Top

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Published in:

27-01-2024 | Original research

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

Authors: Pirgit Sillaots, Kairit Tammets, Terje Väljataga, Martin Sillaots

Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Issue 3/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

EdTech companies can develop tools and services for educational institutions. The EdTech sector needs teachers as end-users to create services and tools that serve the users’ real needs. Co-creation in the EdTech sector is essential for bridging the gap between developers’ and educators’ needs. By collaboratively designing learning technologies, we can ensure that tools address end-user requirements. In the EdTech industry, teachers and researchers need to work together to assess the effect of practice and services on learning and teaching and co-create solutions with a more evidence-based approach. This study emphasizes co-creation as a research setting to extract design principles and comprehend stakeholder dynamics within multi-participant systems. Implementing Activity Theory, we aim to analyze stakeholder roles and their intersections. The essence of co-creation lies in collaborative meaning-making, shared ownership, and sustainable development with scalability potential. Our co-creation program targeted the collaborative design of education technologies, engaging teachers, the EdTech sector, researchers, and policymakers. We seek to understand the core dynamics of such partnerships and how interdisciplinary co-creation elevates stakeholders’ professional experiences.

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

next article Learning Analytics in Serious Games as Predictors of Linguistic Competence in Students at Risk

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

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

Title: Co-Creation of Learning Technologies in School–University–Industry Partnerships: An Activity System Perspective
Authors: Pirgit Sillaots
Kairit Tammets
Terje Väljataga
Martin Sillaots
Publication date: 27-01-2024
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Electronic ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09722-1

First-year Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Digital Technologies and Their Digital Literacy, Efficacy, Attitude, and Online Learning Engagement: Implication for Course Design

Open Access
Original research

Developing a Scale of Attitudes Towards Flipped Learning Model

Original research

Voluntary E-Learning Exercises Support Students in Mastering Statistics

Open Access
Original research

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

Open Access
Original research

An Analysis of Student Skills and Teacher Practices Across Writing Textbooks in Grades 4 and 5

Original research

Improving US Elementary School Reading Comprehension through Knowledge Acquisition and Transformation

Original research

Springer Professional

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

Abstract

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

First-year Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Digital Technologies and Their Digital Literacy, Efficacy, Attitude, and Online Learning Engagement: Implication for Course Design

Developing a Scale of Attitudes Towards Flipped Learning Model

Voluntary E-Learning Exercises Support Students in Mastering Statistics

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

An Analysis of Student Skills and Teacher Practices Across Writing Textbooks in Grades 4 and 5

Improving US Elementary School Reading Comprehension through Knowledge Acquisition and Transformation

Premium Partners

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

First-year Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Digital Technologies and Their Digital Literacy, Efficacy, Attitude, and Online Learning Engagement: Implication for Course Design

Developing a Scale of Attitudes Towards Flipped Learning Model

Voluntary E-Learning Exercises Support Students in Mastering Statistics

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

An Analysis of Student Skills and Teacher Practices Across Writing Textbooks in Grades 4 and 5

Improving US Elementary School Reading Comprehension through Knowledge Acquisition and Transformation