Abstract
There is increasing pressure on instructors in tertiary settings to justify their practice with evidence; to describe and explain decisions made in the design of units, and the enactment of teaching. To do this effectively, educators need to be able to articulate the various steps and processes involved in research-informed planning and decision making. Fortunately, this requirement corresponds to a growing emergence of digital tools for data collection and analysis that are able to be connected to conceptual models of learning and teaching, and new methodological approaches, including learning analytic and AI techniques. I will demonstrate that collaborative approaches to research-informed practice can allow knowledge to be connected across disciplinary boundaries, supporting the integration of data analysis, technology development, design for learning, and pedagogical knowledge for the creation of innovative approaches to learning and teaching in higher education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alhadad, S., Thompson, K.: Understanding the mediating role of teacher inquiry when connecting learning analytics with design for learning. Interact. Des. Architect. J. - IxD&A 33, 54–74 (2017). https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-033-003
Thompson, K., et al.: Connecting expert knowledge in the design of classroom learning experiences. In: J. Lodge, Horvath, J.C., Corrin, L. (eds.) Learning Analytics in the Classroom: Translating Research for Teachers. Routledge (2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351113038
Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Thompson, K.: Computer-supported collaborative learning: instructional approaches, group processes and educational designs. In: Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., Bishop, M.J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 439–451. Springer, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_35
Pennington, D., et al.: The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6(2), 278–286 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8
Pohl, C., Hadorn, G.H.: Core terms in transdisciplinary research. In: Hadorn, G.H., et al, (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, pp. 427–432. Springer, Dordrecht (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_26
Bammer, G.: Disciplining interdisciplinarity: integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. In: Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU E Press (2013). https://doi.org/10.22459/DI.01.2013
Palmer, M.A., Kramer, J.G., Boyd, J., Hawthorne, D.: Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 111–122 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.01.002
Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P.: The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks. Routledge, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203591093
Wing, J.M.: The data life cycle. Harvard Data Sci. Rev. 1(1), 1–6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.e26845b4
Gilbert, J.K., Boulter, C.J.: Learning science through models and modelling. In: Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K.G. (eds.) International Handbook of Science Education, vol. 2, pp. 53–66. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)
Coyle, G.: Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 16(33), 225–244 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1727(200023)16:3%3c225::AID-SDR195%3e3.0.CO;2-D
Jonassen, D.: Computers as Mindtools for Schools. Engaging Critical Thinking, 2nd edn. Merrill, Wisconsin (2000)
Harré, R.: Models and type-hierarchies: cognitive foundations of iconic thinking. In: Paton, R., Neilson, I. (eds.) Visual Representations and Interpretations, pp. 97–111. Springer, London (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0563-3_10
Jacobson, M.J., Wilensky, U.: Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J. Learn. Sci. 15(1), 11–34 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
Jonassen, D.: Using cognitive tools to represent problems. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 35(3), 362–381 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782391
Stratford, S.J., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E.: Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 7(3), 215–234 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021840407112
Wise, A.F., Shaffer, D.W.: Why theory matters more than ever in the age of big data. J. Learn. Anal. 2(2), 5–13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.22.2
Lodge, J.M., Thompson, K., Corrin, L.: The concerning persistence of weird ideas about learning and educational technology and their influence on the future directions of higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 38(3), 1–5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8226
Pennington, D., Vincent, S., Gosselin, D., Thompson, K.: Learning across disciplines in socio-environmental problem framing. Socio-Environ. Syst. Model. 3, 17895 (2021). https://doi.org/10.18174/sesmo.2021a17895
Sandoval, W.: Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research. J. Learn. Sci. 23(1), 18–36 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Martinez-Maldonado, R., et al.: Supporting collaborative design activity in a multi-user digital design ecology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 327–342 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.055
Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A., et al.: 4FAD: a framework for mapping the evolution of artefacts in the learning design process. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 34(2), 16–34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3706
Thompson, K., Ashe, D., Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., Kelly, N., Parisio, M.: Processing and visualizing data in complex learning environments. Am. Behav. Sci. 57(10), 1401–1420 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479368
Martinez-Maldonado, R., et al.: Cross-LAK: learning analytics across physical and digital spaces. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, pp. 486–487. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883855
Schneider, B., Dowell, N., Thompson, K.: Collaboration analytics—current state and potential futures. J. Learn. Anal. 8(1), 1–12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.7447
Yan, L., et al.: The role of indoor positioning analytics in assessment of simulation-based learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13262
Blikstein, P., Worsley, M.: Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. J. Learn. Anal. 3(2), 220–238 (2016). https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.32.11
Thompson, K., Corrin, L., Lodge, J.M.: The implications of educational technology research for practice and/or policy. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 38(5), 1–4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8422
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Thompson, K. (2023). Collaborative Approaches to Research-Informed Practice in Tertiary Education. In: Li, C., Cheung, S.K.S., Wang, F.L., Lu, A., Kwok, L.F. (eds) Blended Learning : Lessons Learned and Ways Forward . ICBL 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13978. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35731-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35731-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35730-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35731-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)