Teacher involvement in the development of classroom curricula, often fosters a sense of ownership, which increases the chances of actual curriculum use (Fullan, 2003). When teachers are supported during the design of innovative curricula, they can learn more about the innovation (Crow & Pounder, 2000), which also increases the chances of the implementation being successful. This is partly because teachers are then better informed, and able to visualize how curriculum enactment could look.  Being able to ‘see’ a curriculum in action is an important factor considered by teachers as they weigh off the amount of effort they invest and the potential benefits of the innovative curriculum (cf. Doyle & Ponder, 1978).

Designing requires precious teacher time and effort, but also has the potential to improve the implementation of an innovative curriculum. There are various ways to involve teachers in design and to support that involvement.  This study is concerned with exploring what forms and levels of involvement are feasible, and still yield the benefits of ownership, and understanding a new curriculum? Do teachers have to create materials from scratch to experience these benefits? If teachers are not involved from the start, but re-design existing materials, they are still sufficiently involved and informed? What kinds of (re-)design support are feasible and desirable?

This study seeks to understand the effects of teacher involvement in design in two forms.  In both forms, teachers work in teams to create teaching and learning materials. In this case, the materials are intended to foster the development of early literacy concepts in 4 and 5 year old children. One team of teachers re-designs existing materials, the other team creates something new. The research questions guiding this study are:

1. What do collaborative curriculum design and re-design in the teachers teams look like, respectively?
2. How do teachers integrate the teaching materials in their classrooms?
3. Are there similarities and differences in classroom implementation that can be attributed to the design-re/design form of involvement?  
4. How do pupils learn with the (re-)designed curricula?

Both teacher teams take the PictoPal learning environment as a starting point for their (re-)design work. PictoPal is an ICT-rich learning environment with two main components: (a) on-computer activities through which pre-readers use words, sound and images to construct written texts; and (b) off-computer activities that prompt children to ‘use’ their printed documents for authentic purposes. For example, children create grocery lists using the computer and then ‘shop’ for the items on the printed list in the ´store´ corner of the kindergarten classroom. Alternatively, they prepare a weather forecast with the aid of the computer, and then ‘deliver’ the forecast to their class from the television corner (from inside a ‘television’ fashioned by the children from a large cardboard box). For more information about the PictoPal learning environment, please refer to McKenney and Voogt (2009).

Crow, G, & Pounder, D. (2000). Interdisciplinary Teacher Teams: Context, Design, and Process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216-254. Doyle, W., & Ponder, A. (1978). The Practicality Ethic in Teacher Decision-Making. Interchange, 8 (3), 1-12. Fullan, M. (2003). Change Forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge Falmer. McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. (2009). Designing technology for emergent literacy: the PictoPal initiative. Computers & Education, 52, 719-729. McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. (under review). Teacher design of technology for emergent literacy: An explorative feasibility study.