View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An Analytic Tool for Conceptualizing Pedagogical Design Capacity within Social Context

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An Analytic Tool for Conceptualizing Pedagogical Design Capacity within Social Context
Language: English
Authors: Charlene Ellingson (ORCID 0000-0001-5035-6767), Gillian Roehrig
Source: Science Education. 2025 109(2):339-354.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1238140
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Instructional Design, Middle School Teachers, Teacher Collaboration, Urban Schools, Social Environment, STEM Education, Curriculum Development, Ability, Behavior, Teaching Methods, Concept Teaching, Story Telling, Protocol Analysis, Curriculum Evaluation
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21908
ISSN: 0036-8326
1098-237X
Abstract: This study examines an urban middle school teacher design team's capacity for creating integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula. Using Brown's pedagogical design capacity (PDC) theory, which highlights interactions between personal and curricular resources, this paper introduces an extended framework that includes social interactions as key influences on teachers' design abilities. Findings show that individual teachers' spontaneous curriculum modifications were adopted by the team, becoming collective resources for ongoing redesign and improving their design capacity. Teachers effectively used each other as resources to address unexpected challenges in integrating science, engineering, and mathematics concepts. Three types of social interactions were identified as collaborative resources: (i) Storytelling: sharing experiences to make abstract concepts actionable for curriculum development; (ii) Protocols: structured methods to address curricular problems related to integration; and (iii) Assessment "for" curriculum redesign: using assessment tools to inform and improve the curriculum. The Collective Design Capacity for Enactment framework is introduced to describe PDC within a social context, highlighting the importance of social interactions in bridging curriculum use and development, thus extending the literature on PDC.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1460631
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEYH8hc9M--dLpGplgyPfkRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMCOeq6ZRBh_gfxSjwIBEICBm65iStaBahLD0dI4YuT63zPt2OALoEICdqBGRQmVWPPItXuKbo4LwWvAKLfx8pPT3GxDuE6YhaXfItYKsEYcmDaojk8qsZjyKb7Msq7yGaHB2D4n9YFOdIX03HWhCbm4YHy9FP45yyEu2prHMjSxpohWR0X0s0l6DYnAnwK-llWe0js-dUaoKqX1FZQlVniDFsze1b3a1btpzYv5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183867410;sed01mar.25;2025Mar21.07:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183867410-1">Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An Analytic Tool for Conceptualizing Pedagogical Design Capacity Within Social Context </title> <p>This study examines an urban middle school teacher design team's capacity for creating integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula. Using Brown's pedagogical design capacity (PDC) theory, which highlights interactions between personal and curricular resources, this paper introduces an extended framework that includes social interactions as key influences on teachers' design abilities. Findings show that individual teachers' spontaneous curriculum modifications were adopted by the team, becoming collective resources for ongoing redesign and improving their design capacity. Teachers effectively used each other as resources to address unexpected challenges in integrating science, engineering, and mathematics concepts. Three types of social interactions were identified as collaborative resources: (i) Storytelling: sharing experiences to make abstract concepts actionable for curriculum development; (ii) Protocols: structured methods to address curricular problems related to integration; and (iii) Assessment "for" curriculum redesign: using assessment tools to inform and improve the curriculum. The Collective Design Capacity for Enactment framework is introduced to describe PDC within a social context, highlighting the importance of social interactions in bridging curriculum use and development, thus extending the literature on PDC.</p> <p>Keywords: collaborative curriculum design; curriculum theory; distributed cognition; pedagogical design capacity</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Curriculum refers to the knowledge and practices related to a given subject matter that teachers rely on to guide teaching and learning (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]). Curriculum materials are the primary tool teachers use to craft instruction (Brown [[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]]), and define the learning experiences of students (Syomwene [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]). Curriculum developers and teacher educators also rely on curriculum to communicate reform‐based practices and curricular innovations to connect teacher practice with curricular theory (Janssen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]). Indeed, curriculum affects the entire teaching‐learning process (Yaşar and Aslan [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref6">42</reflink>]), and in this sense, curriculum can be thought of as the brick and mortar of teaching and learning.</p> <p>Despite the central role curriculum plays in defining education theory and informing teacher practice, studies show that teachers often do not use curriculum materials as intended (Brown [[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]]; Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]; Remillard and Heck [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]). Sometimes, teachers' decisions to modify curriculum materials are effective, supporting development of conceptual ideas (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]). Other times, teachers' decisions to modify materials result in curriculum materials being used in ways that are inconsistent with the intended reform practices (Janssen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]). Recognizing that the lack of alignment between curriculum developers' intentions and teachers' use of curriculum (Choppin et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]), pedagogical design capacity (PDC) has emerged as an important construct for examining the relationship between curriculum resources and the performance of teaching (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]). PDC refers to a teacher's ability to interpret and use curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, instructional materials, etc.) and personal resources (e.g., pedagogical strategies, beliefs, etc.) to craft instruction (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>While science teachers' PDC has been researched in the context of developing scientific argumentation (Knight‐Bardsley and McNeill [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]), preservice science teachers' ability to integrate technological resources in their planning (Kessler and Cartier [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]), and analyzing science curriculum materials (Beyer [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]), it has yet to be examined with respect to teachers working collaboratively on curriculum design. Furthermore, despite the importance of engaging teachers in collaborative curriculum design (Voogt et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]), the PDC literature is conceptually silent about the social context within which curriculum design takes place. Given that teachers often work in collaborative teams (Borko [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]), and the known benefits of collaboration on teacher practice (Loucks‐Horsley et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]) and teacher professional learning (Handelzalts [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]), understanding the role social interactions play in affording and constraining curricular design activity is an important next step in expanding upon the PDC literature. The research reported in this paper has the potential to address this gap in the literature in that it applies PDC to teachers working collaboratively to design integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum. The research question that guides this study is:</p> <p>How can social interactions be conceptualized and represented for the purpose of analyzing the design work of teachers engaged in collaborative curriculum design?</p> <p>In the following, we first describe the original PDC theory, the analytic model that defines PDC, and explore the research on engaging teacher design teams in curriculum design. Next, we briefly look forward to one of the major findings of our work, introducing the Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment (cDCE) framework, an extended analytic model for defining PDC in social context. We made the slightly unorthodox decision to introduce the cDCE early in the paper for the purpose of clarity because we are aware that PDC development is a conceptually dense construct.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-3">Related Literature</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183867410-4">Pedagogical Design Capacity</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183867410-5">Conceptual Background</hd> <p>Assumptions and theoretical perspectives about curriculum, as well as the role of the teacher within it, lie along a spectrum (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]). At one end of the spectrum is the perspective that the curriculum is static, and the teacher's role is to implement it with "fidelity" (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]). On the other end of the spectrum is the perspective that curriculum is dynamic, and the teacher's role is "participatory" (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref25">30</reflink>])—that is, curriculum reflects a wide range of possible uses and the teacher's role is to unlock the "curriculum's potential" (Ben‐Peretz [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]). PDC differs in its underlying assumptions in that it focuses on how teachers "appropriate and mobilize instructional resources" (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>], p. 1), embodying the idea that curriculum materials, as well as the intellectual knowledge and skills teachers bring to curriculum use, serve as resources that afford and constrain instructional activity (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]). As such, PDC falls within the latter perspective, considering curriculum use as a dynamic process and curriculum materials as more than a static representation of concepts.</p> <p>PDC differs from other notions of curriculum use theory in that it takes as its unit of analysis interactions between physical resources (curriculum, instructional materials) and intellectual resources (teacher knowledge, values, beliefs, abilities). The emphasis on resources and interactions between resources shifts analysis away from measuring outcomes, such as change in teacher practice, toward examination of the underlying factors that influence teachers' decisions to use curriculum as written or to modify it to achieve their instructional goals. The focus on resource interactions also provides a way to consider the underlying reasons for modifications, and account for variation in the ways teachers use the same materials (Brown [[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]]). For example, in Brown ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]) original study one teacher adapted the procedures for making a model of the sun's rays. Rather than using the "recipe" for constructing the model detailed in the teacher guide, she engaged students in assembling the model. The teacher's stated goals, to foster experimental design skills in students, reflected a teacher resource, while curriculum itself served as a resource that provided a "blueprint" for the activity (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>]). This example reflects shared agency between the personal resources (goals, abilities, knowledge) and the curricular resources (procedures, materials) that informed her decision to adapt the original curriculum. In identifying the underlying resources that informed her use decisions, Brown was able to speak to her instructional capacity for inquiry‐based instruction (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>])—that is, PDC. An outcome‐based approach cannot speak to the underlying factors that went into curriculum use decisions; rather, an outcome‐based approach can only speak to change in teacher practice. Thus, PDC adds coherency to existing curriculum theory, extending existing theory by providing a model that speaks to the underlying processes of curriculum use.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-6">Design Capacity for Enactment Framework</hd> <p>While PDC is concerned with characterizing teachers' skill in interpreting and working with curriculum materials, the Design Capacity for Enactment (DCE) framework provides an analytic model that allows for the systematic interpretation of curriculum use to evaluate PDC development. Brown described the relationship between PDC and the DCE framework in the following way (p. 452):</p> <p>Pedagogical design capacity (PDC) provides a way of evaluating how individual teachers perceive and mobilize the instructional resources described by the Design Capacity for Enactment framework. While the framework provides a means for describing the resources that influence teachers' use of materials, pedagogical design capacity characterizes their skill in interpreting and working with such resources.</p> <p>In other words, PDC is the conceptual framework for describing curriculum use decisions and the DCE framework is the underlying scheme that defines the resources teachers draw upon for instruction. The DCE framework allows for describing interactions between resources that mediate decisions to use materials as written or to modify them to achieve instructional goals.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-7">Characteristic Features of the DCE Framework</hd> <p>In the DCE framework (Figure 1), curricular resources are defined in terms of physical objects and their representations (e.g., textbooks, instructional materials), written procedures, and domain representations (graphs, diagrams, etc.) that support curriculum use (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]). Teacher resources are defined in terms of the intellectual dispositions and motivations teachers bring to instruction (goals, beliefs), the skills and abilities (subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge) teachers have for how to teach concepts, and teachers' content knowledge (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]). In establishing and defining resources, the DCE Framework makes it possible to identify the differential degree to which responsibility for guiding instructional activity is distributed between the curricular resources available to teachers and the intellectual resources teachers bring to its use. In identifying how intellectual and curricular resources interact, the DCE Framework provides a way to explain resource interactions that inform teachers' decisions to use curriculum materials as written (offload), modify it slightly while maintaining the general goals (adapt), or to introduce new ideas into the curriculum (improvise) (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01mar25/sce21908-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21908-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The DCE framework, from Teaching and design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. Reprinted with permission Brown and Edelson ([6], p. 4)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183867410-9">Nature of PDC Development</hd> <p>PDC, and the DCE framework that describes it, represents a conceptual reframing of the relationship between teachers' use of materials in that it provides a way to generate explanatory models of the process of curriculum design activity (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>]). In mapping decisions for how to use curriculum materials to resources interactions, the DCE Framework allows us to speak to the process of PDC development. Specifically, "<emph>how individual teachers perceive and mobilize instructional resources</emph>" and how this, in turn, allows researchers to "<emph>characterize teachers' skill in interpreting and working with such resources</emph>" (Brown [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>], p. 452), provides a way to describe teachers' design capacity and understand how their PDC evolves through design activity. Importantly, this conceptual framing also blurs the traditional boundary between curriculum design and curriculum use because a focus on resource interactions "implies that the curriculum resources afford and constrain teachers' use of curriculum resources while, simultaneously, the characteristics of the teacher and the context within which teaching takes place also influence the use of the curriculum resources" (Choppin et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>], p. 80). This perspective assumes that teachers act as more than implementers of the curriculum as they interpret, modify, and adapt curriculum—that is, they engage in design activity (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]). Teachers exhibit a range of knowledge and skills in perceiving and mobilizing resources for instruction to achieve their goals (Remillard and Heck [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]), PDC provides an important model for explaining the differential ways teachers utilize the same curriculum materials (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]). In this paper, we extend the PDC literature by exploring PDC development within collaborative design work.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-10">Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Construct for Collaborative PDC Development</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183867410-11">Learning in Social Context</hd> <p>As participants engage in tasks, they interpret situations, events, objects, or discourses in relation to their previous knowledge and experience (Zittoun and Brinkmann [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]). Similarly, when people work collaboratively, they build group‐level understandings upon individual ideas, insights, and experiences to inform and form new understandings (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]). These understandings live alongside and inform collective understanding, creating opportunities for new insights and knowledge (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). Thus, collaboration adds an additional dimension to individual knowledge and experience (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]). Distributed cognition provides a way of theoretically framing how knowledge is co‐constructed as information is distributed and transformed across systems (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-12">Distributed Cognition</hd> <p>Distributed cognition is a theoretical approach to learning that conceives of learning as taking place through interactions with others, interactions with cultural artifacts in their environment (Xu and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]), and through interactions with representational tools such as language and symbols (Karasavvidis [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). The term "distributed" refers to cognition that is spread across systems in some way, "this means a group of people working together is a distributed system" (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>], p. 376). The term "cognition" refers to mental processes associated with thinking, understanding, problem‐solving, and acquiring knowledge. Distributed cognition conceives of information as being embodied in representations (Zhang and Norman [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref51">43</reflink>]). To say cognition is "embodied" means it is dependent upon features of the physical body of an object or environment. Distributed cognition also considers the boundaries around people engaged in a task to be permeable (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>], p. 377):</p> <p>Just as physical labor can be distributed among persons; cognitive labor can also be distributed among persons. This distribution of cognitive labor is always mediated by human interaction. It relies on human sociality and forms the context for sociality and its development.</p> <p>In conceiving of cognition as a distributed system, there are three implications for PDC development within social context. First, knowledge is distributed across both material and social dimensions of a cognitive system (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]; Karasavvidis [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]; Pea [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref55">26</reflink>]). The material dimension refers to physical tools, both human‐made and naturally occurring (Pea [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]). The social dimension refers to the context within which an activity takes place, including social interactions (Pea [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]). Interactions between social and material resources act as "transformers of cognitive systems" in the learning process (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>], p. 378), that is, material and social factors can serve as resources to transform cognitive processes, making a task more difficult or less difficult (Choppin et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]; Pea [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]) by increasing or decreasing the cognitive load required by a task (Choppin et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, social groups can have cognitive properties distinct from the individuals that make up the group (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]; Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref63">24</reflink>]). The implication of distributed cognition for PDC development is that when groups collaborate, their group‐level knowledge is built as individuals' knowledge shifts due to interactions between group members (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref64">24</reflink>]). This individual knowledge draws on a combination of "everyday knowledge" and formal knowledge by iteratively proposing and connecting different ideas on the subject (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>], p. 192). In other words, for a group to progress through a given task, there is an on‐going process of negotiation and co‐construction of shared knowledge (Odden and Russ [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref66">24</reflink>], paraphrasing van de Sande and Greeno [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, a cognitive system is not only distributed across people and material resources, it can also be distributed across time (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref68">13</reflink>]). Learning does not take place in a vacuum; rather, it is situated within a broader context of social practices (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>]). People draw upon previous knowledge and experiences to inform thinking in a new context (Reyes and Wortham [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref70">32</reflink>]). As such, learning involves movement of people and ideas within and across contexts (Gutiérrez [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]; Reyes and Wortham [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref72">32</reflink>]). Across time and space, ideas evolve, and new possibilities arise (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref73">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawing on these understandings of distributed cognition and learning, this study seeks to expand the focus of PDC, extending it from a singular focus on individual teachers to understanding how design activity is distributed across groups of people, as well as material and social resources. Through an exploration of the work of a team of teachers engaged in curriculum redesign, we suggest modifications of the original DCE Framework to bring social resources involved in collaborative curriculum design activity on par with the curricular and intellectual resources identified in the original framework.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-13">Methods</hd> <p>This case study occurred during the third year of a large, National Science Foundation‐funded PD program where teachers completed a 3‐week summer PD where they learned about integrated STEM curriculum guided by specific integrated STEM frameworks (Moore, Stohlmann, et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref74">22</reflink>]; Moore, Glancy, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). The PD culminated in teams of teachers (Grades 4–9) co‐designing a STEM curriculum unit. During the school year, each team member implemented the unit. Following implementation, the teams met to examine the student work and revise the curriculum. The post‐implementation work was facilitated by a STEM education graduate student serving as a coach to one or more teacher design teams.</p> <p>The teams' work used protocols to provide structure for examination of student work and redesign of their curriculum. A protocol is a set of agreed‐upon procedures used to accomplish a task, in a manner that establishes norms and ensures equity of participation (McDonald et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref76">20</reflink>]). Specifically, the study utilized two protocols. The first protocol, the <emph>Looking at Student Work Protocol</emph>, was adapted from one widely available through the National School Reform Faculty (https://<ulink href="http://www.nsrfharmony.org/">www.nsrfharmony.org/</ulink>). The second protocol, The <emph>Thinking Through a Task Protocol</emph> was adapted from the <emph>Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol</emph> (Smith, Bill, and Hughes [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-14">Participants</hd> <p>This study uses data from the two elementary teacher design teams. The participants worked in the same large, urban district. Team <emph>Do‐It‐Yourself Stringed Instruments</emph> (DIY) was composed of two teachers who did not teach in the same school, and their coach. Kathryn taught fifth grade in a school where 68% of students qualify for free‐or‐reduced lunch. The student body is 39% African American, 35% White, 12% Asian, 11% Hispanic, and 3% Native American. Matthew taught second grade in a school where 70% of students qualify for free‐or‐reduced lunch. The student body is 56% African American, 25% White, 14% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 1% Native American. Their STEM curriculum consisted of six lessons that addressed third and fifth grade science standards, which called for students to use their knowledge of the properties of sound to create a stringed instrument that was creative, cost‐effective and could attain four levels of pitch (Table 1).</p> <p>Team <emph>Powered by Renewable Energy</emph> (PbRE) was composed of two teachers who co‐taught a K–5 STEM class, and the lead author as the team's coach. They worked in a school where 26% of students qualify for free‐or‐reduced lunch. The student body is 69% White, 21% African American, 6% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. Their curriculum consisted of seven lessons that addressed fourth and fifth grade science standards, where students were tasked with figuring out the best renewable resource to power a mobile hospital to serve rural areas (Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-15">Lead Author's Role as Participant Observer</hd> <p>The lead author's role was multifaceted as researcher, facilitator, and participant observer for all teams, and as the coach for Team PbRE. In addition, the lead author was a graduate student enrolled in a STEM PhD program and a district leader, bringing both expertise and collegial connections to the study participants. These roles are shaped by participation. As a graduate student, the author participated in coaching training, and worked closely with Team PbRE as their coach. The author did not have previous working relationships with any of the teachers before this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-16">Coauthor's Positionality</hd> <p>The coauthor has extensive experience with STEM education, serving as a co‐PI on the NSF grant that supported the professional development work. She was a codeveloper of the integrated STEM framework underpinning the work and led the coaching aspects of the project. She met weekly to review the the development of assertions and meta‐assertions throughout the coding process.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-17">Data Collection</hd> <p>The results presented in this article are based on analysis of videos recorded during the <emph>Looking at Student Work</emph> sessions following implementation and the curriculum redesign sessions that took place at the end of the school year. The co‐designed curriculum served as secondary data and included lesson plans, rubrics, and student materials.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-18">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The study utilized both inductive and deductive analysis strategies across two cycles of coding followed by cross‐case analysis. For first cycle coding, we used Holistic Coding to get an overall sense of the data (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]). First cycle coding involved sorting data into conceptual categories related to the DCE framework (curricular resources, teacher resources, and offloading, adapting, and improvising). For second cycle coding we used a combination of Focused Coding, followed by Pattern Coding (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>]). Second cycle coding involved identifying patterns and refining the data into thematic categories. We use the terms "pattern" and "theme" in the manner described by Patton ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]) where a pattern is a descriptive finding, and a theme is more categorical or topical. For example, in our data, we identified instances where teachers offloaded, adapted, or improvised with the curriculum materials, as well as identifying the resources they drew on to inform their decisions. For example, if they drew on ideas presented during the summer PD it was a curricular resource, if they drew on previous teaching experience, it was a teacher resource.</p> <p>1 Table Team DIY participants and their roles within the teacher design team.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Name</th><th>Experience</th><th>Position</th><th>Gender</th><th>Team role</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Alexa</td><td>16 years</td><td>EngrTEAMS</td><td>Female</td><td>Facilitator</td></tr><tr><td>Kathryn</td><td>6 years</td><td>Fifth grade</td><td>Female</td><td>Participant</td></tr><tr><td>Kurt</td><td>20 years</td><td>EngrTEAMS</td><td>Male</td><td>Coach</td></tr><tr><td>Matthew</td><td>20 years</td><td>Second/third loop</td><td>Male</td><td>Participant</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Table Team PbRE participants and their roles within the teacher design team.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Name</th><th>Experience</th><th>Position</th><th>Gender</th><th>Team role</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Alexa</td><td>16 years</td><td>EngrTEAMS</td><td>Female</td><td>Coach, Facilitator</td></tr><tr><td>Janice</td><td>5 years</td><td>K–5 STEM</td><td>Female</td><td>Participant</td></tr><tr><td>George</td><td>8 years</td><td>ELL</td><td>Male</td><td>Participant</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This iterative process also allowed us to identify unanticipated patterns that emerged from the data. For example, early in our analysis, protocols emerged as a resource that did not fit the original DCE analytic framework since the protocols were neither a curricular resource nor a resource the teachers brought to the process. Recognizing that, as teachers made redesign decisions, they were not simply drawing upon the instructional resources (e.g., curriculum, PD) or the personal resources (e.g., goals, pedagogical knowledge), they also drew upon each other as resources, a new code of "collaborative resources" was developed. Analysis revealed 19 patterns related to the nature of collaborative resources in STEM PDC, which are presented here as assertions. These 19 assertions were further refined during cross‐case analysis into the three themes of storytelling, protocols, and assessment, presented as meta‐Assertions (see Table 3).</p> <p>3 Table Meta‐assertions and corresponding assertions that resulted from cross‐case analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Meta‐Assertion 1The use and facilitation of protocols serve as collaborative resources by providing prompts that introduce new ways of thinking about curricular ideas.</td></tr><tr><td>Assertion 1The use of a protocol for examining student work makes classroom practice visible.Assertion 2Facilitation strategies afford collaboration and refinement of curriculum.Assertion 5Variations in teacher's goals, beliefs, and experiences surface in response to the protocol, and reveal the underlying issues that influence design and use decisions.Assertion 7Facilitation creates opportunities to shift teachers' thinking about curriculum for their classroom towards curriculum for others and serves as a resource for PDC development.Assertion 8The protocol surfaces different goals and values for assessment practices in their classroom in relation to the co‐developed curriculum.Assertion 9Flexibility in protocol use supports the redesign of curriculum specific to assessment.Assertion 13Directive facilitation strategies push the teams to move beyond thinking of curriculum design for their classroom only and consider curriculum design for other teachers.Assertion 17Interactions between classroom‐level and curriculum‐level design activities require creative facilitation strategies.</td></tr><tr><td>Meta‐Assertion 2Assessment "for" curriculum serves as a collaborative resource by shifting the perspective from classroom tasks toward evaluation of curricular ideas.</td></tr><tr><td>Assertion 8The protocol surfaces different goals and values for assessment practices in their own classroom for assessment in relation to the co‐developed curriculum.Assertion 9Flexibility in protocol use supports redesign of curriculum specific to assessment.Assertion 10Coming to understand STEM assessment serves as a collaborative tool that mediates STEM PDC development.Assertion 11Combining iterative design of assessment tools with an evaluation of student work, affords adaptations and improvisations to the STEM curriculum.Assertion 12Improvisations to STEM assessment mediate adaptations to other lessons within the STEM curriculum and inform STEM PDC development.Assertion 14Teachers' beliefs about assessment for student learning constrain collaboration and refinement of the curriculum.Assertion 15The Looking at Student Work protocol mediates close analysis of student artifacts that supports teacher' ability to evaluate student learning.</td></tr><tr><td>Meta‐Assertion 3Storytelling serves as a collaborative resource by bridging the gap between classroom experiences and curriculum development.</td></tr><tr><td>Assertion 3Making classroom practice visible surfaces problems with the curriculum, solutions to them, and creates opportunities for improvement.Assertion 4Storytelling mediates development of STEM PDC.Assertion 6Customizing the co‐developed curriculum through sharing classroom improvisations, refines understanding of the STEM curriculum.Assertion 16Beliefs about the individualized nature of teaching constrains collaborative curriculum development.Assertion 18Teachers draw upon their personal resources to address perceived weaknesses in the curriculum and share solutions through storytelling.Assertion 19Parallel storytelling serves as a mediating tool to deepen understanding of student learning and STEM curriculum.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183867410-19">Results</hd> <p>In the following section, we describe each meta‐assertion through vignettes that illustrates how protocols, assessment and storytelling emerged as collaborative resources. The intention of the vignettes is not to provide an exhaustive accounting of all of the assertions. However, throughout each vignette, we indicate the specific assertions identified to aid the reader in understanding how assertions align with the proposed new cDCE framework.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-20">Vignette 1, Part 1: Protocols as Collaborative Resources (Meta‐Assertion 1)</hd> <p>The following excerpt, from Team DIY, took place at the beginning of their curriculum redesign session in response to the protocol prompt, "<emph>How will you model use of academic language, skills, and content for students?</emph>" We use this excerpt as a representative example showing how the prompt wording emerged as a collaborative resource.</p> <p> <emph>KATHRYN: I really had to think about this section. So, you guys will probably add a lot to it. Um, 'how will you model the use of academic language skills in content for students?' Um, I kind of put it into discussion with each group. Since we kind of started it off with the engineering design process and went back to it at the end, I said, 'through the different lessons after the initial design process that modeling,' coming to it almost afterwards</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: I had something very similar to what you had, Kathryn. I wrote, 'regular modeling of the use of content‐specific terms throughout the lessons and with each group</emph>.</p> <p>The prompt's use of the word "modeling" in reference to academic language gave Kathryn pause, causing her to reconsider what she knew about academic language development (Assertions 1 and 5). As she noted, "I really had to think about this section." Her uncertainty about how to respond to the prompt led her to open the conversation up to others on the team (Assertion 8) "So, you guys will probably add a lot to it," drawing on her peers as a collaborative resource. However, the issue remained unresolved until later in the session when she again raised the issue. The following excerpt took place toward the end of the redesign session and demonstrates how facilitation of the protocol‐guided session emerged as a collaborative resource.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-21">Vignette 1, Part 2</hd> <p> <emph>KATHRYN: That first question, that was the last question I ended up filling out because I was like, 'how will you model it?' I was like, 'well you use it!' It's just hard to write down how to model it</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW & KURT (nodding in agreement): Yup</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>KATHRYN: You're like, that's kind of challenging to do</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>ALEXA [team coach]: Well, we sure can talk about it if you want. I'm thinking in particular of something Matthew said a long time ago [looking at Matthew]. After you implemented, you talked about having the kids' model with their bodies. Do you remember that?</emph> </p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: Let me think</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>ALEXA: You had them be waves or something</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: Oh, right. I think what we did, we both did that in our lesson too. We did like a stadium wave and pulses [teachers begin to gesture, moving their arms with a wave‐likewavelike motion and opening and closing hands]</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>KURT: Pulses. You send a pulse. You have everyone hold hands and then you send a pulse around the circle</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>ALEXA: To me that's a way of modeling it too</emph>.</p> <p>In designing their STEM curriculum, Matthew and Kathryn included a lesson on how sound travels. As part of that lesson, they utilized the pedagogical strategy of having students physically model how sound travels by having students stand in a circle and pass an object from person‐to‐person. The decision to physically model how sound travels was viewed as an example of pedagogical content knowledge within the broader category of teacher resources. It was only later, during curriculum redesign, when the protocol prompt initiated a point of confusion, that the team paused to consider the broader purpose behind the activity (Assertions 7 and 17). In the first part of Vignette 1, the protocol served as a collaborative resource by causing the team to pause and consider what it means to "model" academic language (Assertion 5), leaving the question unresolved. In the second part of Vignette 1, the team revisited their earlier point of confusion, further interrogating the relationship between the lesson and its broader purpose within the curriculum. Rather than leaving the point unresolved, the facilitator posed a possible "answer" (Assertions 7 and 13). In this sense, facilitation through the protocol served as collaborative resources to help the team think about how the learning activity, they had designed fit into the broader curricular purpose to support academic language development.</p> <p>Across the protocol‐guided process, the team grew their PDC by transforming their "tacit knowledge" (Polanyi [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]) of how to make an abstract concept like how light travels more concrete by enabling the team to articulate the activity's purpose beyond a single activity within a lesson, extending the classroom‐level activity to redesign of the curriculum unit. The vignette also emphasizes an important point about PDC development (Assertion 7): it is not defined by a single moment, nor is it a linear process; rather, it unfolds in response to the interests and attention of group members as they try to clarify and make sense of a point of confusion or resolve a problem. Sometimes the prompts were addressed, and the team moved on. Other times, such as in this vignette, responses to the protocol prompts were initially uncertain and the uncertainty arose again in subsequent conversations. These moments of uncertainty introduced opportunities for the team to think more deeply about their original ideas and gain new insights about integrated STEM curriculum (Assertion 7). As this example illustrates, the protocol and its facilitation served as a collaborative resource by holding ideas up for collaborative examination and supporting PDC development.</p> <p>One of the unique contributions of PDC to curriculum theory is the focus on process, rather than outcomes. PDC development occurs through conversation over time—in this case, we can pinpoint the protocol prompt as initiating the need to consider the use of academic language within the curriculum, this conversation continued over the course of the redesign session with Part 2 of Vignette 1 showing the team continuing to make sense of how modeling academic language applies to their curriculum. We argue this is PDC development in action, even though we cannot conclude that the teachers learned "X" through grappling with and making sense of the protocol prompt, we can argue that the process of sensemaking is the process of evolving PDC development.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-22">Vignette 2: Assessment "for" STEM Curriculum (Meta‐Assertion 2)</hd> <p>Rubrics are typically designed to align teaching with learning outcomes by interpreting and grading students' work against clearly defined criteria (UNSW Sydney [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]). During our analysis, we noticed that the teams sometimes used their assessment rubric, not solely for the purpose of evaluating student learning, but also as a tool for evaluation of their curriculum. In doing so, the rubric's purpose shifted from assessment "of" student learning to assessment "for" curriculum redesign. In the following, we present a series of vignettes from several of Team PbRE's curriculum redesign sessions to illustrate the distinction between assessment "of" student learning and assessment "for" curriculum design, as well as demonstrate how we came to define the Assessment category as a collaborative resource. The following took place at Team PbRE's initial <emph>Looking at Student Work</emph> session and began with the team using the first iteration of their assessment tool. The underlined portions are student responses.</p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: So, we started off with, 'who needs what, because why.' Then after they came up with 'who needs what because why' in their groups, when we did our client letter, they also wrote down other questions that they would have in order to answer that question. Then, the next part, we did a card sort activity with renewable, non‐renewable and recyclable...</emph> </p> <p> <emph>JANICE (reading from the assessment "rubric"):'Wind is the best renewable resource because it is available all over Minnesota and you can get everywhere and wind.' So, they're missing the data. Let's see what this one says [reading from student notebook], 'Wind is the best renewable resource because it produces the most energy and it is available in the areas, we need it to be in Northern Minnesota.'</emph> </p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: That's what we wanted, available and produced the most energy was the language I was looking for</emph>.</p> <p>In Vignette 2, the use of a rubric shifted away from evaluation of student learning toward applying it to evaluate the curriculum (Assertion 15). We view this as a modified use of curricular materials that did not fit the original DCE framework, transforming the rubric's function as a curricular resource for evaluating student learning into a collaborative resource for curriculum redesign.</p> <p>The <emph>Looking at Student Work</emph> session began as planned, evaluating student work to determine the extent to which learning goals were met (Assertion 8). This reflects assessment "of" student learning. During the process, Team PbRE became aware that they were only evaluating the science component of what they had taught—understanding of renewable, nonrenewable, and recycled resources (Assertion 10). They also realized that their assessment was not a rubric per se and decided to create one. In response to the decision that they needed to create a rubric that defined the learning criteria, George responded in the following manner:</p> <p> <emph>I thought that would make more sense [to design the rubric together] because what we were thinking is what we have now would need to be pared down, so... I almost think that the development of the rubric would inform it. It's almost like the backwards planning thing. What we want them to know goes back to what are we gonna take out, what are we going to pare down</emph>.</p> <p>In this excerpt, we can see how the process of formalizing what the team wanted students to know and be able to do begins to shift from assessment "of" student learning to assessment "for" curriculum redesign. Specifically, George's comments about the "backwards planning thing," reflects his PDC for curriculum planning (Assertions 11 and 12) in that the term is a reflection of a common lesson planning strategy introduced by educators Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref83">40</reflink>]), which provides a framework for planning lessons by starting at the end in mind. George's comment also reflects a shift from classroom‐level thinking—that is, evaluation of student work—toward curriculum‐level thinking, in that considering what to leave in the curriculum and what to remove suggests attention to the scope and sequence. The team began the process of creating a rubric by listing what they wanted students to know and be able to do (Assertion 9), coming up with the criteria listed in Table 4.</p> <p>4 Table Learning outcomes for powered by renewable energy unit.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Content knowledge (know)</th><th>Skills (do)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Engineering: Build Wind Turbine blade prototypes</td><td>Guiding Principal: Team building—scrap the "lone genius" model.</td></tr><tr><td>Science: Physical (conceptual)Renewable energy and nonrenewable energy, resources, recyclable</td><td>Spin, rotation, energy, solar energy, process, angle Variable Identification: pitch, surface area, number of blades, shape</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics: Numerical (mathematical)Surface area, Measuring energy, Angle measurement</td><td>Measurement</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Language connections (WIDA scale)Rural, infrastructure (map reading)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The team finished the protocol‐guided session by creating a rubric that they planned to reimplement with a new group of students. The following discussion took place in the next <emph>Looking at Student Work</emph> session:</p> <p> <emph>JANICE: So, we decided to write a letter back to them [the client]. So, I did a fill‐in‐the‐blank letter, and this was my first form. "Dear Company and University, we discovered that renewable resources are ______ and recyclable resources are ______</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>ALEXA: K</emph> </p> <p> <emph>JANICE: Um, and then George saw it and added to it</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: Tweaked, just tweaked it</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>JANICE: Tweaked it, to make it more language friendly, and this class, by far, performed the worst. I really think it's because of that language piece. But our kids did really well in general</emph>.</p> <p>Whereas the original iteration of the assessment reflected a focus only on science (renewable, nonrenewable, recyclable resources), the second iteration also reflected the real‐world context they had established for the engineering design challenge (Assertion 11). Lesson 1 of the PbRE unit started with a Design Brief where students were introduced to the design challenge (power a mobile hospital) and design criteria (to design wind turbine blades, pick up the most washers) and constraints (renewable energy [wind], time). In addition to Making the assessment more authentic by adding a real‐world context, using a client letter to revisit the original design criteria ensured the assessment was more closely aligned with their goal of integrating science, engineering, and mathematics (Assertion 12). In this case, they modified the assessment to reflect integration of science and engineering. We argue these modifications illustrate how design decisions were informed by the process of collaboratively creating the rubric, which in turn was the result of interactions between teacher resources (goals for ELL students, use of sentence frames), curricular resources (real‐world context, integrated STEM frameworks learned at the summer PD) and the collaborative resources (co‐developed rubric, each other) (Assertion 10). In terms of PDC development, the interactions between curricular resources, teacher resources and collaborative resources demonstrate PDC development related to how to assess integration of multiple content areas (science and energy) and resulted in greater alignment between the assessment tool and their curricular goals for the unit. The client letter maintained the idea of using sentence frames to embed support for academic language development, but in returning to the original Design Brief, the team also embedded their original science, engineering and mathematics integration goals (Assertions 10 and 12).</p> <p>In the excerpt that follows, teachers were discussing a point in the curriculum where students had utilized their knowledge of science to determine that wind is the best renewable resource, built wind turbine blades, and tested the energy output of their prototypes by experimenting with how many washers their prototypes can lift. The team turned their attention to mathematics integration and assessment more generally.</p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: Going forward, we're going to have them measure surface area. When you have blades that are just free‐handed and you're cutting them and they're not all uniform, it gets really difficult. So, we talked about how we would have to have them uniform. Either use 90‐degree angles or something that would work</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>JANICE: Or shapes that you can find the surface area with 5th grade math skills</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: Ya because there's really like two assessments, right? There's this [gesturing to the sentence starters], which they need to know that stuff for. But really, I'm just thinking, 'do I need to know that [science] if I make a blade and it worked and it picked up 116 washers?' Could I still turn around and say, 'I don't know what renewable, recyclable and non‐renewable is?' Probably. So, really, it's a combination of the stuff on this [sentence starters], which guarantees that they know that...</emph> </p> <p> <emph>JANICE: Our client letter said they needed to build a mobile hospital through a renewable resource. Then you have to know the renewable resource and know wind. You had to look at the map to know wind was the one to choose. Then after knowing wind, now I can go build the wind turbine. So, they kind of built on each other</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>GEORGE: I guess I was just trying to imagine somebody who just kind of drifted through that and just got into the building. I might not know, or if I arrived late, I can still be building a turbine and not know that stuff. But if I'm expected to write this at the end, then I do need to know that, right? Because we say clearly, what is recyclable? So, I guess what I'm saying is, if we use these, if we talk about these two assessments, about the building of the turbine and making it pick stuff up is one assessment, then this written assessment, if we look at them as a dual post‐assessment, then I agree with you. They have to know. If we start looking at them separately, then I think, you know what I mean? So, we have to say that this assessment goes together with the building of that thing and then, yes. You need to know what recyclable and renewable means</emph>.</p> <p>In this excerpt, we see how the team has further refined their ideas about how to reflect their integration goals into the assessment, now reflecting integration of science, engineering design, and mathematics (Assertions 11 and 15). The engineering design challenge depends on students prototyping wind turbine blades (shape, size, blade angle, surface area) and testing their designs by picking up washers (energy output). In the excerpt above, George and Janice recognized that the students had not controlled the variables involved in designing the wind turbine blades, specifically the surface area of the blades (Assertion 15). As a result, it was a problem for testing the prototype designs because it made it impossible to tell how well the prototype addressed the original design challenge problem statement. The literature suggests that PDC develops as individual teachers respond to student thinking to address unanticipated moments that arise during instruction, which in turn result in new ideas or insights that mediate their decisions to modify curriculum materials (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]; Choppin et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]). We see this reflected in how the unanticipated problem that arose during implementation with students "free‐hand[ing]" wind turbine blades, instead of using mathematics to calculate the shape of the wind turbine blades and scientific practices to control variables. The collaborative decision to modify curriculum materials was the result of interactions between personal resources (knowledge of students), curricular resources (integration goals) and collaborative resources (summer PD, insights from developing the assessment tool) to refine their ideas about integrated STEM learning activities and the redesign of the assessment to more accurately reflect what they had actually taught (Assertions 11 and 12). Thus, assessment "for" STEM curriculum served as a collaborative resource that initiated new ideas and insights about how to assess the iterative, integrated nature of the engineering design process in a manner that incorporated students' understanding of the relevant science, engineering, and mathematics content (Assertion 10).</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-23">Vignette 3, Part 1: Storytelling as a Collaborative Resource (Meta‐Assertion 3)</hd> <p>The literature suggests that teachers commonly use stories to exchange advice, share ideas, and make sense of their classroom experiences, and foster collegiality, and create shared understanding (Shank [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref86">34</reflink>]). We use the notion of stories in this sense. In Vignette 3, we use Team DIY to demonstrate how storytelling emerged as a collaborative resource to make collective sense of classroom events and their implications for curriculum redesign. Throughout the redesign sessions, the teachers' narrated stories of their classroom implementation of the integrated STEM unit and other STEM units they had implemented in the past. The incident took place during Team DIY's first protocol‐guided session as they attempted to score their students' stringed instrument prototypes.</p> <p> <emph>KURT (team coach): I just realized we're going through with cost</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: So, Kathryn, when I was doing this, I had a little clipboard with all the teams and every time they got another foot of tape, I would write it down and that worked great for like three or four days. Then after a while, I was in the middle of troubleshooting and all kinds of other things, so I couldn't even keep up with this. They're like, '[I need] a bunch of tape,' I'm like, 'take one if you need it.'... I think, with 3rd graders, it might have been a little lofty to expect them to really keep track of that [budget]... Ill‐structured is one thing, there has to be enough structure so that it just doesn't turn into a complete disaster</emph>.</p> <p>Team DIY's strategy for integrating mathematics into their original curriculum mirrored what had been presented during the summer PD, which was having students keep a budget for costs associated with the prototyping materials they used. His reference to "Ill‐structured" refers to a concept discussed in the summer about the nature of engineering design challenges being inherently open‐ended, given that multiple solutions exist to real‐world problems. It is the task of the learner, rather than the teacher, to identify the goals, variables and strategies to solve the problem (Carr and Strobel [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>]). As Matthew narrates the story of his implementation, we hear his struggle to keep up with the myriad approaches and material needs of each group (Assertion 3).</p> <p>Matthew's story about why he did not have students maintain a budget is noteworthy because it reflects an in‐the‐moment decision to adapt the curriculum and includes a rationale behind his decision. He stated that his decision to omit the mathematics integration strategy was based on responding to students' needs, which we view as a teacher resource. His decision for doing so reflected the classroom dynamics that influenced his decision, namely, his need for structure (Assertion 18). This incident highlights the intersection between the "performance of teaching" and curriculum resources (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]) revealing how interactions between curricular resources (co‐developed curriculum) and teacher resources (goals) mediate decisions to use curriculum as intended or modify materials. In this case, adapting the curriculum by omitting the mathematics lesson where students were to have kept a budget.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-24">Vignette 3, Part 2</hd> <p>Vignette 3, Part 1 started with Matthew sharing a story about his implementation (Assertion 3). Matthew's story about the challenges he encountered with the mathematics‐engineering component of their co‐developed curriculum (budget) prompted him to consider an alternative mathematics integration strategy (Assertions 16 and 18), which, in turn, prompted Kathryn to share a parallel story about a similar event in her classroom (Assertion 19). Vignette 3, Part 2 picks up where the conversation left off.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: To me the most genuine math, if you think of math as measurement, was measuring hertz for the pitches, and the decibels...</emph> </p> <p> <emph>KATHRYN: Yeah. When we added it [budget], I was thinking of the Oil Spills [from the commercially available Engineering is Elementary curriculum], because I do think that [budget] does have a purpose to it, because they do need to know how to make a cost‐efficient thing [prototype] if they're wanting to sell it to a business. It needs to be cost‐efficient. You could make it what it is supposed to be. Like, one cotton ball; they're spending like a billion dollars on that cotton ball because, in that instance, that real‐life situation is actually a product. Like that is that much money. So, I think it does give them an ability to see, 'Oh, this is real.' So, like, if there is a way to think of rubber bands and then compare it to the guitar strings my husband buys for his guitars, and somehow put it so it's at that price. It makes more sense realistically. But I don't know. I like the cost piece, especially for 5th graders because they need to know how to estimate and be like, 'Okay, well I spent this much money already,' and they need to realize that they have to keep track of it. That's part of their curriculum</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: I like the activity in general, but it was a LOT of running around and rescuing projects and then, holy cow it's time to clean up, and now I have to put all of these somewhere</emph>.</p> <p>The excerpt begins when Matthew tells a quick story of the hectic nature of keeping a budget and the need to trouble‐shoot the various approaches taken by each group to developing a solution ("rescuing projects") as a rationale for why he decided not to have students keep a budget (Assertions 3 and 18). He then proposed a potential, more authentic solution to the integration of mathematics, that is, measurement of the quality of the sound, through measuring pitch (shrillness or softness) and decibels (loudness) (Assertions 4 and 6). Picking up on the idea of making mathematics integration more authentic, Kathryn responded with another possible solution (Assertions 3 and 18), namely, keeping budget but making real‐world connections between the materials and associated costs (Assertions 6 and 19). The literature suggests that teachers tell stories for many reasons, one of which is to make sense of experiences (Ochs and Capps 2001). This excerpt illustrates how storytelling was a way of grappling with the issue of how to authentically integrate mathematics to make sense of how to integrate multiple content areas realistically and authentically. It also speaks to the role storytelling plays as a collaborative resource by drawing on each other's classroom experiences and ideas. As individual teachers shared stories of their classroom experience, several ideas emerged based on individuals' ideas and experience that were taken up by the group for discussion. Through social interactions in the form of stories of classroom practice, new group‐level thinking about integration emerged. While there was not necessarily consensus, the interactions surrounding the debate about budgets transformed the teachers' individual experiences into collaborative resources. As they drew on each other's experiences and ideas, the discussions surfaced new possibilities for integration of mathematics and engineering that could be brought to bear on curriculum redesign, which had not previously been considered.</p> <p>In the following excerpt, we get a closer look at the role of storytelling and how interactions between curricular, teacher and collaborative resources mediate curriculum use and design as Team DIY once again took up the issue of mathematics integration.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-25">Vignette 3, Part 3</hd> <p>The following excerpt took place after Kathryn's implementation as she responded to the question of what students need to know and be able to do to be successful.</p> <p> <emph>KATHRYN: I can give one insight, which would tie into what students need to know. So, right before we did this, we did our Geometry unit, which focused on "nets" and 'what does this object or this 3D figure look like when it's flat?' My kids [got it] right away. I think, if I didn't teach nets before, because that group was talking about nets. They were like, 'okay I know that a rectangular prism needs this, this, and this.' I did ask them, I was like, 'if we didn't just learn Geometry, would you be able to do this?' They were like, 'No, I never knew what a net was.' So, I think that it was helpful that [the design challenge] was right after our Geometry unit focused on 3D solids...</emph> </p> <p> <emph>MATTHEW: When I was working on this with my 3rd graders, I kind of let them try and fail a little bit and then, or if someone was starting to approach an idea, we just stopped. Kind of like a Workshop Model, 'Oh this is what I just noticed somebody doing,' and then did a mini lesson on what a net is. After, the kids actually started making one and so, eventually other kids got it</emph>.</p> <p>In this excerpt, mathematics integration was raised again through sharing parallel stories about improvising a mini lesson on "nets" as a mathematics integration strategy (Assertions 4 and 19). A net is a concept in Geometry that can be used to help students visualize mathematical concepts such as edges, faces and vertices by teaching students how to turn a two‐dimensional (2D) object, in this case a piece of cardboard, into a three‐dimensional (3D) object, in this case, a stringed instrument. Storytelling served as a collaborative resource is noteworthy for several reasons, including: (i) making individual classroom experiences visible to the group (Assertion 3); (ii) revealing how in‐the‐moment modifications informed the curriculum implementation and design process (Assertion 18); and (iii) showing the iterative nature of STEM PDC development (Assertion 4). Storytelling represented a significant social interaction between the teachers, both sharing individual stories and stories in response to those of others. These instances of storytelling are highlighted in Vignette 3 but are also present in Vignettes 1 and 2.</p> <p>In making classroom experiences visible through stories of classroom implementation, the teachers found common ground for the mathematics integration issue they had previously discussed—that is, unlike the budget lesson, they improvised a mathematics lesson that was doable for both third and fifth grade students. In‐the‐moment improvisations also led to an integration strategy that was authentic and directly applicable to manipulating a 2D piece of cardboard into a 3D stringed instrument, something both teachers had mentioned as being an important goal (Assertions 4, 6, and 19). Their in‐the‐moment improvisations were brought forward through stories of curriculum implementation, leading to interactions in the redesign session between teacher resources (goals, experience teaching nets), curricular resources (engineering design), and collaborative resources (parallel storytelling). It was through parallel storytelling that the teachers made designs about whether or not to modify the curriculum.</p> <p>Finally, this excerpt, combined with the previous excerpts, shows the iterative process of STEM PDC development related to the effective and authentics integration of mathematics into the engineering design challenge (Assertion 4). Initially, Team DIY's integration strategy mimicked the summer PD idea of using budget. Early on, they explored the idea of using measurement. Eventually, they came to the idea of using the geometry of nets (Assertion 6). The overall process reveals a movement between outcomes from offloading (budget), to adapting (measurement) to improvisation (nets). This process can be seen as reflecting increasing sophistication of integration ideas in the sense that it is cognitively easier to adopt a mathematics lesson that was modeled during the PD than to adapt or improvise a completely new approach for integration of science, engineering, and mathematics into the curricular unit (Assertion 4). This is not to suggest one integration strategy is "better" or "worse" than another; rather, collectively, these excerpts help us see how their skill in identifying and mobilizing resources for design activity evolved as they drew on each other as collaborative resources through storytelling (Assertion 19). Next, we discuss how the collaborative resources described above led us to develop the cDCE framework.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-26">Discussion</hd> <p>At the heart of PDC development is the conception that interactions between resources mediate how teachers use curriculum materials. To identify how resource interactions mediate curriculum use, the original analytic framing that describes PDC development identified two categories, both material in nature (curricular resources and teacher resources), that influence decisions to use curriculum as written (offloading), make small modifications (adapt), or introduce completely new components (improvise). The contribution of our work was to extend this framework by introducing a social component that mediates curriculum use and/or design when teachers collaborate in groups. We refer to this social resource category as Collaborative Resources. We further divide collaborative resources into three subcategories—storytelling, protocols, and assessment "for" curriculum use—to define the types of resources which in turn describe how teachers collaborate during curriculum design work.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-27">The cDCE Framework</hd> <p>The cDCE framework (Figure 2) preserves the components of the original framework that conceptually frames the relationship between curriculum materials and the performance of teaching—that is, curricular resources (blue), teacher resources (orange), types of curriculum use (offloading, adapting, improvising), and the instructional outcomes that result from resource interactions. The cDCE framework extends the original by integrating collaborative resources (green) and the notion that PDC applies to both curriculum use design/redesign (middle). The original framework reflects the fact that teachers interpret materials, reconcile those interpretations with their instructional goals, and accommodate the needs of their students, by adjusting and providing feedback to add, modify, or omit parts of the curriculum (Brown [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]). The expanded cDCE framework also reflects these components. We add to the curriculum use actions identified by Brown to reflect its applicability to either design or redesign activity (red).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01mar25/sce21908-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21908-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment framework." /> </p> <p></p> <p>An important implication of the original DCE framework, preserved in the expanded framework, is that interactions between resources play a key role in supporting and/or constraining decisions to offload, adapt or improvise with curriculum materials. The resources described in the cDCE framework provide a way to describe teachers' PDC—that is, their ability to perceive and mobilize instructional resources (Brown [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>])—and do so in a manner that accounts for the social context surrounding design activity. Any design activity involves situational factors with multiple possibilities for instructional outcomes. The cDCE analytic model foregrounds the social factors, placing them on par with the material and intellectual resources described in the original framework.</p> <p>In the previous section, we described the collaborative resources the teams in this study utilized as they engaged in redesign of an integrated STEM curriculum unit, and how we integrated them into the original framework, extending it to account for the social context of their design activity. In the following, we discuss the defining features of the cDCE further and the implications for curriculum theory.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-29">Defining Features of Collaborative Resources</hd> <p>A defining feature of collaborative resources is that they arise through social interactions, enabling teacher design teams to make collective sense of some real or perceived problem related to curriculum design activity and fill some gap or conflict in knowledge about how to integrate science and mathematics (authentically and practically) into an engineering design challenge. Our study also found distinct features of protocols, assessment "for" curriculum and storytelling.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-30">Protocols and Protocol Facilitation as Collaborative Resources</hd> <p>Our analysis suggests the use and facilitation of protocols serve as collaborative resources by providing prompts that introduce new ways of thinking collaboratively about curricular ideas. Perhaps this finding is not surprising, given the fact that protocols are created to support group discussion (McDonald et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref91">20</reflink>]). Nonetheless, it is instructive to see how protocols afford or constrain the processes of PDC development. These teams initially relied on a combination of information about integrated STEM curriculum from the summer PD and the teacher resources they brought to the task. For example, integrating mathematics using budget reflects curricular resources that mimicked the summer PD. The use of protocols served as a collaborative resource by triggering new ways of thinking about salient issues of teaching and learning. In the case of Team DIY, the idea that academic language can be taught by physically modeling it or, in the case of Team PbRE, to think more holistically about how to ensure assessment materials assess what was taught and not simply one component of what was taught. For these teams, it is not that the protocols introduced completely new concepts so much as that they prompted the team to think differently about their existing knowledge or pedagogy and how it related to the integrated STEM curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-31">Assessment "for" Curriculum Design as Collaborative Resources</hd> <p>In our study, assessments were described as collaborative resources in instances where they ceased being used as a tool for evaluation of student learning and, instead, became a tool for evaluation of the integrated STEM curriculum. The literature defines three areas of curriculum use: (i) the Design Arena where teachers select and design tasks; (ii) the Construction Arena where tasks are enacted in the classroom; and (iii) the Curriculum Mapping arena where the content and its scope and sequence are organized (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]). We also know from the literature that teachers typically bring expertise in the design and construction arenas because it is directly related to the daily work of teachers (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref93">30</reflink>]), and that teacher design teams often lack design expertise at the curriculum development and tend to forego evaluation of the curriculum altogether (Huizinga et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]). Our analysis suggests that assessment "for" curriculum served as a collaborative resource by shifting the team's tendency to focus on classroom tasks toward the curricular unit as a whole; thus, the use of assessments to evaluate curricular ideas helped the teams evaluate curricular ideas in ways that were helpful for alignment of what was taught and development of assessments that reflected content taught. We saw this with both teams to differing degrees, but most in‐depth with Team PbRE. For Team PbRE, the assessment rubric became a touchstone for what they wanted students to know and be able to do. This iterative process led to deepened insights into evaluation of assessment of integrated STEM ideals, including redesign of both formative and summative assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-32">Storytelling as a Collaborative Resource</hd> <p>Storytelling is, perhaps, the most surprising finding of this study because it is not typically called upon as a strategy for teacher professional learning, nor as a focus of science education research. Our study suggests that storytelling served as a cognitively useful tool to make sense of classroom experiences and create coherence between classroom‐level experiences and curriculum‐level design by reconceptualizing unanticipated or problematic aspects of integrated STEM curriculum. Thus, our analysis suggests that storytelling serves as a collaborative resource by bridging the gap between the performance of teaching and making "pedagogically productive" (Lefstein, Vedder‐Weiss, and Segal [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref95">18</reflink>]) choices for curriculum development.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-33">Conclusion</hd> <p>Findings show that individual teachers' spontaneous curriculum modifications, brought about by interactions between teacher and curricular resources, were adopted by the team during the curriculum redesign sessions. Sometimes the individual teacher's classroom experiences introduced during group discussion were taken up by the group transforming these ideas into collective resources. At these moments, the teachers effectively used each other as a third type of resource—a collaborative resource—to address unexpected challenges in designing and implementing integrating STEM instruction. These collaborative resources (protocols, assessment for curriculum design, and storytelling) describe the ways in which teachers collaborate to co‐construct new understandings about curriculum.</p> <p>As originally conceived of by Brown ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]), is for examining the underlying processes of curriculum use by individual teachers. This differs from the PDC described in our work in that the concept of PDC is expanded to include curriculum development and extends to teams of teachers. This distinction—that is, from individual curriculum use processes to collective curriculum design work—necessitates thinking about the relationship between the material resources, both physical (curricular) and intellectual (teacher), and what exists as a collective, social resource. Our findings suggest the design capacity of the teams in this study was related to an individual teacher's PDC being taken up by the group. When individual teachers made spontaneous in‐the‐moment modifications to the co‐developed curriculum, the team later found themselves grappling with how to reconcile those modifications with the overall curricular unit in a way that remained consistent with their classroom experiences. Thus, classroom‐level design activities were transformed into collective resources, prompting the team to rethink their integrated STEM curriculum. Sometimes, the shift was productive, suggesting a more authentic way to integrate science, mathematics and/or engineering. At other times, the changes did not result in a more productive approach for redesigning the curriculum. Regardless, grappling with real or perceived problems in their original curriculum sparked moments of collective sensemaking. Thus, we see the relationship between the individual, material resources, and the collective, social resources, as serving to bridge the gap between classroom‐level curriculum use and curriculum‐level design activities, thereby enhancing their collective capacity for designing and utilizing integrated STEM curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-34">The cDCE Framework: An Analytic Model for PDC Development in Social Context</hd> <p>Distributed cognition, and sociocultural theory more generally, has long emphasized the idea that learning is not an individual act; rather, it is part of an interacting system of socially mediated learning by which participants draw upon cognitive resources (Pea [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref97">26</reflink>]). Even though the social dimension of learning has long been recognized, social factors often are backgrounded either by ignoring them or acknowledging their importance, but without an analytic emphasis. Our work fills this gap, conceptualizing collaborative resources and identifying three types of collaborative resources in the context of a teacher professional development opportunity.</p> <p>Every social interaction has the potential to afford or constrain design decisions. Brown ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref98">4</reflink>]) goal was to understand the relationship between the performance of teaching and curriculum use. To this end, he introduced the concept of PDC development, and an analytic model based on resource interactions as the unit of analysis to describe teachers' design capacity. Our purpose was to extend the PDC literature by understanding how social interactions can be conceptualized and represented for the purpose of analyzing the design work of teams of teachers engaged in curriculum design. The result is the cDCE framework, an analytic model for identifying and defining the collaborative resources that teachers draw upon to inform design decisions and evolve their PDC. Thus, in expanding the cDCE framework to include social factors, we argue that PDC comes conceptually into closer alignment with sociocultural theory.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-35">Implications</hd> <p>The original concept of PDC held important implications for how teachers are prepared, how they gain access to appropriate materials and how researchers and school officials evaluate their enactments (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref99">6</reflink>]). The notion of PDC development in social context holds important implications for teacher preparation, on‐going teacher PD, and collaborative teams engaged in curriculum design. Given the inherent collaborative nature of teacher design teams the cDCE framework presented here has potential for broader application to the research on teacher design teams. The literature also suggests teacher design teams are beneficial for on‐going teacher learning (Handelzalts [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref100">10</reflink>]), our study suggests storytelling, protocols and assessment 'for' curriculum design hold potential for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-36">Limitations</hd> <p>The main limitation of this study is that we only examined collaborative curriculum design in one specific context, one teacher design team within the same school district. We recognize that this study cannot be generalized to all teachers and other contexts where different socio‐political factors might afford or constrain STEM PDC development differently. In addition, other types of collaborative teams engaged in design work, such as Professional Learning Communities that are common in schools, and other types of design tasks might reveal other relations that we did not find in our context.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-37">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This study was made possible by National Science Foundation grant #1238140. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0183867410-38">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.</p> <ref id="AN0183867410-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ben‐Peretz, M. 1975. " The Concept of Curriculum Potential." Curriculum Theory Network 5, no. 2 : 151 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beyer, C. 2009. "Using Reform‐Based Criteria to Support the Development of Preservice Elementary Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacity for Analyzing Science Curriculum Materials." Unpublished doctoral diss. University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Borko, H. 2004. " Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain." Educational Researcher 33, no. 8 : 3 – 15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, M. W. 2002. "Teaching by Design: Understanding the Intersection Between Teacher Practice and the Design of Curricular Innovations." Doctoral Dissertation. Northwestern University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, M. W. 2009. " The Teacher‐Tool Relationship: Theorizing the Design and Use of Curriculum Materials." In Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, edited by J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel‐Eisenmann and G. M. Lloyd, 17 – 36. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, M. W., and D. Edelson. 2003. Teaching as Design: Can We Better Understand the Ways in Which Teachers Use Materials So We Can Better Design Materials to Support Their Changes in Practice. Evanston, IL : Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carr, R. L., and J. Strobel. 2011. Integrating Engineering Design Challenges Into Secondary STEM Education. Logan, Utah : National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Choppin, J., A. Roth McDuffie, C. Drake, and J. Davis. 2018. " Curriculum Ergonomics: Conceptualizing the Interactions Between Curriculum Design and Use." International Journal of Educational Research 92 : 75 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref71" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gutiérrez, K. D. 2008. " Developing a Sociocritical Literacy in the Third Space." Reading Research Quarterly 43, no. 2 : 148 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.43.2.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Handelzalts, A. 2019. " Collaborative Curriculum Development in Teacher Design Teams." In Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning, edited by J. Pieters, J. Voogt, and N. Roblin, 159 – 173. Cham : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-20062-6_9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havnes, A. 2009. " Talk, Planning and Decision‐Making in Interdisciplinary Teacher Teams: A Case Study." Teachers and Teaching 15, no. 1 : 155 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802661360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huizinga, T., A. Handelzalts, N. Nieveen, and J. M. Voogt. 2014. " Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Design: Need for Support to Enhance Teachers' Design Expertise." Journal of Curriculum Studies 46, no. 1 : 33 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, E. 2006. " The Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human Interaction." In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, edited by N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson, 375 – 398. Oxford : Berg Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003135517.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen, F., H. Westbroek, W. Doyle, and J. van Driel. 2013. " How to Make Innovations Practical." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 115, no. 7 : 1 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0161468113115007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karasavvidis, I. 2002. " Distributed Cognition and Educational Practice." Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13, no. 1/2 : 11 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kessler, A. M., and J. Cartier. 2014. " Science Teacher Pedagogical Design Capacity With Technology in an Integrated Teacher Preparation Program." In Learning and Becoming in Practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences, edited by J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, et al., 1621 – 1622. Colorado, CO : International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2014.1621.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight‐Bardsley, A., and K. L. McNeill. 2016. " Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacity for Scientific Argumentation." Science Education 100, no. 4 : 645 – 672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lefstein, A., D. Vedder‐Weiss, and A. Segal. 2020. " Relocating Research on Teacher Learning: Toward Pedagogically Productive Talk." Educational Researcher 49, no. 5 : 360 – 368. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20922998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loucks‐Horsley, S., K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. W. Hewson. 2010. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, J. P., N. Mohr, A. Dichter, and E. C. McDonald. 2013. The Power of Protocols: An Educator's Guide to Better Practice. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, T. J., A. W. Glancy, K. M. Tank, J. A. Kersten, and K. A. Smith. 2014. " A Framework for K‐12 Engineering Education: Research and Development." Journal of Pre‐College Engineering Education Research 4, no. 1 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, T. J., M. S. G. Stohlmann, H.‐H. F. Wang, K. M. G. Tank, and G. H. Roehrig. 2014. " Implementation and Integration of Engineering in K‐12 STEM Education." In Engineering in Pre‐College Settings: Research Into Practice, edited by J. Strobel, S. Purzer, and M. Cardella. Rotterdam, the Netherlands : Sense Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC : The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odden, T. O. B., and R. S. Russ. 2018. " Defining Sensemaking: Bringing Clarity to a Fragmented Theoretical Construct." Science Education 103 : 187 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pea, R. 1993. " Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education." In Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, edited by G. Salomon, 47 – 87. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., K. Van Horne, D. DiGiacomo, and B. Kirshner. 2017. " A Social Practice Theory of Learning and Becoming Across Contexts and Time." Frontline Learning Research 4, no. 4 : 30 – 38. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i4.205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post‐Critical Philosophy. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. 2018. " Mapping the Relationship Between Written and Enacted Curriculum: Examining Teachers' Decision Making." In Invited Lectures From the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, edited by G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, et al., 483 – 500. Cham : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. T. 2005. " Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers' Use of Mathematics Curricula." Review of Educational Research 75, no. 2 : 211 – 246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. T., and D. J. Heck. 2014. " Conceptualizing the Curriculum Enactment Process in Mathematics Education." ZDM 46 : 705 – 718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes, A., and S. Wortham. 2017. " Discourse Analysis Across Events." In Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by S. Wortham, D. Kim, and S. May, 71 – 84. Cham : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shank, M. J. 2006. " Teacher Storytelling: a Means for Creating and Learning Within a Collaborative Space." Teaching and Teacher Education 22 : 711 – 721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M. S., V. Bill, and E. K. Hughes. 2008. " Thinking Through a Lesson: Successfully Implementing High‐Level Tasks." Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School 14, no. 3 : 132 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Syomwene, A. 2020. " Curriculum Theory: Characteristics and Functions." European Journal of Education Studies 7, no. 1 : 326 – 337. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3718433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNSW Sydney. (2018). UNSW Sydney Annual Report. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/attachments/publications/unsw_annual_report_2018_sps_web_r_v2_0.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Sande, C. C., and J. G. Greeno. 2012. " Achieving Alignment of Perspectival Framings in Problem‐Solving Discourse." Journal of the Learning Sciences 21, no. 1 : 1 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voogt, J., H. Westbroek, A. Handelzalts, et al. 2011. " Teacher Learning in Collaborative Curriculum Design." Teaching and Teacher Education 27, no. 8 : 1235 – 1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA : ASCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, L., and D. Clarke. 2012. " Student Difficulties in Learning Density: A Distributed Cognition Perspective." Research in Science Education 42, no. 4 : 769 – 789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9232-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yaşar, G. C., and B. Aslan. 2021. " Curriculum Theory: A Review Study." International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies 11, no. 20 : 237 – 260. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2021.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J., and D. A. Norman. 1994. " Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks." Cognitive Science 18 : 87 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zittoun, T., and S. Brinkmann. 2012. " Learning as Meaning Making." In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, edited by N. Seel, 1809 – 1811. Boston, MA : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1851.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Charlene Ellingson and Gillian Roehrig</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref95"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1460631
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An Analytic Tool for Conceptualizing Pedagogical Design Capacity within Social Context
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charlene+Ellingson%22">Charlene Ellingson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5035-6767">0000-0001-5035-6767</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gillian+Roehrig%22">Gillian Roehrig</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 109(2):339-354.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1238140
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Teachers%22">Middle School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Environment%22">Social Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ability%22">Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior%22">Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Teaching%22">Concept Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Protocol+Analysis%22">Protocol Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Evaluation%22">Curriculum Evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/sce.21908
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines an urban middle school teacher design team's capacity for creating integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula. Using Brown's pedagogical design capacity (PDC) theory, which highlights interactions between personal and curricular resources, this paper introduces an extended framework that includes social interactions as key influences on teachers' design abilities. Findings show that individual teachers' spontaneous curriculum modifications were adopted by the team, becoming collective resources for ongoing redesign and improving their design capacity. Teachers effectively used each other as resources to address unexpected challenges in integrating science, engineering, and mathematics concepts. Three types of social interactions were identified as collaborative resources: (i) Storytelling: sharing experiences to make abstract concepts actionable for curriculum development; (ii) Protocols: structured methods to address curricular problems related to integration; and (iii) Assessment "for" curriculum redesign: using assessment tools to inform and improve the curriculum. The Collective Design Capacity for Enactment framework is introduced to describe PDC within a social context, highlighting the importance of social interactions in bridging curriculum use and development, thus extending the literature on PDC.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1460631
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1460631
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/sce.21908
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 339
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Story Telling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Protocol Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Evaluation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An Analytic Tool for Conceptualizing Pedagogical Design Capacity within Social Context
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Charlene Ellingson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gillian Roehrig
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-8326
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1098-237X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 109
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1