Abstract
Purpose
To date, little research examines what happens when co-design aims not at student-facing curriculum but, rather, at the development of teacher learning and professional development experiences. Given the success of co-design methods in promoting instructional innovation and challenging existing structures of schooling, this absence represents a missed opportunity. This study aims to explore the evolution of a six-year research−practice partnership in which a university researcher collaborated with social studies district and teacher leaders to co-design a coaching program for secondary social studies teachers.
Design/methodology/approach
Activity theory and Engeström’s (2014) expansive learning framework guided the analysis. The data set comprises 73 h of video-recorded co-design meetings across six years, triangulated with facilitator notes and reflective memos, artifacts (planning guides, protocols) and interviews with coaches. The authors analyzed recordings of co-design meetings to determine how contradictions triggered program evolution.
Findings
The authors’ analysis traced how the coaching program evolved through the interaction between the program-building activity system and the school-embedded activity system in which coaches coached their peers. Early in the co-design process, collaborative work was organized around designing the pedagogical substance of practice-based coaching. Over time, however, persistent contradictions in the co-design activity system redirected collective effort, and the object of the work expanded from designing instructional and coaching practices to creating and adapting participation and recruitment structures. Rather than stabilizing into a single coherent model, the coaching program ultimately evolved into a shared collection of tools that allowed coaches maximum flexibility in their coaching as they engaged teachers in practice-based learning.
Research limitations/implications
The authors argue that − notwithstanding the challenges enumerated above − the findings highlight the potential for co-design efforts to be leveraged in designing teacher learning experiences. In making this case, the authors must note the many critical ways in which this professional development context did not resemble typical district interventions. Teacher and coach participation was entirely voluntary; the focus on and available resources devoted to social studies instruction was highly unusual; and the entire effort ran counter to prevailing assumptions about classroom history instruction and teacher learning. Readers must therefore resist any effort to generalize to co-design more broadly.
Practical implications
Teachers typically have little input on the substance or structure of the professional development they are offered. Indeed, the teaching profession, writ large, lacks career ladder options that allow teachers to remain in the classroom as they advance their career. By contrast, in this case, the coaches, most of whom were full-time teachers, were able to shape the learning experiences of their peers and respond immediately to challenges in implementation. Moreover, they were able to do so without losing sight of student learning. The authors maintain teacher leaders are exceptionally well-positioned to design relevant teacher learning experiences for their peers that meet the complex demands of the profession.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the literature on co-design by investigating how a process of co-design unfolded when its target was teacher learning and development rather than student-facing curriculum. Furthermore, the findings shed light on a potentially productive method for supporting social studies teachers, who are rarely the recipients of content-specific professional development.