ProspectiveTeachers@Research CS Teacher Education revised Malte Hornung
Carsten Schulte
Freie Universität Berlin Department of Computer Science +493083875187
Freie Universität Berlin Department of Computer Science +493083875180
[email protected]
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
education and for conducting design research.
Computing Education relies on knowledge about good teaching as well as teacher education. While educational research and teacher education are often seen as two separate facets of the work of computing education groups, we suggest combining these two aspects into a coherent whole more intensively. To foster this integration we conceptualize a school lab at the university, in which pre-service computing teachers can experience teaching high school students as well as educational research. In this paper we derive our concept from the debate about challenges to teacher education and educational research, and subsequently discuss it from these two perspectives.
Our lab for high school students, the MI.Lab, offers a variety of events, primarily for high school students: small workshops, courses, co-ordinated learning environments that augment the classroom experience, demonstrations or open day / open house activities and so on. These activities offer a wide array of possible participation for pre-service teachers as part of their teacher education; but they also offer possibilities for design research. The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss our current design of a framework for an iterative process of interwoven teacher education and design research.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
Summarizing reports about teacher education and educational research suggest that the theory-practice divide is one of the central issues in both areas. In such an article Fischer et al. [10] present the following example: According to Anvil et al. [3] cooperative learning is a topic of extensive research (over 500 empirical studies done); and 93% percent of the teachers include cooperative learning in their classrooms. However, on closer examination, only 5-25% of the teachers used evidence-based principles of cooperative learning from educational research. Teaching at school thus seems to be much less connected to research findings (than presumed by educational researchers). This theory-practice gap has two facets we want to explore in more detail: First, it can be seen as a problem of dissemination, hence of teacher training (see section 2.1). Second it can be seen as a problem for research (see section 2.2).
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
K3.2 [Computers & Education]: Computer and Information Science Education – computer science education, information systems education.
General Terms Experimentation, Human Factors.
Keywords CS, CS Ed Research, Pedagogy, Teacher Education, School Lab, educational research.
1. INTRODUCTION Anecdotal evidence suggests that – as in our group – teaching and research are seen as two mostly distinct types of tasks. While teaching has to include the basics of the field and follows a curriculum, research strives for new insights, methods, and results. However, problems in teacher education (section 2.1) and of research in education (section 2.2) have more in common than it seems (section 2.3). As a result we propose an approach to unify teacher education and the part of research in computing education which is focusing on the development of new teaching approaches and materials (section 3).
2.1 Theory and Practice in Teacher Education The OECD-report “Teachers Matter” [14] (p. 95) summarizes the situation as follows: “Initial teacher education must not only provide sound basic training in subject-matter knowledge, pedagogy related to subjects, and general pedagogical knowledge; it also needs to develop the skills for reflective practice and research on-the-job.” This should include “rethinking the role of field experiences in schools”, and encouraging “the development of teachers’ learning communities.” Field experiments often fail to bridge theory and practice, due to “lack of coherence and alignment” (p.108f), e.g.: too short and too disconnected from coursework at university, limited experience, not enough support in schools, no effective communication between teachers at school and staff at university, teaching assignments with only little relevance to future responsibilities (p. 109). A similar description can be found in [20], (p. xxi).
The basic idea is to foster research and development by using a university lab for high school students – we call it MI.Lab (Mathematics/Informatics-Lab) – as a facility for both teacher Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Koli Calling ’11, November 17--20, 2011, Koli, Finland. Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-1052-9/11/11…$10.00.
138
Korthagen [13] gives several reasons for the gap between theory and practice: Socialisation of teachers, complexity of teaching and affective or emotional reasons.
designing new artifacts, but on generating new contributions that are closely linked to the field and/or practitioners working in the field. Therefore the practicing teachers are the drivers; or as Altrichter calls it: “Teachers investigate their work”. Theory oriented development of teaching units emphasizes the application of theory in educational research, in order to improve teaching practice. A clear theoretical basis should give suggestions and hints for the design of the specific teaching unit. However, quite often general theories about learning and teaching do provide only general suggestions. Therefore choosing a theory as basis should be seen as a decision, based on the closeness of the theory to the current problem, and based on its maturity in terms of empirical evidence. Theory is used here as a tool to specify and justify assumptions and decisions about necessary prerequisites of the learners, learning objectives, effects of planned teaching and learning activities. The goal is to build propositions like the following: “If a learner with prerequisites x engages in learning activities y, it is likely to achieve learning objective z. And if the teacher engages in teaching activity a, this is likely to lead to learning activity y.” The evaluation of such a teaching unit tests these assumptions and decisions, helping to improve the teaching unit as well as the theory (and its concretization for the specific teaching problem).
Therefore we aim to change initial teacher education so that students have more opportunities to experience theory, practice and the link between the two by including them in theory-based development of teaching models and the evaluation of such models. Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen [15] report positive contributions through incorporation of research into pre-service teacher education, where students are required to take part in research projects.
2.2 Theory and Practice in educational Research Research in education is – like teacher education – a difficult endeavor, with several persistent problems, mentioned in a number of studies and reports [8], [10], [19]. As we are focusing on a small subset of educational research we discuss only some aspects of the theory-practice gap. Berliner [5] gives several reasons for this gap: the role of contextual factors, complexity of teaching, and influences from a fast changing society.
Table 1: Comparison of design research processes Design Based Research [16]
Action Research [2]
Participatory Action Research [22]
Theory oriented development of teaching units [21]
Educational Reconstruction [12]
Derived Model
Preparation (goals, starting point, learning trajectory, context)
Entrance
Reflection on action
Analyze learning prerequisites
Analysis (of Subject matter and educational significance)
Roadmap
Design and Analysis
Data Collection
Question
Set objectives
Research on teaching & learning (learner perspectives)
Analysis and Reflection
Collect data and apply interpretive frameworks
Interpretation
Fieldwork
Select a learning theory as framework
Development of instruction
(Theory driven) design
Test
Consequences (‘practical theory’)
Analysis
Connect aspects to a coherent approach
Teaching
Construction
Retrospective analysis (establish trust, ensure generalizability)
Action
Action
Design teaching units and materials
Evaluation of instruction
Teaching
Iterative
Iterative (steps 2-5)
Test and evaluation Iterative (steps 2-4)
Iterative
Iterative
-
Several research approaches are aiming to address or reflect these issues into research (see Table 1). In the following paragraphs we discuss some of these research approaches that we think allow prospective teachers to participate in research as part of their teacher education – and thus as a means to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
The last approach to be discussed here adds another aspect to the discussion of adequate research approaches. Educational reconstruction focuses on the role of the subject matter to be taught and learned. The key idea is that “content is not given but has to be (re)constructed by taking the aims of instruction and student perspectives into account” [17].
Design research goes back to the early 1990s, when Ann Brown [6] introduced design experiments. It evolved from observing problems with traditional experimental research in education, which has proven to be deficient, as teaching occurs in a complex context, with manifold interactions. In the past twenty years, this research tradition has evolved and found its way into educational research under the name design based research (DBR) or design research. Design research has similarities to engineering, as it is much more product-driven and focusing on the usefulness of research.
In summary, the approaches to research in education presented in Table 1have substantial commonalities:
Another strand of development is known as action research [2] or participatory action research [22]. The focus here is not on
139
Researching teaching and learning in practical settings that require having a teacher teaching the intervention to a class of students.
With more or less emphasis all approaches acknowledge the role of educational theories. They strive for theoretical knowledge besides developing practical teaching units.
With one exception the approaches suggest an iterative or cyclic approach to research. This also includes the idea that the course of action can change during the research project.
ure the effect of the designed teaching units and contribute to the answer of the stated research questions.
To some extent the perspectives of the learners, their prerequisites and the reconstruction of subject matter also plays a role in the approaches discussed above.
4.
From this discussion we derive the following guidelines for a framework of educational research that allows the participation of prospective teachers.
During the teaching phase, the planned teaching units are put to action, and thus tested. In this phase empirical data is produced by means of summative and formative evaluation.
5.
As the designed framework relies on an iterative process it is hard to decide when the developed outcome is ready be published. On the other hand, the process should be opened to the research and teacher community as early as possible. Possible means to attain a transparent research process are a) early prototyping and b) publications about the process itself. The feedback generated by the published outcome then needs to be integrated into the analysis and reflection phase. In this way, it has a direct impact on the further course of action.
3. ProspectiveTeachers@Research In this chapter we present our framework for teacher education and design research in education. The framework mainly aims on a) the integration of teacher education and educational research, b) an integrative approach to theory and practice in teacher education and c) the development of teaching units and(!) teaching models with a high permeability to everyday school practice.
4. DISCUSSION In this section we explain some details and give rationale to certain design decisions of our model. We focus on the contribution of the model to educational research (section 4.1), teacher education (section 4.2), and on building structures (section 5).
4.1 The Model as CS Education Research Model The derived model contributes to – a part of – educational research by designing, constructing and evaluating coordinated sets of artifacts; namely teaching units, teaching models and diagnostic tools: Teaching units provide concrete ideas and materials for instruction. They can be seen as recipes for teaching, but that is not our intention. We merely perceive them as instantiations of the teaching model. Figure 1: Concept overview
The teaching model explains the rationale and the intentions behind the concrete material. It thus links the material to theory and should also support adapting the concrete teaching unit to different contexts (e.g. groups of learners with different prerequisites).
From the comparison the following iteration steps can be derived (at least from a CS perspective): analysis/reflection, (theory-driven) design, construction (‘implementation’) and teaching (‘test’).
The diagnostic tools we are aiming to develop need somewhat more explanation: Our current focus is on construction or reconstruction of content matter for instruction at high school level, emphasizing the role of the learners’ perspective. A way to do and to represent theory with such focus is to choose competence models as form of representation. Competence models describe levels of competence of learners, as well as the structure (or: dimensions) of these – and thereby they also can be seen as a representation of subject matter from the learners’ perspective.
Each phase includes different actors, products and structures. 0.
The research process starts with a step that is not part of the iterative phases: practitioners and researchers agree on a course of action and discuss first ideas concerning goals and feasibility of the project. Conceivable milestones are recorded in a roadmap and responsibilities are distributed amongst members of the research team.
1.
The first step of the iterative process is analysis/reflection. During the first cycle, experiences from similar projects (or an earlier cycle) are gathered and evaluated in terms of usability for the project at hand. Analysis and reflection also lead to the definition of research questions which have a direct impact on the design phase.
2.
During the design phase, research questions and a fitting theoretical framework are developed, selected or modified. This framework can be replaced during later cycles if it turns out to be inappropriate for answering the stated research questions or achieving the desired competences.
3.
During implementation, the construction phase, teaching units are constructed or modified. Furthermore, suitable diagnostic tools are developed or modified in order to meas-
For example in OO, Eckerdahl and Thune [9] present as research result different levels of understanding the concepts of object and class (Figure 2), which can be regarded as such a competence model. A competence model helps to answer the question: What should pupils be able to do after participating in the designed teaching unit? Through the development of these models it seems possible to make abstract theoretical knowledge tangible for everyday practice. The models help to sharpen ideas about specific fields of CS: What is important when considering the subject matter? What is easy / difficult to comprehend from a learner’s perspective? In later stages, the model helps to construct concrete parts of the teaching units, e.g. suitable assignments of tasks, as well as to construct exams and diagnostic tools.
140
But competence models do not represent a model for instruction. Therefore we need a teaching model: a model of instruction chosen for the teaching unit. It can be seen or represented as a concretization of a general model of instruction, like e.g. applying the SOLO taxonomy, cognitive load theory or cognitive apprenticeship to the current teaching unit. Another option is to build a theory in its own.
these lab-courses do not replace such a practicum. Instead, labcourses are offered before and after the practicum at a school. Workload for teacher students with CS as a first subject. All teacher students are required to study Ba and Ma, and to have a second subject:
The diagnostic tools in turn help to determine if the conducted teaching units were appropriate to achieve these objectives (and/or to measure if the objectives were set too high). Level
Object
Class
Object is experienced as a piece of code.
Class is experienced as an entity in the program, contributing to the structure of the code.
2
As above, and in addition object is experienced as something that is active in the program.
As above, and in addition class is experienced as a description of properties and behaviour of the object.
3
As above, and in addition object is experienced as a model of some real world phenomenon.
As above, and in addition class is experienced as a description of properties and behaviour of the object, as a model of some real world phenomenon.
1
Computer Science: General Education: Computer Science Education: Teaching Practice: Overall Second Subject:
Ba
Ma
90 10
15 24
ECTS ECTS
8 4
12 11
ECTS ECTS
68
58
ECTS
After this first phase of university teacher education a second phase integrated in schools takes place for additional two years.
Figure 3: Overview on the structure of teacher education at our institution (1 ECTS depicts a workload of 30 hours) From the perspective of teacher education the lab provides a ‘protected environment’, compared to real school settings. It should be easier for students to make their first teaching experiences within this protected context. In addition, the linage to a research project allows for experimentation and exploration by the teacher students: Instead of focusing on being able to enact a lesson plan students are allowed to explore the effects of the designed teaching plan – for example with regard to achievement of learning goals or complexity for the teacher.
Figure 2: Example of a Competence Model: Describing dimensions (object, class) and levels of understanding OO (based on [9], p. 91) These three artifacts mentioned are to be developed and refined in a cyclic process. In this process, the teacher students are involved with different roles. On the one hand they are in the role of a kind of ‘research assistants’, producing artifacts, searching and analyzing literature, provide data analysis of empirical studies and so on. As such assistants they are involved in a part of the research process. One major role is surrounded by activities related to the lab: producing concrete teaching units and tests, teaching, observing, gathering data and feedback from the high school learners and analyzing the results.
To turn this argument again from the research perspective, the engagement of prospective teachers adds additional demand for feasibility and practicability of teaching units and teaching models (as the practical form of theory). Theory needs to be so easy to handle that the prospective teachers can use it when designing and constructing the teaching unit, as well as to reflect and analyze the experiences of teaching. While doing this they contribute interpretations and understandings from their particular point of view. Because of students’ need to focus on the usefulness of the developed theoretical models they help to sharpen their formulation, making them applicable for practice.
On the other hand the ‘student researchers’ can contribute to the overall quality of research by bringing in their unique perspectives. That is for example their demand for useful and practical theories that (maybe even immediately) demonstrate the use of theory for practice. Another example is their perspective on learning objectives and difficulties that could help, and in addition their possibly closer link to the high school students. They are a generation closer to today’s youth and thus can offer a perspective not conceivable by the rest of the research team.
Overall, the process design allows the students to take four different perspectives: teacher, observer, evaluator and researcher. We hope that the developed model helps prospective teachers to change their perspective on teaching from a ‘pragmatic’ to a ‘research-based’ point of view – we might call it inquiring view – in order to prepare them for the challenges of their upcoming professional life.
4.2 The Model as CS Teacher Education Model
By inquiring view we are referring to using theory in order to design, analyze and reflect on teaching practice. We would like to illustrate this inquiring view and the research process with a short example from the transformed BA-module (see Figure 4).
The derived model contributes to teacher education by providing a lot of possibilities for practical experiences in designing, constructing, enacting and reflecting teaching as well as for experiencing the integration of theory and practice.
A group of students constructed a course for the MI.Lab to teach high school pupil’s the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm for sequence alignment, by constructing a teaching unit based on a given theory (teaching model). Another group of students had the task to evaluate the lab-course and constructed a diagnostic tool designed to answer the question “How do pupils understand algorithms?” This diagnostic tool is also based on the given theoretical framework.
Teaching is what prospective teachers are only rarely engaged in during their university courses – because usually high school students can seldom be found within the university. Of course, practical experiences are part of most teacher education programs, as internships, practicums etc. However, the project here is about practical experiences in a Lab at the university as a new addition to such practicums or internships at local schools. Note,
141
teacher educators at the university, we should also reflect our approach in terms of a theoretical framework. We decided to use phenomenography and variation theory as our background. We designed the framework as a model for teacher education with the aim to let prospective teachers experience different perspectives on teaching and learning. According to variation theory approaching the phenomenon from diverse perspectives helps to get a deep understanding about the object of learning [18] – but it is not necessary to do this in a specific order. In contrast to other models (e.g. inquiry learning) this allows us to design courses in which students need only to focus on some aspects of research as opposed to conduct a whole research project as part of one course.
Figure 4: Ba-Module within the concept The teaching model was based on Bruner’s idea of three levels of representation as theoretical background. At first, the idea of the algorithm was presented as a game where pupils were supposed to arrange DNA sequences in an optimal way with regard to certain scoring rules using paper shavings and scissors (corresponding to the enactive level of the Bruner’s learning theory). The pupil’s task was to align the shavings in order to maximize the score. After that, the outcome of the algorithm was presented in a matrix using color codes to demonstrate alignments of DNA sequences (iconic step). Finally the ‘real’ algorithm was presented in pseudocode (symbolic step), and should then be manually executed by the pupils (as advanced or more formal version of the initial game with scissors and paper shavings).
In different courses at the university, our teacher students focus on aspects of the overall approach, e.g. 1) analysis/reflection, followed by 2) design, 3) construction (implementation) or 4) teaching (test).
5.2 Structures / Cooperation The discussion of issues in teacher education as well as in educational research has shown the need for suitable structures. The most significant change in the academic structure in the local CS teacher education (CSTEd) program has been the installation of the MI.Lab. It offers several possibilities: E.g. to teach units not included in the curriculum, to use organizational forms and materials/tools not available at school, to gather data on the learning and teaching process more easily; and to reduce some context factors of schools, e.g. the need for grading.
Three high school classes were invited to the MI.Lab and the students conducted the lab-course on three consecutive dates. Immediately after each round of teaching a short phase of analysis and reflection took place. The observers noticed that the iconic step had some flaws in the first implementation of the course. They used the underlying learning theory to explain the shortcomings: The pupils practically had to jump from the enactive to the symbolic representation of the algorithm. As a consequence, the students reconstructed the course on a small scale level, and included an iconic representation of the algorithm. During the second and third implementation the observers noticed that the pupils seemed to understand the algorithm more deeply. This could also be seen in the results of the evaluation.
We have established cooperation with a course of trainee teachers and a set of in-service teachers interested in design research. We believe that these groups have an intrinsic motivation to participate in educational research, which should help to promote the process. They should help to focus on the practical use of the developed teaching units and teaching models. With their practical experiences and contact to everyday school settings, inservice teachers are in an ideal position to estimate the useaspect of designed theoretical models. Beyond that, they do not only judge the designed models, but take part in the actual (re)design process of materials, teaching units and theoretical models. When doing that, they can sometimes rely on existing products from their professional life – and thus prevent the research team from reinventing the wheel.
In the described example, students used a learning theory not only to design and construct a course, but also to observe, evaluate and reconstruct it. The focal awareness of our teacher students in this module (see figure 3) is on experiencing the use of theory as part of teachers’ work. We hope that experiencing with learning theories in such ways improves the above mentioned ‘inquiring view’ on teaching computer science in the K-12 classroom.
Our prospective teachers take part in this cooperation and thus can experience the role (and hopefully the usefulness) of this research-based perspective on planning, enacting and reflecting teaching – here teachers act as role models. We think they can better acknowledge the relevance of theory for their later job as teachers when observing ‘real’ teachers in such processes.
5. CONSTRUCTING TEACHER EDUCATION In this section we explore two issues in detail needed to implement the concept. First, we have – so far – designed a research process from several sources in order to meet the requirements of pre-service teacher students. We now want to explain our teaching model of university based teacher education, which grounds on phenomenography (5.1). Thereafter we describe structures we are trying to build in order to be able to incorporate the model into teacher education (5.2).
One drawback of the framework is scalability: To integrate groups of 5-20 teacher students seems feasible, but bigger groups might be hard to handle. In this case the implementation demands new forms of organization. The research model would need to be customized accordingly (e.g. by running more than one research project concurrently, which in turn would lead to further needs of redesign).
6. CONCLUSIONS AND QUESTIONS
5.1 The Teaching Model
Overall, the research perspective outlined here should not be mistaken as ubiquitous. We acknowledge the need for different approaches and methods. We hope to 1) reduce the gap between
So far we explained – rather implicitly – the need for a better integration of theory and practice for high school teachers. As
142
theory and practice via a tight connection between researchers and in-service teachers in educational research processes 2) produce trustworthy results that can be generalized, repeated and adopted in practice. To achieve this, we conduct transparent design based research and measure its effects with appropriate methods and 3) create structures that allow conducting effective educational research processes.
[5] [6]
We still have a number of questions to address:
[8]
1) Although variation theory seems to be a valid pattern of interpretation for the assumed increase in CSTEd efficacy, we are still uncertain about the definition of the phenomenon at hand: Is it teaching CS? Or researching CS education? Or is it CSER as phenomenon? Or the inquiring view on CS as subject at high school?
[9]
[10]
2) Can we really combine the development of teaching units and teaching models, or are we in danger to end up doing merely development of practical teaching materials? In figure 1 this would mean to draw a shortcut from analysis/reflection to construction, without considering theory-based design. How can we avoid this danger?
[11] [12]
3) Do students really profit from this effort, and how can we measure this? We could profit from a competence model for teacher education, and measure the effects with regard to such a model. However, in general we think that the research model should help to reduce the perceived gap between theory and practice, it should foster the students’ perception of the relevance of the content learned at the university, and it should support their understanding of their future job demands. We would like to explore this aspect further by getting a deeper understanding of the ‘inquiring view’: What are its constituting elements? How can its development be fostered in detail? How can we measure this?
[13] [14]
[15]
4) A last question to address is the role of the high school students. In the end, they are the real target audience. Teacher education can merely be seen as a means to increase the quality of teaching at school, so that learners there profit from the endeavor. Kattmann et. al [12] integrate the pupils perspective into the research process by exploring their perceptions. According to this model we should interview pupils before the actual teaching phase where students’ learning processes are observed by our teacher students. Should this be an additional task four our students? Or should we rather integrate an additional research phase to get a hold on pupil’s concepts about CS?
[16]
[17] [18]
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[19]
The work in this article is supported by the INIK-Set in Berlin and a grant from Deutsche Telekom Stiftung.
[20]
8. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3]
[4]
Akker, J. 2006. Educational design research. Routledge. Altrichter, H. 2007. Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht : Unterrichtsentwicklung und Unterrichtsevaluation durch Aktionsforschung. Klinkhardt. Antil, L.R. et al. 1998. Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal. 35, 3 (1998), 419. Barab, S. and Squire, K. 2004. Introduction: DesignBased Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. The Journal of the learning sciences. 13, 1 (2004), 1-14.
[21]
[22]
143
Berliner, D.C. 2002. Comment: Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational researcher. 31, 8 (2002), 18. Brown, A.L. 1992. Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2, 2 (1992), 141 - 178. Burkhardt, H. and Schoenfeld, A.H. 2003. Improving Educational Research:Toward a More Useful, More Influential, and Better-Funded Enterprise. Educational Researcher. 32, 9 (Dec. 2003), 3-14. Eckerdal, A. and Thuné, M. 2005. Novice Java programmers’ conceptions of “object” and “class”, and variation theory. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 37, 3 (Sep. 2005), 89. Fischer, F. et al. 2005. Nutzenorientierte Grundlagenforschung im Bildungsbereich. Zeitschrift f\ür Erziehungswissenschaft. 8, 3 (2005), 427–442. Hoadley, C.M. 2004. Methodological Alignment in Design-Based Research. Educational Psychologist. 39, 4 (2004), 203 - 212. Kattmann, U. et al. 1997. Das Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion - Ein Rahmen für naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung und Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften. 3, 3 (1997), 3 - 18. Korthagen, F. 2010. How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching. 36, 4 (Nov. 2010), 407-423. McKenzie, P. and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. Teachers matter : attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Niemi, H. and Jakku-Sihvonen, R. 2006. In the Front of the Bologna Process Thirty Years of Research-based Teacher Education in Finland. Education Science. Reimann, P. 2011. Design-Based Research. Methodological Choice and Design - Scholarship, Policy and Practice in Social and Educational Research. L. Markauskaite et al., eds. Springer. 37-50. Reinders Duit 2003. The Model of Educational Reconstruction - Workshop. Runesson, U. 2006. What is it Possible to Learn? On Variation as a Necessary Condition for Learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 50, 4 (Sep. 2006), 397-410. Shavelson, R.J. and Towne, L. eds. 2002. Scientific research in education. National Academies Press. Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, B.M.S. 2007. Top of the Class Report on the inquiry into teacher education. House of Representatives Publishing Unit. Tulodziecki, G. and Herzig, B. 1998. Praxis- und theorieorientierte Entwicklung und Evaluation von Konzepten für pädagogisches Handeln. Veröffentlichung der Universität Paderborn. Wadsworth, Y. 1998. What is Participatory Action Research? Action Research International (paper 2). (1998).
