Erschienen in:

27.01.2024 | Original research

Co-Creation of Learning Technologies in School–University–Industry Partnerships: An Activity System Perspective

verfasst von: Pirgit Sillaots, Kairit Tammets, Terje Väljataga, Martin Sillaots

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Der Artikel untersucht die kollaborative Dynamik zwischen Universitäten, Schulen und EdTech-Unternehmen bei der Entwicklung von Lerntechnologien. Er unterstreicht die Kluft zwischen den Bedürfnissen der Praktiker, Forschungsempfehlungen und EdTech-Produkten und betont die Bedeutung von Partnerschaften zur gemeinsamen Schaffung. Die Forschung verwendet Activity Theory, um diese Partnerschaften zu analysieren, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf Grenzüberschreitungen und der Rolle von Grenzobjekten bei der Erleichterung des Wissensaustauschs und der Zusammenarbeit liegt. Die Studie identifiziert Herausforderungen und Chancen in diesen Partnerschaften und bietet Einblicke, wie effektivere und nachhaltigere Lerntechnologien geschaffen werden können. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit eines gemeinsamen Verständnisses und klarer Rollen innerhalb dieser Partnerschaften sowie die entscheidende Rolle von Hochschulmentoren bei der Vermittlung von Kommunikation und der Unterstützung der Entwicklung evidenzbasierter Lösungen.

KI-Generiert

Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.

Vorheriger Artikel The Power of a Human Bridge: Motivating Older Adults to Long-Term Engagement with Touchscreen Devices in a SDT-Based Learning Session

Nächster Artikel Learning Analytics in Serious Games as Predictors of Linguistic Competence in Students at Risk

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Alderman, M. K. (2013). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203823132

Anderson, L., Bennett, N., & Wise, C. (2002). School-LEA partnerships: Recipe for success or chimera? Management in Education, 16(2), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206020160020901.CrossRef

Baker, A., Weisgrau, J., & Brister Philyaw, K. (2022). Feedback loops: Mapping transformative interactions in education innovation. Digital Promise. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12265/155.

Beacham, B., Kalucy, E., & McIntyre, E. (2005). Understanding and measuring research impact. Focus On…, 2005(2), 1–12.

Biag, M., Gomez, L. M., Imig, D. G., & Vasudeva, A. (2021). Responding to COVID-19 with the aid of mutually beneficial partnerships in education. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.621361.

Bowen, S., & Zwi, A. B. (2005). Pathways to evidence-informed policy and practice: A framework for action. PLoS Medicine, 2(7), e166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166.CrossRef

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750.CrossRef

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Fostering educational improvement with research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211007332.CrossRef

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.

Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9107-0.CrossRef

Cooper, A., MacGregor, S., & Shewchuk, S. (2021). A research model to study research-practice partnerships in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(1), 44–63.CrossRef

Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., & Clark-Wilson, A. (2019). Creating the golden triangle of evidence-informed education technology with educate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12727.CrossRef

Davies, H. T., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used. Unpublished Working Paper. William T. Grant Foundation.

De Koning, J. I. J. C., Wever, R., & Crul, M. (2016). Models of co-creation. Service design geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference, 266–278.

Dede, C., & Barab, S. (2009). Emerging technologies for learning science: A time of rapid advances. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9172-4.CrossRef

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef

Durall, G. E., Bauters, M., Hietala, I., Leinonen, T., & Kapros, E. (2020). Co creation and co design in technology-enhanced learning: Innovating science learning outside the classroom. ID and A Interaction Design & Architecture, 42, 202–226.

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4.CrossRef

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619847CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2010). From teams to knots, acitivity theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge University Press.

Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X187610.CrossRef

Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12087.CrossRef

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M., Johnson, M., & Alier, M. (2013). Knowledge co-creation process based on informal learning competences tagging and recognition. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 4(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijhcitp.2013100102.CrossRef

Glatter, R. (2003). Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. Management in Education, 17(5), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206030170050601.CrossRef

Guerrero-Hernández, G. R., & Fernández-Ugalde, R. A. (2020). Teachers as researchers: Reflecting on the challenges of research-practice partnerships between school and university in Chile. London Review of Education, 18(3), 423–438.CrossRef

Hashim, N. H., & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis.

Huhtelin, M., & Nenonen, S. (2015). A co-creation entre for university–industry collaboration–A framework for concept development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00160-4.CrossRef

Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287754.CrossRef

Jensen, K., & Bennett, L. (2016). Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113537.CrossRef

Joyce, K. E., & Cartwright, N. (2020). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1045–1082. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866687.CrossRef

Jæger, K., & Pedersen, A. G. J. (2020). Understanding organizational boundaries. Globe: A Journal of Language Culture and Communication, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.globe.v9i.4286.CrossRef

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.

Kramer, D. M., & Wells, R. P. (2005). Achieving buy-in: Building networks to facilitate knowledge transfer. Science Communication, 26(4), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275427.CrossRef

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer Interaction, 1744, 9–22.

Leonard, J., & Reardon, R. M. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring the community impact of research-practice partnerships in education. IAP.

Leoste, J., Tammets, K., & Ley, T. (2019, September). Co-creation of learning designs: Analyzing knowledge appropriation in teacher training programs. In EC-TEL (Practitioner Proceedings).

Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information, 49(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018410370726.CrossRef

Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education–A research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 550–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911.CrossRef

De Lima, J. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9099-1.CrossRef

McQuaid, R. W. (2000). Theory of partnerships–Why have partnerships? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), Public-private partnerships for public services: An international perspective (pp. 9–35).

Mesibov, G. B., & Shea, V. (2011). Evidence-based practices and autism. Autism, 15(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309348070.CrossRef

Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health, 82, ii3–ii12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034.CrossRef

Morf, M. E., & Weber, W. G. (2000). I/O psychology and the bridging of A. N. Leont’Ev’s activity theory. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 41(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088234.CrossRef

Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2019). From the market to the classroom: How ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09649-4.CrossRef

Nardi, B. A. (1996). In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. The MIT Press.

Nelson, J., & Campbell, C. (2017). Evidence-informed practice in education: Meanings and applications. Educational Research, 59(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1314115.CrossRef

O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023). Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: Barriers and enablers deconstructed. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 900–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09932-2.CrossRef

Pater, M. (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles. Or.what is successful co-creation made of? https://www.futurelab.net/blog/2009/05/co-creations-5-guiding-principles-or-what-successful-co-creation-made/.

Pautz Stephenson, S., Banks, R., & Coenraad, M. (2022). Outcomes of increased practitioner engagement in Edtech development: How strong, sustainable research-practice-industry partnerships will build a better Edtech Future. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/2050012265/158.

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, 20(1–2), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334.CrossRef

Penuel, W., Farrell, C. C., Allen, A. R., Toyama, Y., & Coburn, C. (2018). What research district leaders find useful. Educational Policy, 32(4), 540–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816673580.CrossRef

Peppler, K., & Schindler, E. (2022). Research practice industry partnership: An innovative, connected learning environment for educators. Symposium. American Educational Research Association.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–90.

Ralston, N. C., Tarasawa, B., Waggoner, J. M., Smith, R., & Naegele, Z. (2016a). Developing practitioner-scholars through university-school district research partnerships. Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, 6, 94–107.

Rossoni, A. L., de Vasconcellos, E. P. G., & de Rossoni, C., R. L (2023). Barriers and facilitators of university-industry collaboration for research, development and innovation: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00349-1.

Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273.CrossRef

Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019). What makes industry–University collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 89(2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6.CrossRef

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.CrossRef

Sanders, L., & Simons, G. (2009). Social vision for value co-creation in design. The Open Source Business Resource, 27. (December 2009).

Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Special issue editors’ introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9079-5.CrossRef

Saunders, M. (2006). From ‘organisms’ to ‘boundaries’: The uneven development of theory narratives in education, learning and work connections. Journal of Education and work, 19(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080500523026.CrossRef

Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C., & Ferguson, R. (2013). Beyond prototypes: Enabling innovation in technology-enhanced learning. Open university.

Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2022). Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships–A systematic literature review. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2023103CrossRef

Stern, R., & Green, J. (2005). Boundary workers and the management of frustration: A case study of two healthy city partnerships. Health Promotion International, 20(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai011.CrossRef

Sutinen, P., Erkkilä, K., Wollstén, P., Hagman, K., Hirvikoski, T., & Äyväri, A. (2016). KYKY Living Lab handbook for co-creation by schools and companies. Espoo: City of Espoo.

Townsend, A. (2019). Situating partnership activity, an activity theory inspired analysis of school to school inquiry networks. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1576424. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1576424.CrossRef

Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Pergamon Press.

Ulvik, M., Riese, H., & Roness, D. (2018). Action research–connecting practice and theory. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1323657.CrossRef

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682. Springer Boston.CrossRef

Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Brown, S., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D., & Middleton, D. (2004). Interagency Collaboration: a review of the literature. Bath: Learning in and for Interagency Working Project.

Weatherby, K., Clark-Wilson, A., Cukurova, M., & Luckin, R. (2022). The importance of boundary objects in industry-academia collaborations to support evidencing the efficacy of educational technology. TechTrends, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11528-022-00705-0/TABLES/2.CrossRef

Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of Edtech. Educause Review Online, 53(4), 34–48.

Welsh, R. O. (2021). Assessing the quality of education research through its relevance to practice: An integrative review of research-practice partnerships. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985082.CrossRef

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.

Wentworth, L., Khanna, R., Nayfack, M., & Schwartz, D. (2021). Closing the research-practice gap in education. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 19(2), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.48558/EH5B-Y819.CrossRef

Titel: Co-Creation of Learning Technologies in School–University–Industry Partnerships: An Activity System Perspective
verfasst von: Pirgit Sillaots
Kairit Tammets
Terje Väljataga
Martin Sillaots
Publikationsdatum: 27.01.2024
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09722-1

A Road Less Traveled for Designing Rigorous Studies to Identify Effective Technology-Based Reading Interventions

Original research

The Effect of a Teacher’s Mindset on the Cascading Zones of Proximal Development: A Systematic Review

Original research

Parent and Family Support of Knowledge Acquisition in Reading Comprehension through Podcasts in English and Spanish

Original research

Inferencing in Reading Comprehension: Examining Variations in Definition, Instruction, and Assessment

Original research

Teachers’ Beliefs and Usage of Video Exemplars and Engagement Features of an Online Professional Learning System for Promoting Early Writing

Original research

Developing a Scale of Attitudes Towards Flipped Learning Model

Original research

Premium Partner

Bildnachweise

MKVS GbR/© MKVS GbR, Nordson/© Nordson, ViscoTec/© ViscoTec, BCD Chemie GmbH, Merz+Benteli/© Merz+Benteli, Robatech/© Robatech, Hermann Otto GmbH/© Hermann Otto GmbH, Ruderer Klebetechnik GmbH, Xometry Europe GmbH/© Xometry Europe GmbH, Atlas Copco/© Atlas Copco, Sika/© Sika, Medmix/© Medmix, Kisling AG/© Kisling AG, Dosmatix GmbH/© Dosmatix GmbH, Innotech GmbH/© Innotech GmbH, Hilger u. Kern GmbH, VDI Logo/© VDI Wissensforum GmbH, Dr. Fritz Faulhaber GmbH & Co. KG/© Dr. Fritz Faulhaber GmbH & Co. KG, BEINLICH PUMPEN GMBH/© BEINLICH PUMPEN GMBH

Springer Professional

Co-Creation of Learning Technologies in School–University–Industry Partnerships: An Activity System Perspective

Abstract

Abstract

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

A Road Less Traveled for Designing Rigorous Studies to Identify Effective Technology-Based Reading Interventions

The Effect of a Teacher’s Mindset on the Cascading Zones of Proximal Development: A Systematic Review

Parent and Family Support of Knowledge Acquisition in Reading Comprehension through Podcasts in English and Spanish

Inferencing in Reading Comprehension: Examining Variations in Definition, Instruction, and Assessment

Teachers’ Beliefs and Usage of Video Exemplars and Engagement Features of an Online Professional Learning System for Promoting Early Writing

Developing a Scale of Attitudes Towards Flipped Learning Model

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"