploring
the role of knowledge communities in educational change. European Educational Research
Journal, 6(4), 382–392.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London:
Sage Publications.
Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking con-
nections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational
Researcher, 47(4), 235–245.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.
Gottschalk, R., et al. (1981, October). Multi-site implementation and replication of research find-
ings. Is the modified RD&D model viable? Paper presented at a meeting of the Evaluation
Research Society, Austin, TX.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2010). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for innovation: A comparative study of the literature on the dissem-
ination and utilization of scientific knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice. A
systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29, 449–471.
Jansen, W., Raat, H., Zwanenburg, E., Reuvers, I., van Walsem, R., & Brug, J. (2008). A school-­
based intervention to reduce overweight and inactivity in children aged 6-12 years: Study
design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 8, 1–9.
Jurg, M., De Meij, J., Van Der Wal, M., & Koelen, M. (2008). Using health promotion outcomes
in formative evaluation studies to predict success factors in interventions: An application to an
intervention for promoting physical activity in Dutch children (JUMP-in). Health Promotion
International, 23(3), 231–239.
Kennedy, M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher,
26(7), 4–12.
Kittredge, D., Baldwin, C. D., Bar-On, M., Trimm, R. F., & Beach, P. S. (2009). One specialty’s
collaborative approach to competency-based curriculum development. Academic Medicine,
84(9), 1262–1268.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence
from social science research. Science Communication, 22(4), 396–422.
Levin, B. (2011). Mobilizing research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1),
15–26.
34 N. Pareja Roblin and S. McKenney

Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education,
1(1), 2–31.
Lieberman, A. (1992). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community.
Educational Researcher, 21(6), 5–12.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 35(3), 357–382.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
Mooij, T. (2008). Education and self-regulation of learning for gifted pupils: Systemic design and
development. Research Papers in Education, 23(1), 1–19.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Nutley, S., Jung, T., & Walter, I. (2009). The many forms of research-informed practice: A frame-
work for mapping diversity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 53–71.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence. How research can inform public ser-
vices. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
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
(JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197.
Posner, G. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schumacher, S. (1972, November). Limitations of a research, development and diffusion strategy
in diffusion: A case study of nine local implementations of state-adopted curriculum. Paper
presented at the National Council for the Social Studies Annual Meeting, Boston.
Stone, J., Alfeld, C., & Pearson, D. (2008). Rigor “and” relevance: Enhancing high school stu-
dents’ math skills through career and technical education. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(3), 767–795.
Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (2004). Evidence-based practice in education. Maidenhead, UK: Open
University Press.
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, 299–316.
Williams, C., Carter, B., Kibbe, D., & Dennison, D. (2009). Increasing physical activity in pre-
school: A pilot study to evaluate animal trackers. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,
41(1), 47–52.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 3
Teachers as Co-designers: Scientific
and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher
Professional Development and Curriculum
Innovation

Hanna Westbroek, Bregje de Vries, Amber Walraven, Adam Handelzalts,

and Susan McKenney

Introduction

Teacher participation in the collaborative design of curriculum materials is gaining

momentum in educational practice. In collaborative design teams, teachers create
new curricular materials such as courses or lessons in co-operation with each other,
and often also with experts from the educational design, educational research, and
educational content domains. Projects that involve collaborative design have differ-
ent aims. At one end of the spectrum, professional development is seen as the pri-
mary aim. The production and enactment of curricular materials is considered more
of a means and the designs are by-products. The lesson study approach (cf. Lewis,
2000) is a typical example of this. This increasingly popular professional develop-
ment arrangement aims at gaining insight into the learning processes of students
within a specific academic domain by co-designing one exemplar lesson in a cycle
of design–enactment-evaluation–redesign.

H. Westbroek (*) · B. de Vries

Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
A. Walraven
Radboud Teachers Academy, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Handelzalts
Teacher Education Department, Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
S. McKenney
Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2019 35

J. Pieters et al. (eds.), Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable
Innovation and Teacher Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_3
36 H. Westbroek et al.

At the other end of the spectrum, the emphasis is on curriculum innovation. Typical
examples are the recent large-scale science curriculum reform projects in the
Netherlands and Germany. These projects used collaborative design as an
implementation-­furthering strategy. A common premise is that collaborative ­curriculum
design not only positively affects professional development but that this can result in a
curriculum innovation as well (Fig. 3.1) (Borko, 2004; Koehler & Mishra, 2005).
Although the premises behind collaborative design are conceptually well-­
founded, their empirical base is less evident (Borko, 2004; Voogt et al., 2015).
Therefore, and particularly in view of the increased attention to collaborative design
in educational practice, the study presented here was undertaken to explore what
empirical evidence is available about processes that take place when teachers co-­
design, how these contribute to professional and curriculum development, and what
are fostering and hindering factors. Additionally, we searched for what has been
reported about the possible effects on curriculum enactment.
Scientific, peer-reviewed articles were searched and analysed, using the follow-
ing broad definition of collaborative design: at least two teachers who cooperatively
(re)design curriculum materials with the aim of improving educational practice
(Handelzalts, 2009). We additionally searched professional journals for colloquial
evidence, for two reasons: to demonstrate that collaborative design is topical in
practice as well, and to include more direct reports on teacher experiences.
Colloquial evidence (cf. Wenger & Snyder, 2000) can be defined as descriptive and/
or evaluative reports on design teams as portrayed in professional journals by teach-
ers. The term ‘colloquial evidence’ stems from research on health care (cf. Lomas,
Culyer, McCutcheon, McCauley, & Law, 2005). Such first-hand information on
teacher experiences enabled us to compare teacher perspectives with researcher per-
spectives in an exploratory way.

Theoretical Background

The idea of involving teachers in collaborative curriculum design is, in an important

sense, a reaction to traditional curriculum reform movements that have emerged over
the past decades, as well as to the felt need that curriculum development needs to be
more dynamic in response to a rapidly changing world. A curriculum is a plan for

Fig. 3.1 Teachers who are collaborative

involved in collaborative curriculum design
curriculum design
experience professional
development. The premise curriculum
is that these two processes innovation
strengthen each other and
can lead to curriculum
innovation teacher
professional
development
3 Teachers as Co-designers: Scientific and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher… 37

learning (Taba, 1962). A curriculum is made manifest through various curriculum mate-
rials that can be designed at different levels of representation: standards are often devel-
oped on a national level, while on a classroom level, teachers design learning experiences
for their students: units, lessons, activities, tests. How a plan for learning plays out in
terms of actual student experiences and learning outcomes is ultimately determined by
the way the designs are enacted by the teacher (Remillard & Heck, 2014). Teacher col-
laborative design typically applies to the classroom level (Voogt et al., 2011).
Collaborative curriculum design can take many forms that exhibit roughly two
different models of curriculum innovation. On the one hand, in school-based col-
laborative design settings in which teachers cooperate to set goals and improve their
practice (Handelzalts, 2009), teachers are seen as active agents and initiators of
change (Severance, Penuel, Sumner, & Leary, 2016; Voogt et al., 2015). How teach-
ers fulfil their role of ‘change agent’ might range from being modest adapters to
being innovative. On the other hand, other initiatives have used teacher design teams
to translate reform proposals into lesson materials as an implementation-furthering
strategy (e.g., Parchmann et al., 2006). This approach does not fundamentally
change the basic model of traditional curriculum reform. In this model, curriculum
reform is initiated by ‘others’. Instead of being a change agent, the teacher is the
end-user who needs to ‘fix’ deficiencies in knowledge and beliefs, in order to prop-
erly understand and adopt the proposed curriculum reform and design and enact
lesson materials accordingly. The impact of such traditional curriculum innovation
initiatives has been poor: there is ample evidence that transformation of the intended
design processes into classroom practice involves adaptation more often than not,
and in most cases has resulted in a loss (slippage) of the initial innovative ideals
(e.g., Remillard, 2005; Westbroek, Janssen, & Doyle, 2016). It is assumed that
involving teachers at an early stage of curriculum reform at least narrows the gap
between the initial intentions and enactment, because greater ownership is fostered
and collaborative design can anticipate the types of adaptations teachers might
likely make (e.g., Doyle & Ponder, 1977; Handelzalts, 2009).
Involving teachers in co-designing curricular materials is additionally assumed
to comply with various features of effective teacher professional development. The
design process itself is considered to require distinctive types of ‘design practices’
in moving from a conceptual idea to a product (cf. Naidu, Anderson, & Riddle,
2000). The process of collaborative design thus involves recursive (re)consider-
ation, making design decisions based on articulated expectations and observing how
the design actually functions in the classroom. If a new teaching approach is inte-
grated into the curriculum materials, areas of difficulty may emerge that can be
collaboratively discussed in the design team. Thus, collaborative design is geared
toward actual practice: design, enactment and evaluation of artefacts based on
insights into how to guide students’ thinking and how to use these artefacts in prac-
tice (Borko, 2004; Van Veen, Zwart, Meirink, & Verloop. 2010). Furthermore, col-
laborative design is social in nature. It provides opportunities for collaboration with
peers and experts which, in turn, can create opportunities for reflection on new
teaching experiences (Borko, 2004; Lumpe, 2007; Voogt et al., 2011). A review of
82 studies showed that teachers who learn collaboratively tend to use more innova-
tive pedagogies, better align written and enacted curricula, increase professional
38 H. Westbroek et al.

communication and display more job satisfaction and self-efficacy (Van Grieken,
Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015).
In sum, we can conclude that there is sufficient theoretical basis for collaborative
design. However, its empirical base is less solid. Therefore, in this study we address
the following question: From the perspectives of practitioners and researchers,
respectively, what do empirical studies say about the processes of collaborative
design and their effects on teacher professional development, curriculum develop-
ment, and curriculum enactment?
In this study we included colloquial evidence derived from professional papers
to demonstrate that collaborative design is topical in educational practice, and to
include teachers’ perspectives in our analysis. The colloquial corpus reveals prob-
lems, experiences and results that teachers consider worthwhile to share with their
colleagues, not being directed by a research agenda. Including colloquial evidence
provides a unique picture of, in this case, Dutch teachers participating in collabora-
tive design, and subsequently enabled us to identify what might be blind spots in the
scientific corpus.

Method

Peer-reviewed articles published between 1988 and 2009 were included in this
study. Initial systematic searches in three major databases, Scopus, Web of Science,
and Eric, yielded 492 articles. A combination of the following search terms was
used: teacher; different synonyms of curriculum design/innovation/or material
development or teacher developed materials/teaching materials/lesson materials;
different synonyms of collaboration/participation. The results from all databases
were combined and controlled for overlap.
Additionally, 25 popular and well-used Dutch professional journals that address
general and domain-specific pedagogical and instructional topics were selected.
Because electronic indexing is not yet common for these sources, Dutch journals
from only 1 year of publication (2008) were hand-searched. For those journals pub-
lishing fewer than four times annually, issues from 2007 were also included. We
consider this study as a first step in including a colloquial body of evidence in a
scientific literature review in order to examine and compare practitioners’ perspec-
tives and researchers’ perspectives on the topic of collaborative curriculum design.
Both the scientific and professional articles had to meet the following criteria to
be included in this study:
1. activities described involve at least two teachers co-designing;
2. activities described cover (part of) a design cycle: problem analysis, design,
enactment, evaluation and redesign;
3. activities described contribute to the realization of a curricular product, such as
national syllabi, learning materials.
3 Teachers as Co-designers: Scientific and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher… 39

This chapter reports on the collection and interpretation of data or – in case of the
professional articles–experiences. Theoretical articles were excluded from the
study. Professional articles that concerned a scientific study presented by research-
ers were also excluded. In the first screening, the abstracts of the scientific articles
(n = 492) were independently examined by three researchers for meeting the inclu-
sion criteria. Differences in judgment were discussed until agreement was reached.
The inter-screener reliability was considered sufficient (Cohen’s kappas: 0.64, 0.67
and 0.68). Based on this screening, 319 articles were labelled as not-relevant, 173 as
relevant. Next, the full-text articles were screened. The level of agreement between
two researchers ranged from substantial (Cohen’s kappas of 0.68 and 0.77) to quite
strong (0.86). Based on the full-text screening, another 144 articles were labelled as
not-relevant, 29 as relevant. Not-relevant included being theoretically rather than
empirically oriented. A substantial number of articles also only presented summa-
tive evaluations of the design products instead of scientific reports on the process of
collaborative design. The scientific articles were additionally judged on specific
quality criteria, such as consistency and presence of appropriate measurements to
secure validity (cf. Campbell et al., 2003). Sixteen articles were considered of
‘insufficient’ quality, and were therefore excluded from the study. Of the remaining
13 articles, 9 concerned in-service teachers and formed the basis for this study
(Table 3.1). Four articles concerned collaborative design by pre-service teachers
and were excluded from the review.
The professional journals (n = 25) were hand-searched on (sub)titles and abstracts
of articles that seemed to follow the inclusion criteria. This resulted in a data set of
35 articles. Next, two researchers independently screened the articles. Most (23) of
the 35 articles did not meet the criteria. In many cases, the articles concerned a sci-
entific study presented by researchers. The researchers reached a 100% consensus
on which articles to include after short discussions of the relevant articles. The final
data set contained 12 articles for further analysis (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Overview of the selected scientific and professional papers

Scientific papers Professional papers
Baildon and Damico (2008) Baack (2008)
Deketelaere and Kelchtermans (1996) Boerstoel and Wielaard (2008)
Fernandez (2005) Dijkstra (2008)
George and Lubben (2002) Heijn and Krüger (2008)
Parchmann et al. (2006) Hoekzema (2008)
Rock and Wilson (2005) Hollaardt (2007)
Schneider and Pickett (2006) Koelemij and Visscher-Meijman (2007)
Shkedi (1996) Oosterling (2008)
Voogt, Almekinders, Van den Akker, and Moonen Van den Broek (2007)
(2005) Van der Westen (2008a)
Van der Westen (2008b)
Visser (2008)
40 H. Westbroek et al.

Both the professional and scientific articles were analysed with the following
questions:
1. What are the main characteristics of the design teams and the design processes?
2. What effects on teachers’ professional development are reported?
3. What effects on curriculum enactment are reported?
Cross-article analyses were carried out to identify themes and patterns, dominant
characteristics, processes, and effects of collaborative design (cf. Campbell et al.,
2003; Noblit & Hare, 1988). The results of both the scientific and the colloquial
cross-article analyses were discussed by the entire research team.

Results: The Colloquial Corpus

The selected articles were written by teachers (n = 5) or intermediaries from consul-

tancy offices (n = 7). Ten articles concerned secondary education, two concerned
primary education. The products designed varied from a small series of lessons to
new instructional approaches such as collaborative and inquiry learning. Table 3.2
presents brief summaries of the projects.

Characteristics of the Design Teams

The design teams were either: (a) local and working in the same school (n = 5), or
(b) regional/national with members from different schools (n = 7). On average,
teams had about ten members. At primary schools, design teams encompassed the
whole school team; at secondary schools, domain-specific departments usually
formed the natural boundaries of the team. The teams either dealt with curriculum
renewal by adopting new pedagogies and classroom organizations (n = 4) or with
improvement of domain-specific lesson materials (n = 8). These domains varied
from science to the languages and art. The vast majority of teams also had external
members who helped coordinate the teams and inspired members with procedures
and/or new content (n = 9). These external members came from general pedagogical
institutes or domain-specific learning centres/university departments. Overall, the
general picture in the colloquial corpus was a rather large multidisciplinary team of
teachers and intermediaries/researchers from the educational field, in which teach-
ers outnumbered external experts.
3 Teachers as Co-designers: Scientific and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher… 41

Table 3.2 Summaries of the professional projects

Study Summary of the project
Baack (2008) A team of eight foreign language teachers at one secondary school designed and
implemented a new form to assess students’ fluency during 1 year. Two
prototypes were designed and tested. The teachers shared their experiences and
the students’ results. The teacher design team reported a more objective scoring
procedure, and more explicit criteria for both the teachers and students, and
higher foreign language fluency was noticed
Boerstoel A team of members from five secondary schools designed and implemented a
and Wielaard project-based curriculum with students engaged in self-regulated learning and
(2008) teachers as coaches. The teacher design team used a design model that was
developed and tested in the US. The new curriculum was evaluated through
interviews with teachers and students, students’ journals of students and
classroom observations. Anecdotal proof from teachers and students was
provided to illustrate positive outcomes such as new learning results and a quiet
learning environment
Dijkstra A team of members from five primary schools designed an adaptive curriculum
(2008) for mathematics and language learning that aimed to divide students into either a
pre-vocational or pre-scientific route. The teacher design team hoped to improve
the students’ learning process and give children more opportunities to experience
success. The project ran for 3 years and was supported by an institute
specializing in supporting weak students. The teacher design team reported
positive effects on their own professional development as far as realizing
adaptive teaching. The main curricular effect that was reported concerned an
adjustment of end levels in the upper grades of the primary schools
Heijn and Teachers from many different secondary schools supported by domain experts
Krüger from universities teamed up to design new lesson materials for an
(2008) interdisciplinary science program. A nation-wide project group consisting of
different stakeholders monitored the process of implementation. The article
described several lesson materials that were designed. No user evaluations were
reported
Hoekzema A team of teachers from nine secondary schools, supported by university
(2008) teachers, designed web quests that help their students make more effective
choices of a profession and university course of study. The project ran for several
years. Anecdotal proof based on observations and informal interviews was
provided for the lessons’ effectiveness, as students seemed to gain insight into
what certain professions really encompass in practice, and what they like to do
and are good at. The teachers reported they had learned more about their
students’ worries and motives
Hollaardt A team of teachers from two secondary schools designed new lesson materials
(2007) for a multidisciplinary science program. They were supported and monitored by
a nation-wide project group. The lesson materials aimed at showing the
relationship between the disciplines involved, and at supporting problem-based
inquiry by students. The article reported positive findings concerning
interdisciplinary collaboration by teachers during the design process, as they got
to know each other’s learning content and found new opportunities to become
fine-tuned with each other’s programs
(continued)