Co-designing Research Methods Lesson Plans in the Interactive Research Methods Lab
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2020.74.1797Keywords:
Co-design, research methods, Interective Research Methods LabAbstract
In this article we present a series of co-design sessions conducted throughout the 2019-2020 academic year, of which the aim was to plan and implement lessons on research methods for undergraduate and graduate students in the Interactive Research Methods Lab (IRML). The IRML is a brand new resource in the Bagwell College of Education (Kennesaw State University) that provides students with personalized instruction and practical experience in generating research designs, conceptual frameworks, and reviews of literature using Augmented Reality (AR) interactive contents. We followed the seven characteristic features of co-design as outlined by Roschelle et al. (2006) and structured sessions for co-design in accordance with Cober et al. (2015) and Barberá et al.'s (2017) proposed stages: a) Exploration, b) Envisioning, c) Operationalization, and d) Assessment and Reflection.
Successful implementation of the co-designed lessons and their integration with the IRML as a technological learning resource highlight the affordances of using a co-design approach to confront the inherent challenges in designing authentic and meaningful learning experiences when teaching research methods.
Downloads
References
Barberá, E., Garcia, I., & Fuertes-Alpiste, M. (2017). A Co-Design Process Microanalysis: Stages and Facilitators of an Inquiry-Based and Technology-Enhanced Learning Scenario. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 18(6), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.2805
Breuer, F., Schreier, M. (2007). Issues in learning about and teaching qualitative research methods and methodology in the social sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(1), 1-17, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-8.1.216
Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H-S., & Könings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 43(2), 203-228. 10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0
Cooper, R., Fleischer, A., & Cotton, F. A. (2012). Building Connections: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Qualitative Research Students' Learning Experiences. Qualitative Report, 17(1), 1-16. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss17/1
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
European Commission (2016). Open innovation, open Science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. doi:10.2777/061652
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 23, 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
García, I, Barberá, E., Gros, B., Escofet, A., Fuertes, M. Noguera, I., López, M., Cortada, M., & Marimón, M. (2014). Analysing and supporting the process of co-designing inquiry-based and technology-enhanced learning scenarios in higher education. In Bayne, S., Jones, C., de Laat, M., Ryberg, T., & Sinclair, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Networked Learning (493-501).
Gullo, D. F. (2013). Improving instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes for early childhood language and literacy through data-driven decision-making. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 413-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0581-x
Günter, M. (2008). A lesson learned? Difficulties in teaching and learning qualitative research methods. Journal Für Psychologie, 1 (5). 1-13. https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/194
Hammersley, M. (2004). Teaching qualitative method: Craft, profession, or bricolage? In Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo & David Silverman (Eds.). Qualitative research practice (pp.549-560). Sage.
Hazzan, O., & Nutov, L. (2014). Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research ≈ Conducting Qualitative Research. Qualitative Report, 19 (24), 1-29. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss24/3
Jorrín-Abellán, I. M. (2016). Hopscotch Building: A Model for the Generation of Qualitative Research Designs. Georgia Educational Researcher, 13 (1). 10.20429/ger.2016.130104.
Jorrín-Abellán, I. M. (2019) Hopscotch 2.0: an enhanced version of the Model for the Generation of Research Designs in Social Sciences and Education. Georgia Educational Researcher, 16 (1) 10.20429/ger.2019.160103
Lesko, N., Simmons, J.A., Quarshie, A., & Newton, N. (2008). The Pedagogy of Monsters: Scary Disturbances in a Doctoral Research Preparation Course. Teachers College Record, 110 (8), 1541-1573. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15152
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S. & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). Participatory instructional redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: effects on perceptions of instruction. Instructional Science, 39(5), 737–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9152-3
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A Perfect Time for Data Use: Using Data-Driven Decision Making to Inform Practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114 (11), 1-48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001992
Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A., Prieto, L. P., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Martínez-Monés, A., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2015). Coming Down to Earth: Helping Teachers Use 3D Virtual Worlds in Across-Spaces Learning Situations. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (1), 13–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.1.13
Mulholland, R., McKinlay, A., & Sproule, J. (2017). Teachers in need of space: The content and changing context of work. Educational Review, 69 (2), 181-200. 10.1080/00131911.2016.1184131
Piety, P. J. (2019). Components, Infrastructures, and Capacity: The Quest for the Impact of Actionable Data Use on P–20 Educator Practice. Review of Research in Education, 43 (1), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821116
Ravitch S. M. & Riggan, M. (2017) Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. SAGE Publications.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Shechtman, N. (2006). Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, International Society of the Learning Sciences. (pp. 606–612).
Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4 (1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Scheeler, M. C., Budin, S., & Markelz, A. (2016). The role of teacher preparation in promoting evidence-based practice in schools. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14 (2), 171-187.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23 (3), 34-41.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
By submitting the paper, the authors assign the publication rights to the journal Edutec. For its part, Edutec authorises its distribution as long as its content is not altered and its origin is indicated. At the end of each article published in Edutec, the citation procedure is indicated.
The management and editorial board of Edutec Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa do not accept any responsibility for the statements and ideas expressed by the authors in their work.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
