שותפויות אקדמיה-שדה להטמעת חדשנות חינוכית בבתי ספר

רשימת מקורות

להלין רשימת מקורות מומלצים מהם תוכלו לבחור לעבודה הסמינריונית. הפריט הראשון בכל "עדשה מחקרית" הינו זה שנלמד במהלך הקורס:

​

PPK

שימו לב ששלושת המאמרים הראשונים ברשימה מהווים דיון מתמשך בכתב העת JLS לגבי המשמעות של המושג PPK אותו הציע ברייטר במאמר הראשון בסדרת המאמרים הזו (המאמר הראשון הוא זה שקראנו בקורס).

• Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17

• Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176-186.

• Bereiter, C. (2015). The practicality of principled practical knowledge: A response to Janssen, Westbroek, and Doyle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 187-192.

• Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2017). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 1(2).

• Voon, X. P., Wong, L. H., Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2019). Principled practical knowledge in bridging practical and reflective experiential learning: case studies of teachers’ professional development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 641-656.

• Kali, Y., Levy, K. S., Levin‐Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting outdoor inquiry learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile‐assisted seamless learning. British journal of educational technology, 49(6), 1145-1161.

 

DBR

• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 131-140). Springer, New York, NY.

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

• Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

• Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5-8.

• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational researcher, 32(1), 9-13.

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?. Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25.

• Reimann, P. (2011). Design-based research. In Methodological choice and design (pp. 37-50). Springer, Dordrecht.

​​

DBIR

• Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational researcher, 40(7), 331-337.

• Fishman, B., Penuel, W., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. Teachers College Record, 115(14), 136-156.

• Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2013). Empowering design based implementation research: The need for infrastructure. Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars, 112, 464-480.

• Means, B., & Harris, C. J. (2013). Towards an Evidence Framework for Design-Based Implementation Research. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 350-371.

​​

BC

• Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169.

• 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 (JESPAR), 20(1-2), 182-197.

• Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178-195.

• Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240-284.

• Finlay, I. (2008). Learning through boundary‐crossing: Further education lecturers learning in both the university and workplace. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 73-87.

• Hannon, J., Hocking, C., Legge, K., & Lugg, A. (2018). Sustaining interdisciplinary education: developing boundary crossing governance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(7), 1424-1438.

​​

RPP

• Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2017). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 1(2).

• 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 (JESPAR), 20(1-2), 182-197.

• Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.

• Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., & Gallagher, D. J. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research–practice design partnerships. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 237-255.

• Penuel, W. R. (2017). Research–practice partnerships as a strategy for promoting equitable science teaching and learning through leveraging everyday science. Science Education, 101(4), 520-525.

• Henrick, E. C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W. R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. William T. Grant Foundation.