Co-design as Infrastructuring with Attention to Power: Building Collective Capacity for Equitable Teaching and Learning Through Design-Based Implementation Research

Abstract

The chapters in this volume explore different ways that co-design of curriculum can make learning more relevant to teachers and students, support teacher learning, and promote the sustainability of particular innovations. Many of the chapters conclude that in fact, there is great potential for co-design to support each of these aims. Co-design, for example, can promote teacher ownership over the curriculum, including when reform goals that guide development are set by policy makers who are far from the classroom (Westbroek, de Vries, Walraven, Handelzalts, & McKenney, this volume). Co-design can facilitate "curriculum renewal" among inservice teachers-that is, a transformation in teachers' goals for students and pedagogical approaches. For pre-service teachers, co-design can support integration of technology into teaching (Agyei & Kafyulilo, this volume; Alayyar & Fisser, this volume). Further, teachers can continue to learn from the implementation process (Huizinga, Nieveen, & Handelzalts, this volume). Finally, there is some evidence presented in this volume that co-design facilitates sustainability by creating processes for ongoing curriculum renewal. But the chapters in this volume also explore limitations or boundary conditions under which co-design can produce these positive outcomes. For one, the organizational conditions matter. Teachers need time not just to develop curriculum, but also to learn the skills of curriculum design and to implement and evaluate it using a cycle of iterative testing and revision (Albashiry, this volume; Handelzalts, Nieveen, & Van den Akker, this volume). And since most curriculum design projects require coordination among actors at different levels of systems and within organization, systems of formal and informal communication to ensure coherence are needed

Designing educational systems to support enactment of the Next Generation Science Standards

“…The project began with the general goal of supporting environmental science literacy : preparing students to use scientific knowledge and practices in their decisions about environmental issues. Like other DBIR projects we have used an iterative design cycle in which (i) goals for student learning are formulated, (ii) assessments and instructional systems are designed to achieve those goals, and (iii) designed innovations are tested in school settings, producing data that can be analyzed to inform revision of goals and a new cycle (Penuel, ; Roy, Fueyo, & Vahey, ). Below, we provide a brief overview of pertinent aspects of the Carbon TIME project, methods, and results that serve as a context for this article.…”

Co-Designing for Equity in Informal Science Learning: A Proof-of-Concept Study of Design Principles

“…Following the process, several practitioners have started using co-design with their teams and communities to foster diversity and inclusion. We consider this is an important impact that aligns with findings from other studies in which co-design processes have been used to support equitable teaching and learning (Penuel, 2019). Secondly, we reflect on the challenges for developing tools that move from the general (the principles) to the particular (the context of a specific informal science learning setting and its learners).…”

Participatory design of (built) learning environments

“…To be implemented successfully, the vision underlying curriculum change must align with other elements of the educational system, including examinations and teachers’ professional development (McKenney, Nieveen, & van den Akker, ). Penuel () introduced the concept of infrastructuring to promote transformation and equity in research that blend interventionist goals with a focus on implementation. Infrastructuring includes attention to how and when local actors transform policies and practices through their enactment (McKenney, ).…”

“…Infrastructuring includes attention to how and when local actors transform policies and practices through their enactment (McKenney, ). By drawing on concepts from participatory design (Le Dantec & DiSalvo, ; Star & Ruhleder, ) and linking them with relevant educational research findings (Hopkins & Spillane, ; Hopkins, Spillane, Jakopovic, & Heaton, ), Penuel () makes a compelling case for attending to the practice of infrastructuring. This call is heeded in this issue of the Journal by articulating what we know and need to learn about organising for agency and developing reliable working infrastructures for school‐based innovation.…”