03 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Session - NW 03
General Poster Session
Finnish school system provides all students equal opportunities. This orientation in school system requires careful curriculum design as well at the macro and at the micro level (van den Akker, 2013). We have to ask how content of teaching, pedagogy and school practices should be reviewed and renewed in relation to the changes in the operating environment.
In Finland, the national core curriculum for basic education was renewed in 2014 and the new local curricula were introduced in the beginning of the school year 2016–2017 (FNBE 2012). The renewal process involved broad-based co-operation with education experts and various stakeholders.
In order to meet the challenges of the future, the core curriculum consists of seven dimensions: 1) thinking and learning to learn, 2) cultural competence, interaction and self-expression, 3) taking care of oneself and managing daily life, 4) multiliteracy, 5) ICT competence, 6) working life competence and entrepreneurship, and 7) participation, involvement and building a sustainable future (FNBE 2012). In addition, it seems that Finnish school system has been lacking ways to support community and collaboration. On that account, collaborative classroom practices of different kind, are emphasised.
Taking these principles and dimensions into account, we have modelled a Collaborative Writing Model, which has been developed by design-based research (Design-based research collective, 2003; Plomp & Nieveen, 2013; van den Akker, 2013). In our design based research (DBR) settings we have found some pedagogical ways to teach multiliteracies, support teachers’ and pupils’ collaboration and teachers’ professional development (Jyrkiäinen & Koskinen-Sinisalo, 2012; 2015; 2017).
The Collaborative Writing Model (CWM) builds on the socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In addition, the theory of multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996; Kulju et al., 2018) and genre pedagogy (Christie & Martin 2005; Luukka 2004) are the pedagogical basis of the CWM. The model includes eight steps: 1) orientation to the approach and to the subject, 2) reading and examining of the text, 3) presenting and modelling of the writing task, 4) clarifying of characteristic of the text, 5) writing in small groups, 6) editing the text, 7) presenting and publishing the text, and 8) assessment (Jyrkiäinen & Koskinen-Sinisalo, 2017).
The context of this study is the development of curriculum through educational design research and it was carried out in the Faculty of Education, the University of Tampere.
In this paper, the author introduces the characteristics of seven iterative phases (Easterday, Rees Lewis, & Gerber, 2017) of the educational design research interventions of Collaborative Writing in a Finnish Teacher Training primary school with 2nd – 5th grades (Jyrkiäinen & Koskinen-Sinisalo, 2012; 2015; 2017). The aim of this study is to produce knowledge of how educational design research benefits the curriculum development. The research question is:
How do design based research settings help developing curriculum at the micro level?
Educational design research supports educational design processes and it results in interventions, professional development and even curriculum reform (Design-Based Research Collective 2003; Nieveen 2007; Plomb 2013; van der Akker 2009). The CWM was modelled following the cycles of curriculum design research by van der Akker (2009): 1) preliminary investigation, 2) theoretical embedding, 3) empirical testing and 4) documentation, analysis and reflection on the process and outcomes. This study can be seen as the fourth cycle as it focuses on the analysis of the process and its outcomes. The research examines the educational design research interventions of the CWM to gain deeper understanding about promoting curriculum development at the micro level. The research methodology relies on the qualitative approach, where the body of data consists of texts based on subjectivist ontology. The data consisted of three cases: three articles written of the research projects of the CWM (Jyrkiäinen & Koskinen-Sinisalo, 2012; 2015; 2017). ). All three articles that were used as data focus on the CWM from a special point of view. The article A addresses collaboration in writing, the article B shows how collaborative writing is part of multiliteracy and the article C describes how the Collaborative writing model is developed through design research cycles. Three research articles of the CWM were examined by using theoretical content analysis (e.g., Krippendorff, 2004). The data were analyzed with the help of conceptual lenses derived from the characteristics of seven iterative phases of design based research (Easterday, Rees Lewis & Gerber, 2017). In the analysis of three cases, i.e. three DR articles, I performed seven phases of design research (Easterday, Rees Lewis, & Gerber, 2017): 1) focus, 2) understand, 3) define, 4) conceive, 5) build, 6) test and 7) present. Before conducting content analysis with a deductive approach (Kondracki, Wellman, & Amundson, 2002) I studied the key meanings of the phases and the predetermined expressions of each phase.
This study revealed how educational design research interventions of the CWM focused on the characteristics of seven iterative phases (Easterday et al., 2017). 1) Focusing includes collaboration with education experts, stakeholders, teachers and pupils. Teachers and pupils were willing to collaborate. It is important that the researchers clearly know the actual educational needs of teachers and pupils in the school. 2) Understanding different aspects of the whole problem takes time and different kind of cultural knowledge of the examined school. The sociocultural theories of learning help collaboration and organizing design research cycles at the school. 3) Defining the problem requires careful clarification of goals and research question. It is easy to set up clear goals for the pupils, but not so easy for the teachers. 4) For conceiving possible solutions, it is practical to design a course in school settings. Teachers are willing to collaborate with researchers to develop their work but it is not so easy to find time for shared reflection. 5) To build in school settings it is fruitful to design models e.g how learning goals should be achieved together by teachers and pupils. Researchers have to motivate the teachers and clarify the goals of building and designing action in school. 6) Testing can be conducted by a short formative evaluation. In school settings, there are many possibilities for testing, but the researchers should find innovative methods of conducting the tests. 7) The present phase is very important for stakeholders, school principals and teachers. Reforming teaching methods in school depends on teachers’ willingness, because they have the autonomy to decide their teaching methods. I conclude that the findings challenge university researchers, pedagogues and educators together in teacher education to develop and utilise educational design research as a significant method of developing the curriculum at the micro level.
Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (2005). Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school. London: Continuum. Design-based research collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational researcher, 32 (1), 5–8. Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 1–30. FNBE (2012). Curriculum reform in Finland. Finnish national board of education. http://www.oph.fi/download/151294_ops2016_curriculum_reform_in_finland.pdf Jyrkiäinen, A. & Koskinen-Sinisalo, K-L. (2012). Collaboration in writing. In A. Kelly, B. Dwyer, G. Mehigan & G. Watson (Eds.) Creating multiple pathways to powerful literacy in challenging times. Dublin, Ireland: RAI, 84–92:8. Jyrkiäinen, A., & Koskinen-Sinisalo, K. L. (2015). Yhteisöllinen tekstintuottaminen kuuluu monilukutaitoon: yhdessä tekemisen pedagogiikkaa etsimässä. In T. Kaartinen (ed.) Monilukutaito kaikki kaikessa. Tampere: TamBub, 77–98 Jyrkiäinen, A. & Koskinen-Sinisalo, K-L. (2017). Yhteisöllisen kirjoittamisen työtapa. In V. Korhonen, J. Annala & P. Kulju (ed.) Kehittämisen palat, yhteisöjen salat. Tampere: Suomen Yliopistopaino, 181–203. Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 34 (4), 224–230. Kulju, P., Kupiainen, R., Wiseman, A., Jyrkiäinen, A., Koskinen-Sinisalo, K.-L., & Mäkinen, M. (2018). A Review of Multiliteracies Pedagogy in Primary Classrooms. Language and Literacy, 20 (2), 80-101. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29333 Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luukka, M-R. (2004). Genrepedagogiikka: askelia tekstitaitojen jatkumolla. In M-R. Luukka & P. Jääskeläinen (Eds.) Hiidenhirveä hiihtämässä: Hirveä(n) ihana kirjoittamisen opetus. Helsinki: ÄOL, 145–160. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard educational review, 66 (1), 60–93. Nieveen, N. (2007). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.) An introduction to educational design research. SLO. Netherlands institute for curriculum development, 89–102. Plomp, T. (2013). An introduction. In Educational design research. SLO. Netherlands institute for curriculum development, 1–52. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research: Illustrative cases. van der Akker, J. (2013). Curriculum design research. In Educational designresearch. SLO. Netherlands institute for curriculum development, 37–50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.