Education Tech Research Dev (2014) 62:393–416

DOI 10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum

design approaches

Ferry Boschman • Susan McKenney • Joke Voogt

Published online: 25 June 2014

 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Abstract The goal of this study was to reach a better understanding of the intuitive
decisions teachers make when designing a technology-rich learning environment. A
multiple case-study design was employed to examine what kinds of factors (external
priorities, existing orientations or practical concerns) influence design interactions of teams
of kindergarten teachers. This study combines semi-structured interview data on teachers’
existing orientations with analysis of teachers’ design discussions during the design of
learning material for a technology-rich learning environment. Three teams of teachers
voluntarily participated. Findings on the existing orientations suggest that knowledge and
beliefs about teaching and learning related to knowledge and beliefs on technology and
early literacy. The analysis of teachers’ discussions revealed that the process could be
characterized to a large extent as brainstorms; and that problems are not addressed in-
depth. Rather they are resolved through brainstorming, and most argumentation falls in the
realm of practical concerns: how to organize learning activities and how to respond to
contingencies. The findings of this study suggest that teachers’ explicated design reasoning
is mostly influenced by practical concerns, yet their own knowledge and beliefs play an
important role at the start of the design process. However, these existing orientations as
well as the practical concerns that emerge during the conversation tend to be narrow in

F. Boschman (&)  S. McKenney

Department of Instructional Technology, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of Twente,
Postbus 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

S. McKenney
Center for Learning Sciences & Technologies (CELSTEC), Open University of the Netherlands,
Heerlen, The Netherlands

J. Voogt
Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands

J. Voogt
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Postbus 10090, 8000 GB Zwolle, The Netherlands

123
394 F. Boschman et al

scope. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in light of how this study
provides understanding of how to support these teachers.

Keywords Technology integration  Qualitative analysis  Kindergarten  Early literacy

Introduction

Contemporary research on technology integration in classrooms has pointed to the

importance of teachers’ involvement as designers. This approach to innovation has been
advocated for several years (Clandinin and Connelly 1992) as a feasible and desirable
way of reaching sustained innovation in practice. Active engagement may increase
ownership, offer opportunity for professional development, and produce material that is
more in line with classroom practice (Ben-Peretz 1990; Borko 2004). A growing number
of studies in which teams of teachers acts as designers shows that those teachers actually
yield progression in technology integration in their classroom (e.g. Koehler et al. 2007).
In such design teams, teachers create learning material, collaboratively solve problems
and reason toward solutions. However, little is known about the conversations in the
teams. Teachers’ own approaches to problem solving have been criticized as being
inappropriate for complex design problems (Hoogveld et al. 2001). Teachers often
deliberate in terms of concrete classroom activity, attempt to adapt existing material, need
support from an external facilitators to think about abstract issues such as subject-matter
or a curriculum framework, and focus their attention on their students throughout the
design process (Deketelaere and Kelchtermans 1996; George and Lubben 2002; Han-
delzalts 2009). This study takes the stance that a productive approach entails seeking
understanding of what teachers naturally do and why. This approach can also facilitate
the development of support for teacher-designers in ways that work alongside, not
against, their natural tendencies.
The context of this study is the design of curriculum-material for a technology-rich
learning environment in Dutch kindergarten, named PictoPal. This learning environment
for 4–5 year olds aims to foster understanding of the functions of written language. In
PictoPal, pupils compose written documents on the computer and use these in off-computer
classroom activities (e.g. grocery lists are ‘used’ in the store corner; recipes for ‘cooking’
are followed in the classroom play kitchen, letters to family are mailed, poems are read
aloud at circle time; see Fig. 1 for a screen capture of the on-computer activity). Previous
studies in which teachers were involved during design and implementation of PictoPal
material found learning gains in kindergartner understanding of the functions of written
language (Cviko et al. 2012; McKenney and Voogt 2009). Teachers design the contents of
the on-computer activities by specifying which written products children make, and the
vocabulary words they will use to do so. Subsequently, the off-computer activities are also
designed by teachers; these are as application activities in which children use their written
products. Figure 1 is a screen shot of an on-computer activity. PictoPal preparation pro-
vides a context in which teachers design technology-rich material for early literacy
development and therefore allows for studying teachers’ explicated argumentation. The
aim of this study is to understand how teachers naturally reason and what influences this
reasoning during collaborative curriculum design.

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 395

Fig. 1 PictoPal on-computer activity

Literature review: understanding design interactions

Recently, scholars have investigated problem solving as reflected in the verbal interactions
among teachers while discussing problems from their practice in so-called episodes of
pedagogical reasoning (Horn 2010; Little 2002). In these types of conversations, teachers
explicate reasoning by taking perspective, arguing for solutions and framing problems.
Similarly, when making design decisions, reasoning is also explicated through talk. This
explicated design reasoning provides a window for understanding design interactions.
As shown in Fig. 2, the influences on design interactions can be clustered into three sets
of factors: (a) existing orientations (knowledge, beliefs and practices); (b) external prior-
ities (what priorities from external stakeholders have to be addressed), and (c) practical
concerns (what is feasible and reachable in practice, how to orchestrate learning activity).
The remainder of this section discusses each one, followed by the focus of the present
study.

Existing orientations

When teachers use, adapt, or (re)design curriculum material to fit their practice they make
decisions based on (a) their practical knowledge—the personal knowledge base accumu-
lated through experience in teaching and (b) their knowledge and beliefs related to how
curriculum material is designed, adapted or used. In this study, TPACK is used as a
framework to understand teachers’ practical knowledge. Alone, pedagogy refers primarily
to instructional strategies, classroom strategies and knowledge about learners, learning and
teaching (Borko and Putnam 1996). Content knowledge (in the case of this study, early
literacy) includes substantive structures (how ideas, concepts and facts are organized),

123
396 F. Boschman et al

Fig. 2 Conceptual framework

of this study

syntactic structure (rules of evidence that guide inquiry in a discipline), facts, concepts and
procedures (Grossman 1990). Technological knowledge refers to a teachers’ knowledge
and beliefs about using technology in education (Koehler and Mishra 2005). Technological
knowledge differs from the other knowledge domains and is best described as the ability to
recognize the affordance of technology for educational purpose (Koehler and Mishra
2005). Emerging technologies are technological tools which are not considered ubiquitous
and for which teachers have yet to identify their affordances for teaching specific subject
matter in a specific context. TPACK as practical knowledge intertwines with the knowl-
edge and beliefs about curriculum. Teachers often adapt curriculum materials to better fit
their classroom practice (Davis et al. 2011; Remillard 2005). While such adaptations result
from reasoning from their practical knowledge, teachers also use curriculum design
knowledge (Remillard 2005).

External priorities

Curriculum design does not happen in a vacuum. While existing orientations play an
important role, (explicated) design reasoning is also influenced by priorities of stakeholders
other than the teachers themselves. Such external priorities may be set by stakeholders on
different levels varying from macro-level (e.g. national standards), publishers (e.g. text-
books) to the (near) school level, as expressed by school boards (e.g. local policy), prin-
cipals or colleagues within communities of practice. For instance, subject matter content
selections are often provided in curriculum material such as textbooks and software, which
are designed by others than teachers themselves. Also, school boards or principals may set
a variety of priorities, for instance about the kind of education. When designing, these
external priorities often focus and/or limit teachers’ choices. In kindergarten, external
priorities might for instance be: developmentally appropriate practices in teaching and
learning, appropriate practices in computer use by young children, early-literacy content
knowledge, and policies (Buchanan et al. 1998; Stipek and Byler 1997; Turbill 2001).
These external priorities are often implicitly embedded in the organizational context in
which teachers work.

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 397

Practical concerns

Lesson planning, curriculum design and instruction are influenced more by considerations
concerning concrete classroom activity than by abstract subject-matter knowledge or
learning goals (Handelzalts 2009; Kerr 1981). Teachers’ (explicated) reasoning reflects
their practical concerns as contingencies and limitations in classroom practice. Found in
literature, the most salient are: (a) organizational issues (‘how much time is available, how
are students seated, what classroom do I have available’) (de Kock et al. 2005); (b) rela-
tionship between student and activity (how will students react to this, what will students do
with it) (Deketelaere and Kelchtermans 1996; George and Lubben 2002; Parke and Coble
1997); or (c) how subject-matter is presented to students in such a way that it becomes
feasible in practice (Handelzalts 2009).

Focus of the study

This study was designed to examine how design interactions in teacher teams demonstrate
explicated reasoning from existing orientations, external priorities or practical concerns
during the design of PictoPal material. This is important because the design interactions of
teachers involved in collaborative curriculum design are hardly studied. The insights from
this investigation help to better understand design processes in teacher teams and are
needed in order to provide adequate support to teachers during the obviously complicated
task of designing curriculum material. In order to understand what drives teacher decision-
making when designing curriculum, this study first investigated the existing orientations
that the teachers held on technology, pedagogy, early literacy and curriculum design.
Thereafter, the study examined teachers’ actual design interactions. After portraying these,
further analyses were conducted to discern the kinds of factors that most powerfully
influenced their design interactions. In this study, answers were sought to four questions:
• RQ1: What are the teacher design teams’ existing orientations regarding technology,
pedagogy and early-literacy?
• RQ2: What are teacher design teams’ existing orientations regarding curriculum
design?
• RQ3: What do the teacher design team interactions look like?
• RQ4: When designing, what kind of argumentation underpins the decisions in the
design team?

Methods

Design and participants

A multiple holistic case-study approach was applied in this study, with design team
conversations as unit of analysis. In this study, teachers participated voluntarily,
responding to an open call distributed among all kindergarten teachers in an urban area of
the Netherlands, and expressing interest in designing a learning environment for early
literacy. From two different schools, two teams of kindergarten teachers participated
(team A: n = 4; Team B: n = 2). Also responding to the open call were two teachers who
had more early literacy expertise through in-service education and another teacher with

123
398 F. Boschman et al

early-literacy and technology expertise who gave in-service teacher training. Thus, an
additional team (team C) of three language experts was formed, allowing for a contrasting
analysis of design interactions. Comparisons in this study are made between the design
interactions of regular kindergarten teachers and those of teachers with extended expertise
in early literacy. In Table 1, an overview of the teams and background information of the
teachers is presented.

Data collection

At the start of the study, using a semi-structured interview, inquiries were made about
participants’ existing orientations (knowledge/beliefs and self-perceived competency in
technology, pedagogy, early literacy, curriculum design). The interviews were recorded
and transcribed. A few weeks later, teachers attended a design workshop in which they
designed PictoPal learning activities. To familiarize teachers with the program, a video was
presented featuring example PictoPal learning activities. After this short introduction, the
assignment was given: ‘‘Design a set of PictoPal on-and off-computer learning activities.’’
Any questions to clarify the assignment were answered, and discussion in the teams
quickly commenced, signaling the start of the design. To ensure that the deliberations of
teachers were as authentic as possible, several measures were taken: (1) support was kept
to a minimum; (2) only when teachers specifically addressed the researcher on matters that
were unclear, was a response provided; and (3) teachers were also free to discuss any topics
that they deemed relevant. The deliberations of the teachers were videotaped and tran-
scribed; video aided in identifying which participant was talking (names in findings section
are pseudonyms).

Semi-structured interview

The semi-structured interview took approximately one hour for each teacher, resulting in
nine interviews in total. Teachers were asked to respond to a sequence of questions
stemming from: ‘What are your beliefs regarding…?’ and ‘Can you provide classroom
examples?’ This sequence was repeated within each domain: technology, pedagogy and
early literacy.
To answer the second research question, we asked teachers questions regarding cur-
riculum material design and use: ‘What is your experience in designing material?’, ‘How
do you use formal curriculum material in kindergarten?’, ‘How competent do you feel you
are, and what type of support do you need, when designing curriculum material?’, ‘Who
should be responsible for curriculum design: teachers, educational designers, both or
someone else and why?’

Data analysis

The following procedure was used to analyze the data of the semi-structured interviews on
teachers’ existing orientations: (1) The written transcripts were read several times, frag-
ments in the written transcripts were selected that conveyed teachers’ existing orientations
regarding technology, pedagogy, early literacy, or curriculum-material design and use;
these fragments were coded. (2) Each fragment was summarized and a category-code
(descriptive) was added (Table 2 provides an overview of the domain and category codes).
(3) For each team, a matrix was constructed with individual team members on the x-axis

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 399

Table 1 Characteristics of participants, names are pseudonyms

Team Name Age Years of teaching Additional training in
experience in
kindergarten

A Marla 48 20
Gretha 49 28
Dany 26 2 Enrolled in masters’ program
Ann 49 20
B Annette 56 25
Erica 48 14
C Alex 42 20 In-service training, early literacy
Arya 50 28 Dyslexia/early-literacy/special education
Trinny 61 0 Special education/author of two early-literacy
computer-programs, currently employed as teacher
trainer and researcher at teacher training institute

and categories found on the y-axis; this was aimed at gaining better understanding of
knowledge, beliefs and practices that individual team members brought to the deliberations
during collaborative curriculum design. (4) The quotes representing these orientations were
summarized as statements that reflected either knowledge/beliefs or practices. (5) Constant
comparison (Strauss and Corbin 1998) was applied on the quotes. This allowed for several
themes within each domain to emerge, depicting how and whether or not at the team level
differences were present. Quote summaries aided in this refinement of codes as it pre-
structured our analysis, yet constant comparison was conducted on the original quote. The
first author conducted initial coding, the themes and categories were discussed with the
other two authors resulting in a refinement of the codes. A researcher who was not involved
in this study independently coded 10 % of three interviews (descriptive), inter-coder
reliability was calculated as acceptable (Cohen’s kappa = .69).

Analysis of design talk

The analysis of the design talk occurred on the written transcripts. These were in Dutch
since all participating teachers were working in the Netherlands, (and the researchers were
also fluent in Dutch). Selected quotations were translated when writing this article. Design
talk was analyzed by classifying the interactions into categories. Although various models
for curriculum design might also bear consideration for developing a new coding scheme
for the analysis of design talk (see for instance Stenhouse 1975), this study made use of an
existing coding scheme, the SACD (Walker 1971), that has been successfully used to
portray educational design conversations. Walker (1971) developed and used the SACD to
code design talk in three subject-matter oriented, curriculum development projects. Shown
in Table 3, the SACD was taken as the starting point for this study; it provides codes on the
levels of episodes as well as moves (single-utterances). However, the analysis that Walker
conducted while conceptualizing the categories of the SACD was limited to reporting
frequencies of codes only. The analysis in this study was also qualitative, portraying how
explicated reasoning occurred through argumentation. The arguments that are portrayed
therefore pertain to the three kinds of explicated design reasoning described previously.
First, to gain a general portrayal of design team interactions, the entire discussion was
segmented in episodes, which according to Walker (1971) is ‘a consecutive portion of

123
400 F. Boschman et al

Table 2 Coding scheme applied on existing orientations

Domain Category Description

Tech How to productively employ technology for teaching. (Code is added as a suffix to
codes in the other domain)
Ped Classr Classroom management strategies
Instr Instructional strategies
LLT Learners, learning and teaching in kindergarten
EL Conc Concepts in early literacy such as phonemic awareness, book-reading, alphabet
Subst Substantive structures in early literacy
Synt Syntactic structures in early literacy
PCK Purp Purpose of early literacy education
Und Childrens’ understanding and misunderstanding of early literacy
Curr Curriculum and curriculum material regarding early literacy
Strat Strategies to develop early literacy in kindergarten
Curr Des Strategies to design curriculum material
Use Strategies to use curriculum material

Table 3 Coding-scheme used for discourse analysis

Type Code Explanation

Episode Brainstorm Free flowing idea generating session, many participants speak and the aim is
to generate large quantity of ideas
Issue Episode in which a specific problem is addressed
Report One person provides vivid case description, other participants respond
Explication One person lectures, providing his or her viewpoint, stance or knowledge to
the group
Move Problem Identifies a situation that needs the team’s attention
Proposal Aimed at alleviating the problem
Consideration Remark for or against a proposal.
Instance Illustrative example
Arguments E External priority
O Existing orientation
P Practical concern

transcript having a degree of unity and coherence and being separable from the sur-
rounding discourse by subject and style of discussion.’ (p. 112). Following walkers’
SACD, these were coded as one of four types: brainstorm, issue, explication or report.
During a brainstorm, ideas are generated, interaction is high and decisions are taken
intuitively. During an issue, a problem is identified, framed and its’ solution is debated;
decision making is highly argumentative. In an explication, one person talks, lectures or
provides insights on a topic or subject of which he or she has exclusive knowledge. Finally,
a report, for instance reflects a concrete classroom example as an illustration.
Second, in each episode, the nature of the deliberation was analyzed by marking por-
tions in the episode in which decisions are explicated in the conversation. Open coding was
applied by summarizing these decisions on what aspects of the material were decided upon

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 401

(for instance learning activity, classroom organization). Keeping an open mind, such
decisions might occur in all four types of episodes; but the expectation was that coded as
issues would contain most of the explicated argumentation, while for instance brainstorm
argumentation would be more tacit and implicit. The analysis of the argumentation
therefore was conducted on the episodes that reflect pivotal decisions, steering the course
of the conversation and in which argumentation is explicated and thus, visible in
transcripts.
Within each of these selected episodes, single utterances that reflected teachers’ indi-
vidual contributions to the conversation, individual deliberative moves were coded using
the SACD as one of four types: problem, proposal, consideration, or instance. A problem
is a statement that frames an unsatisfactory situation or a part of the design that needs the
groups attention; a proposal reflects a solution to the problem; a consideration is made for
or against a proposal; and an instance is an illustrative remark. Short remarks such as ‘yes’
or ‘well’ were not coded.
Since explicated design reasoning occurred through argumentation, the moves were also
coded for explicated design reasoning. This was done by coding each move as pertaining to
either existing orientations, external priorities or practical concerns. Existing orientations
reflect teachers’ personal knowledge base in the argument; external priorities reflect an
argument of a stakeholder other than the teachers themselves; and practical concerns relate
to organizational aspects of the design.
A researcher (also a Dutch native speaker) who was not involved in this research-project
independently coded a sequence of 400 single utterances (first on the level of episodes then
by coding moves). This constitutes approximately 20 % of the overall data set. Inter-coder
reliability was calculated, procuring satisfactory levels of reliability (episodes, Cohen’s
kappa = .70; moves, Cohen’s kappa = .71).

Findings

RQ1: What are teacher design teams’ existing orientations regarding technology,
pedagogy and early-literacy?

While investigating existing orientations towards technology, pedagogy and design,

teachers responded by providing examples as well as rules. Themes within each domain
emerged during interpretative analysis of the categories and subcategories. The team-
specific findings are discussed in light of overarching themes.

Technology

Technology is addressed through a pedagogical frame of reference

Team A Teachers in Team A preferred to use computers individually and with the purpose
of providing an extra activity. Dany provided a practical reason: ‘‘You should use com-
puters individually; otherwise it just is not feasible.’’ These teachers expressed that
computers were just part of the array of other learning material available in their class-
room. All teachers believed that computers were appropriate. Although positive, Gretha
reflected: ‘‘Kindergartners learn mostly by concrete activity’’ (Tech-Ped-Learner). The
other teachers did not mention such concerns, one of them stated: ‘‘[Technologies] are
there, so you just have make best use of them’’ (Tech-Ped-Instr).

123
402 F. Boschman et al

Team B Besides providing examples of practice in individual use, the two teachers in
this team also provided examples of how they used the computer in collaborative settings.
Also, these teachers believed that computers were appropriate in kindergarten. One of the
teachers was enthusiastic about computers and even mentioned that she took time to teach
kindergartners computer skills.
Team C There were differences regarding how the teachers portrayed their existing ori-
entations regarding technology in Team C. Similar to team A, Ally stated: ‘‘A computer is just
extra, children get their instruction foremost from regular teaching’’ (Tech-Ped-LLT).
However, both Trinny and Arya talked about affordances of computers in terms of what the
added value was on childrens’ learning. Trinny, reflected on the affordance of computers on
collaborative learning, she also stated that computers are smart tools providing structure,
monitoring childrens’ progression, unlimited patience and a tool for monitoring a childs’
progression. Furthermore, Trinny explained the rationale behind a computer program for
early literacy that she designed and formed the basis of her training to in-service teachers.
Arya, an early literacy expert from a school of special educational needs kindergartners,
mentioned computers in light of early literacy in her school context, stating: ‘‘When a
computer program does not present written words as accompaniment to spoken words, we
refrain from using that program. Research has pointed to the importance of this.’’

Teachers view computers as a tool for early literacy learning activity

Team A, B Teachers in both teams talked about practices that involved children typing
letters or words on a computer. Teachers from Team A stated that they occasionally used
the interactive whiteboard (IWB) to display a digital storybook or show a video fragment
for illustrative purposes. Teachers from Team B only expressed using digital storybooks
for children to be read individually.
Team C Differences were found within the knowledge and beliefs of this team. While
digital storybooks were mentioned by both Alice and Arya, Trinny referred to how she
believed technology afforded for development of reading skills in children who had dif-
ficulty reading. As mentioned earlier, she had a wealth of experience in designing tech-
nology for early literacy, and to date still provides lecturing on this topic to in-service
teachers. Trinny explained in detail why and how to use a computer. Similarly, Arya had
ample experience in in-service support of teachers at her school regarding early literacy
and provided a wealth of examples, also in regard to her use of technology. For instance
she showed and demonstrated a keyboard with audio support (single letters were spoken
aloud) and discussed practices in which she used those.

Pedagogy

Teachers direct their teaching behavior mainly to develop kindergartners

socio-emotional well-being

Team A Teachers from Team A discussed beliefs about how to develop childrens’ socio
emotional development through teacher-child interaction. For example, Ann stated:
‘‘Approach a child with a positive attitude (Ped-LLT).’’ One teacher in this team fur-
thermore mentioned that socio-emotional development is one of the important areas in
which a child develops in kindergarten. Furthermore, Team A teachers expressed the
importance of a positive atmosphere because children in kindergarten mostly develop their
socio-emotional wellbeing.

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 403

Team B Similar to Team A, these teachers expressed their beliefs regarding the behavior
of a kindergarten teacher. Beliefs regarding how kindergartners learn were reflected in
teachers’ responses; Erin for instance stated: ‘‘If children go home feeling bad, the con-
sequences are rather serious’’ (Ped-LLT). Furthermore, these teachers stated that teachers
should provide environments of safety and trust to develop their general aptitude. Annette
expounded her opinion that modern-day kindergartners grow up in a demanding society,
one that rushes the development of children. She stated that a child should be given the
time to develop instead of being pushed forward to academic development.
Team C Knowledge and beliefs about creating a positive teacher-child relationship and
striving for a positive climate were expressed by the regular teacher in this team. Ally
stated: ‘‘Commemorate a child’s good behavior, this reinforces a child’s sense of self-
efficacy’’ (Ped-LLT). She also pointed out that ‘‘even if you have given a child a scolding,
always maintain a good relationship afterwards.’’ The other two teachers did not address
socio-emotional development of kindergartners, rather they discussed instructional strat-
egies in kindergarten.

Teachers express how they motivate children as the most important strategy
for teaching and learning in kindergarten

Team A and B Regular kindergarten teachers expressed knowledge and beliefs regarding
how kindergartners learn. In Team A, these beliefs were mainly expressed in terms of
‘what a teacher has to do to…’. Two comments from Gretha (team A) reflect this:
‘‘Motivate children by using concrete material (Ped-LLT)’’, ‘‘Adjust your language to a
developmentally appropriate level (Ped-LLT)’’. However, the topics discussed mostly
concerned classroom management-related topics. Teachers from Team A and Team B
expressed a large number of pedagogical approaches to kindergarten education and how to
organize them: circle-time, small-group instruction for remediation or focused instruction,
peer-collaboration and working in small groups on a particular learning task. However,
teachers from Team A also were focused on how to organize the flow of activities in a
kindergarten classroom. Teacher Dany (team A) mentions: ‘‘I am a big fan of structure’’
(Ped-Classr) also her colleagues discuss the importance of teaching children classroom
rules. These teachers furthermore stress that it is important to show predictable teaching
behavior, so that children will get used to the routine.
Team C Both Trinny and Arya first stated that they had no actual teaching experience in
kindergarten classrooms. Yet both of them expressed that children learned through
engagement in authentic and meaningful activity. Ally however mentioned how she
organized a number of the learning activities that the teachers in Team A and Team B
mentioned. Ally focused mainly on explicating beliefs and knowledge about socio-emo-
tional development of kindergartners and the importance for teachers to have improvisa-
tion skills. These were needed to adequately respond to unforeseen events.

Early literacy

Regular teachers discuss learning activities and why it is important to learn

how to read; language experts also explain why

Team A teachers discuss early-literacy concepts as classroom activity, expressing what

they do in their classroom such as book reading, rhyming, doing letter-sound exercises and
exercises to develop children’s vocabulary. Marla expressed the concept of phonemic

123
404 F. Boschman et al

awareness (recognizing separate sounds in a word), yet in terms of the activities that
children do: ‘‘If children have problems with ‘cutting and pasting’ they will have problems
reading (EL-Conc). Teachers of this team conceptualized early literacy in their statements
as the ongoing development of reading that starts before the onset of kindergarten and is
important for kindergartners because it prepares them to function in a modern society.
Team B Teachers in Team B stated that they were very attentive to early signs of deficit
in children’s vocabulary when they entered kindergarten. Annette reflects: ‘‘When a child
enters my classroom the first thing I do is talk, just to understand his vocabulary level’’
(EL-Conc). Annette reasoned that a poor initial vocabulary impeded further development
in literacy. Similar to Team A, these teachers specifically stated that the purpose of early
literacy was to function in society.
Team C Ally’s responses resembled those from the other regular teachers. She stated
what kind of activities she conducted, book reading and whole class exercises that develop
phonemic awareness. In contrast, Arya used a storytelling table to have children reenact the
scene of a book and use of cards with written words and pictures to enhance phonemic
awareness. As her area of expertise was the individual instruction to children with learning
disabilities, she did not mention any whole class activities. Arya, however provided rules-
of-thumb for the specific learning activities, while the other teachers did not. Trinny did not
mention specific concepts in early literacy.

Instructional practice in early literacy is ad-hoc, unplanned and reflects strategies

for motivation to discover early literacy

Team A Fueling curiosity was a preferred instructional strategy, to allow kindergartners to

make explorations and discoveries about literacy. Gretha reflects: ‘‘Use childrens’ own
interests.’’ Teacher Dany furthermore reflects: ‘‘It is not like we plan an early literacy
activity, we do this throughout the entire day’’ (EL-Strat).
Team B These teachers stated that whenever they had the opportunity, they addressed
children’s early literacy development through reading, rhyming games or activities on
phonemic awareness. Erna: ‘‘So for instance you seize every opportunity, like ‘tie your
shoelaces’, or ‘who has the same letter in his name…’’’ (EL-Strat). Furthermore these
teachers agreed that early literacy develops mostly through discovery, they learn to rec-
ognize what reading entails, they mostly ‘feel’ by being engaged. In this light, Erin stated:
‘‘Provide all kinds of learning activities, even if they do not understand it will still be
meaningful to them’’ (El-Strat).
Team C Trinny discussed what she found appropriate to address as a teacher in order to
develop early literacy. She also mentioned the importance of motivating children to get an
interest in reading, yet she emphasized that: ‘‘If a child is interested in reading, don’t let him
write letters! Instead, teach him to recognize the basic letter sounds like ‘s’, ‘m’ and ‘v’, and
soon he will read simple words’’ (EL-Strat). Furthermore she believed that early literacy
development should only be addressed to when a child showed interest in reading. Trinny also
believed that the single goal of early literacy development ‘‘only involves recognizing sounds
that letters represent’’ (EL-Strat). Ally and Arya did not discuss such beliefs, they discussed the
various activities and how to motivate children to get involved an interested in early literacy.

Perceived competencies in the three domains: technology, pedagogy and early literacy

All teachers felt competent in the domain of pedagogy and did not state they needed
support in this domain. In the domain of technology, one teacher stated that she lacked

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 405

skills in technology-use and welcomed an opportunity to learn new ways of how to manage
technology in her classroom; the other teachers felt skilled enough, yet welcomed new
ideas on classroom management. In the domain of early literacy, all teachers found they
had sufficient skills, but again welcomed an opportunity to expand their knowledge of
learning activities. The language expert teachers also welcomed the opportunity to expand
their knowledge on early literacy.

RQ2: What are teacher design teams existing orientations regarding curriculum design?

When designing curriculum material or adapting existing material, learning goals

that teachers themselves set, direct teacher decisions

Team A Teachers from Team A stated that they used a self-designed curriculum frame-
work, which consisted of goals to be attained in kindergarten for several domains. Teachers
mentioned the use of textbooks and teacher guides as inspiration for designing their own
classroom activities. Gretha from Team A stated: ‘‘We don’t use material like they do in
the upper-grades, we have more freedom to do as we see fit.’’ Teachers from Team A all
were convinced that they were capable of designing technology-rich learning material and
welcomed input from technology experts and early literacy experts.
Team B Teachers from Team B relied on their own experience when designing curriculum
material. They used curriculum material to inspire their lessons, but were used to designing
their own lessons. Furthermore, these teachers found themselves competent in using and
designing material, but also stated that cooperation from technology experts and language
experts could provide them with specific knowledge during design of such material.
Team C The teachers from Team C also relied on their own experiences, yet showed
variation: Arya used standards and learning goals set by Dutch policymakers in early-
literacy education, Alex used her experience in teaching in kindergartens and stated that in
her school, the learning goals set by the Dutch government guided teachers in designing
learning activities. Also, Alex (team C) stated the importance of such an approach to
curriculum material use in her school: ‘‘In our school, it is very common to ‘let go’ of the
formal educational material, and design our own learning activities. We, as kindergarten
teachers are very skilled at that, and we would also like to see this approach in the upper
grades of our school’’ (Curr—insp).

RQ3: What does design interaction look like?

This question focused on the macro-level analysis of how the conversations were organized
in episodes, as either brainstorm, issue, explication or report. Tables for each team show
how many utterances one episode consisted of, the code that was attached to this episode,
the episode-number and the total number of utterances for each type of episode. For
reading comprehension, the findings are presented as a narrative in which the sequence and
the topics of the episode are discussed; the tables serve an illustrative purpose. In the
tables, B stands for Brainstorm, E for Explication, I for Issue and R for Report.

Team A’s design interactions

Team A’s first comment was that PictoPal—in its’ current state—did not appeal to them,
so they decided to formulate their own design task which was: build an on-computer

123
406 F. Boschman et al

activity with more freedom for children to express their own story. During the first episode,
teachers brainstormed about the type of learning activity. This triggered an issue episode in
which, with the topic of children’s’ unanticipated actions while conducting the learning
activity. What followed was a report in which one teacher shared her experience in
allowing children to write their own story, upon agreement the teachers initiated a
brainstorm session to further design the contents of the computer program such as lay-out,
pictures and words.
As can be seen in Table 4, two episodes were coded as issues. In the first (episode 2),
teachers discussed the problem that would occur when children wanted to choose a word
from that was not available in the limited list. This issue was introduced by Dany. The
issue was only discussed shortly, and no apparent decision or solution was discussed.
Rather the conversation just evolved into teacher Ann’s explication of her experience with
a learning activity that also allowed children to write their own ‘work’. The second issue
(episode 5) pertained to the issue that was raised in episode 2. Episode 5 was followed by a
brainstorm, in which the contents of the computer program were discussed. Issue 7 marked
an interruption in the brainstorm; one teacher still was not convinced that the current
design allowed children to express themselves. When this issue was resolved, the design
session ended with two brainstorm episodes. Episodes 8 and 9 were on finalizing the design
and rounding up the deliberations. Note the large number of brainstorm episodes (n = 5;
total n = 9) and the large number of interactions (n = 384; total 455 making up 84.4 %)
found in brainstorm episodes 6 and 8. In contrast, the total interactions devoted to issue
episodes made for only 7.3 %.

Team B’s design interactions

As shown in Table 5, Team B’s teachers were curious about how the program functions,
and after showing them the functionality, they started brainstorming on activities and
content. There were five brainstorm episodes, of which two exceeded the other episodes in
length considerably. After brainstorming on what type of activity students would perform
and how the program should function, one teacher mentioned that she was unsure whether
children would understand that in the program, words are represented by pictograms. After
several short episodes of issue, the teacher (Gretha) was finally convinced, especially when
witnessing what the program actually looked like on paper. During a short explication
episode, she stated that the functionality of the program resembled curriculum material that
she had used. After this episode, four brainstorm episodes occurred in which the contents
and the functionality of the program were designed. Similar to Team A, the number of total
utterances for brainstorm issues was large: 329 of a total of 379; a percentage of 86.8 %.

Team C’s design interactions

Team C’s teachers discussed the ideas behind PictoPal first (see Table 6), and thereby
framing their own convictions on what kind of early-literacy practice they personally found
important. They did so in the context of PictoPal, explaining why a certain conviction was
so important and how it could be incorporated in the design of the learning activity and
content. One of the participating teachers (Trinny) was an early literacy and technology
expert who currently was employed as a teacher trainer. She explicated her view on what
kind of content and activity would be most appropriate and that software could be pro-
grammed in such a way that it did not allow children to make erroneous decisions.
Following was a short series of issue episodes in which the content of the learning activity

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 407

Table 4 Number of single utterances per type of episode, and summary for each episode in the discourse of
Team A
Episode Utterances Code Summary

1 7 B Generate ideas on how to incorporate children’s own work

2 4 I Problem that arises is that children have a vast imagination, what happens
when they choose to write words that are not part of the content of the
software
3 7 R One teacher provides a case in which she stresses that own work appeals to
children
4 15 B Contents of the program are generated
5 17 I One teacher still has a problem with how children’s own work infringes the
boundedness of the contents of the program
6 188 B Building on the previous issue-episode, this episode entails further design of
the content, keeping in mind that children’s choices in own work should
be bounded, yet that still they have enough freedom
7 12 I The teacher who had a problem, still is not totally convinced about how the
contents of the program, as they are currently designed, allow an
appropriate amount of freedom. Other teachers do not identify this
problem and convince her in expediting the design-process
8 196 B Following the previous episode, the teachers address the contents of the
program, until they are all satisfied with the program
9 9 B Teachers evaluate the program and state that although they are pleased with
the outcome, the program should be tested in order to identify and resolve
any problems in practice

Table 5 Number of single utterances per type of episode, and summary for each episode in the discourse of
Team B
Episode Utterances Code Summary

1 104 B Learning activity and content of the program, ideas are generated
2 19 I One teacher questions whether children understand the relationship between
pictograms and written words
3 7 I The same teacher questions whether or not children get overloaded with
information
4 9 I The way that the content of the program is delivered on-screen is discussed
5 6 I One teacher reflects on the problem that pictograms then have to be chosen
that are clear to children
6 9 E The same teacher that initiated episode 5, reflects on existing curriculum
material in which she identifies similarities with PictoPal
7 142 B Ideas about the contents of the program are further discussed
8 13 B Brainstorm is initiated on the pictograms (which ones, link to activity,
where to place them in the program)
9 41 B Evaluate, the purpose of the designed program was to teach children about
language
10 29 B Evaluate, incorporating the idea of PictoPal in other lessons

and program were discussed, which then indicated that the program contents were designed
during a brainstorm episode. Again, the number of single utterances that pertained
brainstorm was large: 310 of a total of 398 utterances; a percentage of 77.9 %. However in

123
408 F. Boschman et al

contrast to Team A and Team B, the utterances devoted to discussing issues was larger:
12.3 %.
Summarizing, all three analyses of design talk provide a picture of the design interaction
as that of being a steady stream of ideas generated, occasionally interrupted by short issues
in which a problem is briefly discussed. Comparing design talk among the three teams,
reveals differences in how the design is initiated: the two teams of regular kindergarten
teachers initiate a brainstorm on the contents of the learning material and on the learning
activity, while the team of expert teachers (team C) initiates an explication episode in
which Trinny expressed her view on early literacy education. Yet before the first issue
episode, Team C also initiated a brief brainstorm on the learning activity. The design
interaction of all three design-teams ended with a brainstorm in which teachers appraised
the material and came to closure of the design workshop.

RQ4: When designing, what kind of argumentation underlies the decisions

in the design team?

This section presents the findings of the analysis on design talk on the level of utterances in
episodes in which argumentation was explicated. The previous section showed that
brainstorm episodes are initiated to generate ideas and no argumentation is present.
Therefore these episodes do not reflect explicated reasoning. In issue episodes, argu-
mentation is visible in the conversation, reasoning is explicated: hence only the episodes
that were coded as issues were selected to be coded on the level of single utterances. For
each team, one figure presents the sequence of coded utterances within each selected
episode.
For each coded utterance, an argument code is applied where 1 stands for practical
concern, 2 stands for existing orientation and 3 stands for external priority. Furthermore,
each utterance that is marked as a large circle pertains to a problem statement.

Analysis on design talk on the level of deliberative moves in Team A

Figure 3 shows three selected episodes of Team A’s conversation: six problems were
discussed, two reflected existing orientations; the response to these two problem-state-
ments was a proposal reflecting a practical solution. In issue 1, the second problem
statement was made by teacher Dany, who also initiated the issue episode, which reflected
an argument from practice (‘‘…or children might choose to write about a pirate who wants
to become a knight’’). Issue 1 is not resolved. Rather, utterance 11 (Marla), initiates the
second episode, which was a report on her experience in using children’s’ own stories. This
shows that the solution is not explicated as such. Rather it occurs by skipping ahead. Issue
2 is initiated by Gretha who still feels that the first issue is left unresolved, her statement
therefore also reflects her existing orientation (‘‘I still have a problem, how do we…
children, who want a word that is not incorporated’’). The other teachers respond by
making several proposals, yet Dany brings up the problem that the proposals might lead to
a program that cannot be used without the teacher’s help, however more proposals follow
that reflect how content is organized in such a way that the problem does not occur.
Utterance 47 was coded as a consideration, which reflects the argument that children do not
use complicated sentences. The final problem (Gretha) in Issue 2, pertains to the concern
that young children might misinterpret the words. Anny responds that this is not a problem,
yet an opportunity to learn. Issue 20 s final utterance initiates the brainstorm, signaling the

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 409

Table 6 Number of single utterances per type of episode, and summary for each episode in the discourse of
Team C
Episode Utterances Code Summary

1 15 E Trinny explicates her point of view: children like to use cards with written
words and pictograms to communicate their own stories
2 20 B After a short explanation of the programs’ functionality, ideas for the
learning activity are created
3 5 I Words like ‘may’ and ‘give’ are difficult to draw a pictogram for
4 9 I Simple sentences are not authentic, children do not make proper sentences
5 6 I Simple sentences are not engaging to children
6 20 I Verbal communication is difficult for kindergartners, let alone written
communication. Sentences should initially kept simple in the program
7 55 B Ideas are generated from the premise that children like to illustrate what
they write
8 9 I Ally brings up the issue of what goal the program should facilitate
9 106 B Ideas for the learning activity and the contents of the computer-program are
generated
10 24 E The episode starts with the question to Trinny wether or not to capitalize
names, she responds by discussing her point of view
11 104 B Ideas on the contents of the program are generated
12 25 B Ideas are generated on how the learning activity and the computer program
should be introduced

end of issue 2 (‘‘ok, what else can we come up with?’’). The lengthy brainstorm is abruptly
stopped by Gretha’s comment on the on-computer activity: ‘‘I think it is a rather large
number of steps!’’ As shown in Fig. 3, this proposal is met with various remarks, yet
Gretha persists and states: ‘‘… but you are, first you have been doing…’’, this last state-
ment is met with ‘‘.. but nowadays, children are good at using computers. It doesn’t all go
that slow anymore,’’ (Anny). This statement reflects an argument from the existing ori-
entation. Subsequently, various proposals are made, of which Gretha makes one: ‘‘Ok, so
the words are directly linked to… that’s what I mean!’’ Upon mutual agreement, the final
brainstorm episodes were initiated.

Analysis of design talk on the level of deliberative moves in Team B

Figure 4 shows that Team B discussed 5 problems, 2 of which reflect arguments from
existing orientations. In the first problem statement, Annette questions whether children
understand that pictograms substitute words. As can be seen in Fig. 3, issue 1 is the second
episode in the conversation, and comes right after the brainstorm episode. Furthermore,
issue 1 is mostly discussed through remarks that reflect arguments from practice.
Utterance 120 marks a pivoting point, Annette recalls a piece of the video on PictoPal
that was shown at the start of the workshop: ‘‘The fun thing is, in that piece of video you
see a teacher reading a text, and the child becomes enthusiastic! Like, wow, my work gets
printed it has sounds and words.’’ This remark furthermore shows that Annette gets
motivated. Erica furthermore comments on this remark by stating how she sees functional
literacy (children making discoveries about written language). The final remark of Erica
shows how PictoPal affords this.

123
410 F. Boschman et al

Fig. 3 Analysis of the selected episodes in team A’s conversation on type of argument and deliberative
move

Following are three short episodes in which the problem in issue 1 is further resolved.
Figure 3 shows that in issue 3 and 4 three problems were addressed, all of which reflected
practical arguments. The conversation then continues with an explication, followed by four
brainstorm episodes.

Analysis of design talk on the level of deliberative moves in team C

Figure 5 shows that six problems were discussed in Team C’s conversation, all of which
were coded as existing orientations. Figure 4 furthermore shows that the arguments that
follow these problem statements, (in issues 1 and 2) mostly reflect existing orientations,
while in issue 5, arguments reflect practical concerns.
Issue 1 is started when Arya states the problem: ‘‘Words like ‘give’ and ‘may’ are
difficult to draw pictograms for…’’ (one of PictoPal’s on-computer features is that words
are shown on a button with a pictogram so that children who cannot read understand this
word). The solution is to limit the number of words, but also to use simple words. Trinny
advocates the following solution: ‘‘… it is better to have children discuss a situation, like
‘the cat lies in the basket,’ and then illustrate what they see, in order to visualize the
meaning of this situation.’’ However, Arya’s response is that simple sentences like ‘‘the cat
eats fish’’, do not reflect how children would say it (initiating problem statement in issue 3).
Alice’s response reflects agreement with Arya: ‘‘and.. it’s not a challenge for children…
don’t you want a child to say ‘Wow, now I’ve got something!?’’ Arya responds by
illustrating a classroom situation in which one child hides a toy cat, and in PictoPal a
simple letter is produced communicating the location of the toy cat.
Trinny’s response (initiating issue 5), is that such a task is to complicated: telling a story
is difficult, let alone producing a written story, that has to be communicated in front of a
group of children. Alice, however states that such a task can be performed when children
are supported by: ‘‘…first simple and then the next step, one word extra.’’ This is con-
firmed by Arya, and the issue seems resolved.

Argumentation underpinning the decisions

Throughout all three conversations, a similar pattern emerges in which initially problems
are framed from teachers existing orientations regarding how kindergartners learn and will
react to the material, while later after having brainstormed about the specific content of the

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 411

Fig. 4 Analysis of the selected episodes in team B’s conversation on type of argument and deliberative
move

Fig. 5 Analysis of the selected episodes in team C’s conversation on type of argument and deliberative
move

learning activity and the PictoPal computer program, problems emerge that relate more to
practical concerns. A recurring theme related to teachers existing orientations that
appeared to influence design talk was motivation strategies. The findings on the existing
orientations show that teachers believe that children are motivated by performing activities
that adults do (e.g. thorough play corners) and that both entail and enhance their under-
standing of the world. During the design conversations, motivational strategies are dis-
cussed by all three teams. Team A questions the motivational strategy embedded in
PictoPal and designs their own learning activity that would enhance motivation. Team B
also discusses that, when a teacher reads a text written by a child out loud, this could foster
enthusiasm for literacy. Team C questions whether easy sentences could convey messages
that would relate to childrens’ interests.
Across the teams, differences in argumentation were identified. The language experts
regarded technology from an early literacy education view. That is, they mentioned specific
early literacy learning strategies. Regular teachers regarded technology from a pedagogy
view. That is, they discussed general pedagogical strategies most. These differences also
occured when comparing conversations of language expert teachers and regular kinder-
garten teachers. There were no notable differences between the two regular teacher teams.

Conclusions and discussion

This study explored collaborative curriculum design in two teams of regular kindergarten
teachers and one team of early literacy expert teachers, designing learning material to be

123
412 F. Boschman et al

used in a technology-rich learning environment for early literacy. The goal was to
understand whether and how teachers’ existing orientations, external priorities and/or
practical concerns influenced their conversations and decision-making. To achieve this
aim, teachers existing orientations on technology, pedagogy, early literacy and curriculum
design were first examined. Next, design talk was analyzed to portray if and how existing
orientations, external priorities and/or practical concerns were reflected in the conversa-
tions. Differences as well as similarities were found in how two types of teachers (regular
and early literacy expert) expressed these orientations. For kindergarten teachers, tech-
nology is addressed through a pedagogical frame of reference, how it is used for learning.
Occasionally they provided practices, generic ways of using technology and more spe-
cifically how they use computers for various writing and reading activities. Early literacy
experts discussed technology from a pedagogical frame of reference but also from an early
literacy frame of reference. Similarly, both the regular teachers and early literacy experts
expressed knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning in kindergarten: motivational
strategies, socio-emotional development and how kindergartners learn. Motivational
strategies however also seemed to influence teaching strategies in regard to early literacy.
Motivation according to both types of teachers, is achieved by providing authentic tasks,
learning activities that would appeal to kindergartners.
While literature suggests that curriculum design is influenced by TPACK, the existing
orientations that teachers have in relationship to curriculum design are understood less well
(Remillard 2005). Findings from teachers’ existing orientations on curriculum design show
that teachers use their own experience as a resource for inspiration to design learning
activities for kindergartners. This finding is in line with the study on design practice by
elementary schoolteachers by Davis et al. (2011). The findings of this study suggest that
what a teacher knows about teaching and learning influences the goals that a teacher sets
and thereby also calls into memory the kinds of activities that a teacher knows would work
to achieve these goals.
The findings of this study are consistent with literature on design cognition, the kind of
thinking involved when ‘designing’. The finding that existing orientations play an
important role is similar to Lawson’s (2004) discussion of precedent, which is a designers
ability to recognize a class of problem and use previous experiences to think in terms of
concrete images to solve these problems. This could imply that when material is being
designed or adapted, teachers first draw on existing understanding about how children learn
and the related instructional strategies and practices that they have accumulated through
experience.
The findings of the analysis on design talk on the level of episodes suggests that
designing is predominantly a brainstorm process; most episodes were coded as brainstorm,
most brainstorms were also very long in duration. The approach to collaborative curric-
ulum design resembles a solution-driven approach to solving design problems (Hong and
Choi 2011), in which designers quickly generate solutions. The problem does not get
analyzed in depth before generating these solutions. Rather a designer gradually unravels
the problem as solutions are tried and discussed. In this approach, the problem and solution
are defined together (Cross 2004). Consistently, this study’s findings show a pattern in
which first a tentative solution gets brainstormed, followed by one or more episodes in
which an issue is discussed, followed by one or more sessions of brainstorm. Occasionally
these brainstorms are ‘interrupted’ by small issue episodes. However the general impres-
sion of the conversation in these latter stages of the design process are more about
brainstorming. Teachers, in this study are prone to skip an analysis of the problem. Though

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 413

as Lera (1981) noted, the term ‘analysis’ in design is often more a process of testing
conjectures.
Although often viewed as naı̈ve and intuitive, such limited problem analysis has been
used by successful expert designers (Cross 2004). As such, this study cautiously gives
reason to challenge the claim that teachers’ design approach is unsystematic (Hoogveld
et al. 2003). The design approach of teachers can hardly be represented by instructional
design (ID) models or other system design models (Rapanta et al. 2013). Important
decisions are made when teachers encounter a problem. It is fruitful to gain a detailed
process understanding of how such problems get addressed through conversation.
In this paper, the micro-level analysis of design talk focused on issue episodes, which
provide better understanding of the moments in conversation in which important decisions
are made. These issue episodes also reflect explicated reasoning through argumentation.
During brainstorm episodes, argumentation is lacking as teachers provide no reasons for
their decisions. The findings of this study on the micro-level found an interesting pattern
emerging. Problem statements that occur at the start of the conversation reflect existing
orientations; problem statements further down the conversation reflect practical concerns.
Furthermore, argumentation through proposal reflected more practical concerns when
analyzing the conversations of both teams of regular teachers. In the conversation of Team
C, argumentation through proposing and explicating considerations continued to reflect
more of their existing orientations. Though it should be noted that the last issue episode
reflected more of their practical concerns. External priorities were hardly discussed by any
team.
The findings of this study suggest that teachers’ intuitive approaches to design can be
characterized as gaining an understanding of the design problem by reaching early solu-
tions and changing the solutions as they go. Gradually their understanding of the design
problem evolves as the material is brought to life through talk. As an image of the problem
(and solution) takes shape, a collaborative problem space (Jonassen 2000) emerges.
Gradually, by explicating their existing orientations to define problems of these early
solutions, they reach an agreement. In this study, the early solution is furthermore shaped
by existing orientations that reflect what a teacher knows and believes about motivational
strategies for early literacy development. These are translated into technological solutions.
These strategies are then discussed, practical concerns are addressed, and problems may
again emerge. These problems also reflect mostly practical concerns, yet solutions made
earlier in the design are being processed and brought to life through brainstorming.
This study suggests that teachers existing orientations serve as precedent (Lawson
2004), to help teachers recognize the design problem and find solutions that seem trusted
and feasible. Strikingly, when existing orientations to teaching and learning are explicated
during design conversations, for all three teams, these somehow pertained to the concept of
motivation. Questions are asked such as: ‘‘Does this activity motivate children?’’; ‘‘How to
make sure that kindergartners are motivated?’’ So while teachers discuss the problem, their
early solution tends to be meet this single criterion and is not subject to critical discussion
after the solution has been tentatively agreed upon.
Several reasons can be found, however this has mostly to do with the ‘wicked’ and
complex nature of design problems (Rittel and Webber 1973). According to Jonassen
(2012) design is often considered a form of complex problem solving, involving a great
number of decisions. Decisions are typically the result of judgment, which may be
deliberate off-hand judgment (in which novel design-problems trigger designers explica-
tion of the decisions they make and why they made these decisions) or default judgment
which occurs almost spontaneously and is tacit (Nelson and Stolterman 2012). In this

123
414 F. Boschman et al

study, teachers’ deliberate off-hand judgments became visible when they disagreed.
Thereafter, teacher discussion drew on experiences in teaching in kindergarten, their
existing orientations (especially regarding motivational strategies for early literacy) and
practical concerns. The emphasis on practical concerns (how do we organize this, what do
children actually do) is consistent with the teacher practicality ethic (Doyle and Ponder
1977), which states that determining whether or not to adopt a new innovation involves
processes that appraise an innovations’ (a) instrumentality (does the innovation specify
what I as a teacher should do); (b) congruence (do I agree with the innovation) and (c) cost
(how much of my effort will it require).

Limitations

The findings of this study must be considered in light of its limitations. First, only three
teams were studied, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Future studies could
apply the data collection and analysis methods to other contexts, investigating whether the
emerging patterns in design talk also emerge when teachers of other types of education
collaboratively design curriculum material. Second, only two data sources were used.
Future studies could, for instance by stimulated recall, invite teachers to explicate their
reasoning, which would then be compared and contrasted with the findings of the interview
on existing orientations and the actual design talk. This could lead to a more comprehensive
understanding of teachers’ curriculum design reasoning. Third, the difference in argu-
mentation (RQ 4) that was found between regular kindergarten teachers and language expert
teachers might not originate from a difference in knowledge and beliefs on early literacy.
The team of language expert teachers had never met before, which might have triggered
constructive conflict, and conversations in which more argumentation occurred. In a similar
vein, since the regular teachers knew each other already, it is possible that some reasons
were not explicated because they were regarded as mutually shared understandings.

Implications

The findings of this study have both theoretical and practical implications. While research
on ‘how designers think’ has been substantial (e.g. Cross 1982; Dorst and Cross 2001;
Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002) the attempt to unpack design thinking as well as
explicated reasoning in teacher team design talk is fairly novel. Prior studies on the design
processes that teachers conduct in design teams have focused on outcome variables and
tend to be very abstract. This study suggests that an important dimension is added by
looking at explicated design reasoning to get a more comprehensive and fine-grained
understanding of the intuitive decision making process and design judgment. This study
therefore set the stage for future studies on teachers’ explicated design reasoning to
incorporate literature on design conversations (see for instance Rapanta et al. 2013). Future
research should endeavor to better understand how existing orientations are explicated.
Methods of analyzing design talk were found useful. Yet as also insights into how con-
versations of groups reflect learning and situated cognition, more studies are needed to get
a better understanding of the role of existing orientations, especially how they are used in
the context of technology design.
Practical implications suggest how teachers should be supported in contexts in which they
attempt to solve design problems. Because it is important but not their natural inclination,
support to regular teachers should bring in subject-matter considerations. Additionally, the
findings from this study suggest that most teachers would likely benefit from expertise on how

123
Understanding decision making in Teachers 415

technology could be used specifically for disciplinary learning. Such expertise should be
provided in a way that coincides with their natural tendency to focus mostly on pedagogy
related practical concerns. One approach would be to first use clear exemplary curriculum
material or provide input before and during the design conversations on topics related to
subject matter, technology or a combination of both. In such a case, before designing, teachers
could gain a general understanding of what should be designed which is considered an
effective support strategy in collaborative curriculum design (Handelzalts 2009). With the
ultimate goal of being able to provide adequate support, this study’s empirical observation
and analysis of teacher design activity constitute limited, yet helpful additions to under-
standing teacher decision making during curriculum development.

References

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
researcher, 33(8), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (pp. 673–708). London: Prentice Hall International.
Buchanan, T. K., Burts, D. C., Bidner, J., White, V. F., & Charlesworth, R. (1998). Predictors of the
developmental appropriateness of the beliefs and practices of first, second, and third grade teachers.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 459–483. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80052-0.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on curriculum (pp. 363–395). New-York: Macmillan.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. doi:10.1016/0142-
694X(82)90040-0.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. doi:10.1016/j.destud.
2004.06.002.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for emergent
literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 31–54. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-
9208-3.
Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity
through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797–810. doi:10.1016/j.tate.
2011.01.005.
de Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2005). New learning and choices of secondary school
teachers when arranging learning environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 799–816.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.012.
Deketelaere, A., & Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Collaborative curriculum development: An encounter of
different professional knowledge systems. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2(1), 16.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design
Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3),
1–12. doi:10.1007/bf01189290.
George, J. M., & Lubben, F. (2002). Facilitating teachers’ professional growth through their involvement in
creating context-based materials in science. International Journal of Educational Development, 22(6),
659–672.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York:
Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams (PhD Doctoral).
Universiteit Twente, Enschede.
Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a
conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710. doi:10.1007/
s11423-011-9202-9.
Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Application of an instructional systems design
approach by teachers in higher education: Individual versus team design. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19(6), 581–590.

123
416 F. Boschman et al

Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2001). The effects of a Web-
based training in an instructional systems design approach on teachers’ instructional design behavior.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 363–371.
Horn, I. S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from col-
leagues in a mathematics teacher community. Teacher College Records, 112(1), 225–259.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi:10.1007/bf02300500.
Jonassen, D. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development,
60(2), 341–359. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5.
Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design. Instructional
Science, 10(4), 363–378.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design
seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies,
25(5), 443–457. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.
Lera, S. G. (1981). Empirical and theoretical studies of design judgement: A review. Design Studies, 2(1),
19–26. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(81)90025-9.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up problems of analysis
in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946. doi:10.1016/s0742-
051x(02)00052-5.
McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2009). Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal initiative.
Computers & Education, 52, 719–729.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. New
Jersey: University Press Group Limited.
Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model
for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773–789.
Rapanta, C., Maina, M., Lotz, N., & Bacchelli, A. (2013). Team design communication patterns in
e-learning design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4),
581–605. doi:10.1080/0158791960170103.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula.
Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Rittel, H. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication.
Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. New York: Heinemann.
Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach?
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305–325.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Turbill, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the kindergarten literacy curriculum.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(3), 255–279. doi:10.1177/14687984010013002.
Walker, D. F. (1971). A study of deliberation in three curriculum projects. Curriculum Theory Network, 7,
118–134.

Ferry Boschman research interest concerns design interactions of teachers collaborating in designing
curriculum material.

Susan McKenney research relates to exploring and supporting the interplay between curriculum
development and teacher professional development, oten related to language arts curricula.

Joke Voogt specializes in research on innovative use of information and communication technologies in the
curriculum.

123