View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Practice What You Preach: Lecturers Learning about Design-Based Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Practice What You Preach: Lecturers Learning about Design-Based Education
Language: English
Authors: Indira N. Z. Day (ORCID 0000-0002-5511-1061), Hanneke J. H. E. Assen, Tim M. Stevens, Jan D. Vermunt
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2026 51(1):387-405.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Design, Higher Education, Faculty Development, College Faculty, Teacher Attitudes, Educational Innovation
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-025-09804-1
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: Higher education programs introduce educational innovations to prepare students for their future professions. These innovations often require new lecturer roles, which in turn requires lecturers' professional development. Previous research has indicated that collective learning and congruence between the approach of the professional development and the educational innovation support lecturers' learning. The current study investigates a design-based professional development initiative, focusing on collective and congruent learning, that supports lecturers to move towards their role as facilitators in a design-based learning context. Survey and interview results reveal that lecturers had positive experiences with the four key aspects of collective learning: inquisitive dialogue, shared vision, collective action, and evaluation and reflection. However, not all factors were experienced to the same extent. The inquisitive dialogue was experienced as the most important factor, which stimulated the dialogue about the underlying principles of the educational innovation and led to meaning-oriented pedagogical activities. Not all lecturers recognized the congruence between the professional development initiative and educational innovation, but if they did, they experienced it as a positive impact on their learning. Lecturers' referenced working with colleagues as a factor that facilitated their learning, whereas a lack of time inhibited positive outcomes of the professional development initiative.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1508391
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEpdU5B0GcXqylxh7VBVD_xAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI_oQmBe04CNXF8mZwIBEICBm3Lsunt3D4I1RTlge2AZwNXx5E01nohya-ZwD6bKm2awNu9YFuKOP01rxNy2EVlZomAbdnb91c9RS_1rhEPc3wD6nDogofSXV10OtnqlK6WXX_O9jOqwKlm1PlTkGZjZiO9JcsOw4g5HHqeIPjzHLtALrJANNOZtOzhoI3RWV56cdkKtLfnf9ammOFsgAq-b1A7sWsNUNzrqEEyi
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191658344;ihe01feb.26;2026Feb20.06:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191658344-1">Practice What You Preach: Lecturers Learning About Design-Based Education </title> <p>Higher education programs introduce educational innovations to prepare students for their future professions. These innovations often require new lecturer roles, which in turn requires lecturers' professional development. Previous research has indicated that collective learning and congruence between the approach of the professional development and the educational innovation support lecturers' learning. The current study investigates a design-based professional development initiative, focusing on collective and congruent learning, that supports lecturers to move towards their role as facilitators in a design-based learning context. Survey and interview results reveal that lecturers had positive experiences with the four key aspects of collective learning: inquisitive dialogue, shared vision, collective action, and evaluation and reflection. However, not all factors were experienced to the same extent. The inquisitive dialogue was experienced as the most important factor, which stimulated the dialogue about the underlying principles of the educational innovation and led to meaning-oriented pedagogical activities. Not all lecturers recognized the congruence between the professional development initiative and educational innovation, but if they did, they experienced it as a positive impact on their learning. Lecturers' referenced working with colleagues as a factor that facilitated their learning, whereas a lack of time inhibited positive outcomes of the professional development initiative.</p> <p>Keywords: Collective Learning; Professional Development; Congruence; Higher Education; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education Studies in Human Society Sociology</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-025-09804-1.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Rapid changes in the labor market and society demand ongoing adaptation and transformation of education and remodeling of learning environments (Weitze, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]). Therefore, several Higher Education programs have focused on educational innovations based on learner-oriented approaches to teaching and learning. In these learner-oriented approaches students are empowered to direct their own learning journey, construct knowledge collaboratively and acquire skills necessary to adapt to the continual changes (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]; Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]). Subsequently, these approaches impact the role of lecturers, which changes from a subject expert and knowledge provider to a facilitator of students' learning processes. For most lecturers, adaptation to such changes poses a challenge due to its impact on their professional identity; the way they perceive their lecturer role. (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]; Assen & Otting, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; Beijaard et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Entwistle, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]; Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]). Lecturers are crucial to the successful implementation of learner-oriented educational innovations (Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref9">34</reflink>]). Therefore, it is essential to support them, through Professional Development Initiatives (PDIs). Previous studies showed that traditional PDIs rarely result in changes in lecturers' knowledge, skills, and teaching behavior (Bleicher, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]; Weitze, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref11">41</reflink>]), therefore the current study investigates an innovative PDI, focusing on collective learning and congruence.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-3">Professional Development Initiatives</hd> <p>In recent years, the focus on educational innovations in higher education has grown, yet supporting lecturers in adopting new teaching and learning strategies remains challenging (Assen & Otting, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]). A recent overview of PDIs in higher education has identified three configurations that illustrate the connection between professional development and educational innovation (Stevens et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]). The first configuration focuses on implementing an innovative educational concept and concentrates on applying pedagogical interventions in an innovative educational concept. In the second configuration lecturers'professional learning is the starting point and the development, application and evaluation of an educational innovation are learning activities. The third configuration emphasizes the development of innovative educational concepts where learning occurs as a side effect. The impact of each configuration on lecturers' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and learning and teaching approaches may vary.</p> <p>Vermunt and Endedijk ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]) emphasized that the activities used in PDI influence lecturers' learning processes. These activities could be practice-, research-, application-, and/or meaning-oriented. Practice-oriented activities build on applied skills, research-oriented on systematic problem-solving, application-oriented on applying research to practice, and meaning-oriented on providing insight into a broader meaning based on reflection and evaluation.</p> <p>Previous studies have shown that collective PDIs encourage lecturers to adopt new approaches to teaching and learning through shared, meaningful activities (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; Hinojosa-Pareja & García-Cano, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Hoekstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]; Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]). Moreover, collective learning emphasizes shared learning outcomes (Simons & De Laat, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref19">33</reflink>]). In line with Simons and De Laat ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]), Lodders ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]) describes collective learning as a process where lecturers work together to achieve common working and learning objectives, emphasizing structured, formal learning within professional contexts. Meaning-oriented collective approaches, where lecturers collectively address teaching challenges, discuss varied perspectives, and reflect on practices, have shown particular effectiveness (Assen & Otting, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]; Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]). Studies reveal that such approaches help lecturers transform their pedagogical strategies (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]; Meirink et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]) and therefore positively affect student learning (Cerbin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]; Ronfeldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Collective learning encompasses the factors inquisitive dialogue, shared vision, collective action, and evaluations/reflections (Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]). Central to these is the inquisitive dialogue, which fosters open-mindedness, critical inquiry, and the challenging of established routines (Bruggink & Harinck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]; Ros et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]). This dialogue promotes a shared understanding of teaching beliefs, supporting the development of a shared vision (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; Hoekstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]). A structured, cyclical approach to collective learning enhances the collective actions and evaluative reflections of teaching practices (De Vries, Roorda & Van Veen, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]), integrating evidence-informed facilitation strategies and peer insights to address common educational challenges (Godfrey & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). Sustainable professional development requires ongoing integration into daily practice (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]; Borko et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]; Kezar et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]). For effective collective learning, essential conditions include a safe learning culture, organizational support, and resources that account for time and workload constraints (Randel et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]; Schaap et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-4">Congruence between Lecturers' and Students' Approaches to Teaching and Learning</hd> <p>Beyond collective learning, experiencing a learner-oriented approach as learners, while participating in the PDI, can help lecturers adopt similar approaches in their teaching (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]). Professional development initiatives designed in this manner, where lecturers experience the educational innovation as students, are referred to as <emph>congruent</emph>. Experiential learning in congruent designs can also enhance lecturers' agency (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>]), or address concerns they may have about the innovation (Girvan et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, when lecturers take on a student role in a PDI, facilitators can model intended pedagogies and teaching practices, which is one of the design elements for effective professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]). An overview of the literature studying professional development for educational innovations identified congruence as a possible factor facilitating positive outcomes (Day et al., under review).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-5">Present Study</hd> <p>Previous studies show that most lecturers are more accustomed to individual learning than collective learning (Meirink et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]). Although they may share information with colleagues, their often-isolated roles lead them to address pedagogical challenges independently (Töytäri et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref47">36</reflink>]). Moreover, previous research showed that collective learning does not occur automatically (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]), and therefore, PDIs are needed to actively support and foster this kind of collaborative learning. While some understanding exists about the principles of effective PDIs (Borko et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]) and the potential of collective learning in facilitating lecturer development (Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>]), there is little clarity on how congruence between PDI, lecturers' and student's approaches to learning impacts their pedagogical strategies. This study seeks to address that gap by answering the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How did lecturers experience the four factors of collective learning, inquisitive dialogue, shared vision, collective action and evaluation & reflection, in the PDI and how did these contribute to their learning?</item> <p></p> <item> How does the congruence between student and lecturer learning approaches influence lecturers'professional and personal development in the context of innovative educational practices?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191658344-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191658344-7">Educational Innovation</hd> <p>The current study took place at a University of Applied Sciences (UAS) in The Netherlands where Design Based Education (DBE) was adopted in all programs across the university in 2018. DBE is a learner-oriented approach to teaching and learning and is built upon five learning principles which can be found in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Design Based Education learning principles at a Hotel Management School (Associate Professorship Hospitality Education, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>])</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Learning principle</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-action Learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Acting with a goal to make a positive change in the world, focusing on the common good rather than personal gain</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaborative Learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborating through shared learning among students, teachers, and industry partners</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Contextual Learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Learning at the boundary of academic and practical fields</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Constructive Learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Building knowledge and understanding by reflecting on own and others'theoretical and practical knowledge, skills, and experiences</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Designerly Learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Designing innovative solutions for real-life issues and create meaningful transformations</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In DBE, students, lecturers and industry partners learn, research and design collaboratively in so-called ateliers. They employ six iterative phases: research the challenge, determine the question, generate ideas, design a prototype, apply it and research the effect. Lecturers are expected to take on the role as atelier-facilitator and support students' learning, researching and designing processes in the ateliers. In addition, they take on the role of expert by sharing knowledge and experiences just-in-time when students need the knowledge for their learning, researching and designing processes. Consequently, tasks and activities for the lecturers were altered. Although, over the past years lecturers have gained experience with DBE and had the opportunity to follow internal courses about DBE, they still seem to have many questions about how to approach teaching and learning within DBE. Therefore, lecturers need to be supported to move to a DBE approach to teaching and learning, using a PDI.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-8">Current Professional Development Initiative: Design Based Learning Study</hd> <p>The PDI under investigation, the Design Based Learning Study (DBLS), aimed to improve lecturers' skills and knowledge about DBE and pedagogical approaches within DBE by collectively working on pedagogical issues from their own educational practice. DBLS aligns with the first configuration found by Stevens et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>]), relating to implementing an innovative educational concept to support lecturers to carry out their tasks and activities in a certain framework. Moreover, DBLS can be considered a practice-, research-, application- and meaning-oriented PDI (Vermunt & Endedijk, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>DBLS is a way of collective learning that supports lecturers in designing approaches to teaching and learning based on shared challenges derived from educational experiences in their ateliers. These challenges are related to one of the five learning principles of DBE, as mentioned in Table 1. During the meetings, lecturers collectively design, via inquisitive dialogues, a pedagogical strategy in response to the shared challenge, define what they expect from the strategy, apply it, explore the benefits for or impact on students' learning, redesign if needed and share the results of their research with the other team members. DBLS encourages systematic research and the analysis of real-life challenges to design and apply pedagogical strategies in the ateliers, while also supporting lecturers in evaluating and reflecting on their learning processes. Therefore, the design of DBLS shows congruence with DBE; lecturers in DBLS experience the same learning cycle as students in DBE. Table 2 shows how the phases from DBE relate to the DBLS.</p> <p>Table 2 Congruence between Design Based Education and Design Based Learning Study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design Based Education</p></th><th align="left"><p>Design Based Learning Study</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Research the question from practice</p></td><td align="left"><p>Explore the shared question derived from own experiences, related to one of the underlying principles</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Determine the question based on knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reformulate the question based on theoretical background</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generate ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Generate ideas</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Produce a design or prototype</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design and define what is expected from the strategy</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Apply it</p></td><td align="left"><p>Apply and observe</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Investigate the effect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Explore students' learning processes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Evaluate and reflect</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Four DBLS four-hour-sessions were scheduled. Between sessions lecturers were asked to invest four hours of preparation time for the next session. In each session, DBLS facilitators applied various activities to stimulate inquisitive dialogues. See Table 3 for a brief overview of themes for each session and preparation between sessions, a full overview of all the activities in and between sessions can be found in the supplemental material. During the final session there was also time for evaluation of the DBLS in general.</p> <p>Table 3 Setup of the DBLS sessions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Session number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Theme</p></th><th align="left"><p>Example Activity</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Session 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Formulate a shared question</p></td><td align="left"><p>Explore challenges in education</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Between sessions 1 and 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collect knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>Read literature</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Session 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Desing a collective action</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design intervention</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Before session 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collective action</p></td><td align="left"><p>Execute intervention</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Session 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Analyze collected data</p></td><td align="left"><p>Discuss data</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Session 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Evaluate and reflect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Present findings</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The learning, researching and designing processes within DBLS were guided by two facilitators. Their tasks were to support the collective learning journey by managing organizational aspects and creating a safe learning environment. Moreover, DBLS facilitators enriched the collective learning process by applying activities that encouraged the inquisitive dialogue and stimulated the cyclic and iterative learning processes. If needed, they involved knowledgeable others or shared their knowledge with the group.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-9">Participants</hd> <p>The current study took place in a bachelor program that implemented DBE in 2020. The program is divided in four learning communities, and DBLS was organized in each community. Participants of the learning community in which DBLS was organized for the first time, took part in this study. This learning community consists of 16 lecturers, who worked as atelier facilitators, and one team leader. The team leader participated as lecturer in DBLS.</p> <p>Seven people (six lecturers representing the six subgroups in the DBLS, and one of two DBLS facilitators) participated in interviews. Participating lecturers had different amounts of teaching experience, ranging from started at the UAS that academic year to thirty years. The facilitator had education and extensive experience in guiding group processes, and he was also a lecturer in the learning community under investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>To answer the research questions, lecturers participated in a survey and in interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-11">Survey</hd> <p>The 27-item Collective learning Questionnaire (CLQ) developed by Lodders ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]) was used to identify the participants' perceptions of collective learning during DBLS. This survey consists of the four factors of collective learning: Inquisitive Dialogue (6 items), Shared Vision (7 items), Collective Actions (7 items) and Evaluation and Reflection (8 items). An additional item was included with the intention of determining participants' perception of collective learning in general within the learning community both before and after the DBLS. A 4-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The survey was sent to participants by email after the program ended and was completed by 10 out of 16 lecturers of the learning community.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-12">Interviews</hd> <p>All interviews were semi-structured. Lecturers were asked about their background, experiences with and opinions about DBE, experiences of the DBLS and how they learned during the PDI and their learning outcomes. For the facilitator, the interview focused on the content of the PDI, the role of the facilitator, how lecturers learned, and what learning outcomes he perceived.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-13">Procedure</hd> <p>This study was approved by the ethical review board at Eindhoven University of Technology, reference number ERB2022ESOE8. Participants were selected for interview by a facilitator in the PDI, ensuring that all small groups were represented in the interviews. All interviewees were invited and interviewed by the first author. The DBLS facilitator was interviewed first, to help get an overview of the content and goals of the PDI. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and were recorded and automatically transcribed using Microsoft Teams. All members of the learning community participated voluntarily and were informed about the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of the research data.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-14">Data Analysis</hd> <p>For the survey, descriptive statistics were calculated. To see whether participants perceived a change in collective learning before and after the DBLS, a paired sample t-test was used.</p> <p>For the qualitative analysis a combination of deductive coding and thematic analysis was followed (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]). The four factors of collective learning and congruence were used as deductive codes, but interviews were also coded inductively using Atlas.ti 23 by the first author. The finalized list of codes was used by the second author to manually code the interviews again, and results were discussed between the two authors. To ensure reliability of coding, the third author checked quotes under three codes to determine whether text fragments were coded accurately, and whether the outcomes of the code were represented correctly in the results section.</p> <p>In general, every new section of dialogue was coded separately, and interjections of the interviewer were not coded, except for when this led to problems with interpretation of the text. Multiple codes could be applied to a single section of dialogue, for example when participants described several different learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191658344-16">Collective Learning</hd> <p>Table 4 presents an overview of the lecturers' perceptions of the collective learning factors as identified by Lodders ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]), as measured by the survey.</p> <p>Table 4 Lecturers' perceptions of collective learning after completing the DBLS N = 10</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Collective learning factors</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item example</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Inquisitive dialogue</p></td><td align="left"><p>Whenever we state our idea, we also ask what others think</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.47</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Shared vision</p></td><td align="left"><p>We educate based on coherent ideas about DBE</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collective actions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Communicating with my colleagues leads me to adapt the development of my DBE pedagogical strategies</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evaluation and Reflection</p></td><td align="left"><p>We reflect together on the way we do our work</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall Collective Learning</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean scores suggest that lecturers perceived relatively high levels of collective learning overall, since all scales showed scores higher than 2.4 out of 4. However, they seemed to experience higher levels of inquisitive dialogue and collective actions compared to shared vision and evaluation.</p> <p>When looking at lecturers' overall perception of collective learning, this was lower before the DBLS (<emph>M</emph> 2.40, <emph>SD</emph> 0.69) than after DBLS (<emph>M</emph> 3.10, <emph>SD</emph> 0.74). The paired sample t-test shows a significant difference of the perception of collective learning before and after the DBLS sessions <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>) = − 4.583; <emph>p</emph> = 0.001.</p> <p>Interviews also showed lecturers' positive perceptions of collective learning, as evidenced by these two statements from lecturer P04:<emph>It was also very collaborative, so I would say I really liked it.</emph><emph>[The intervention] is a way for us to collaborate as well. Sometimes, we feel so much work pressure that maybe we don't collaborate. So, it was a very good way to also learn about other colleagues. [Some of them] I've known for three years but I never talked about their lessons or their struggles.</emph></p> <p>Another lecturer expressed, he '<emph>gained a lot of knowledge from [his] two colleagues</emph>' (P03).</p> <p>Collaboration played a key role in their growth, as one of the lecturers mentioned '<emph>We learned a lot within the team, but certainly also in terms of team building, particularly by gaining a better understanding of each other's strengths and perspectives</emph>' (P03). Specifically, informal discussions proved just as valuable as formal meetings, encouraging the sharing of diverse viewpoints, '<emph>you exchange a lot about education, even if you run into each other at the coffee machine'</emph> (P05). These meetings deepened team learning, although lecturers also realized that working with colleagues who have '<emph>differences in how to approach education might occasionally be less successful</emph>' (P06).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-17">Inquisitive Dialogue</hd> <p>The team leader and the facilitator shared that the team '<emph>[has] the tendency to jump-into-solutions</emph>' (P03), or that they are '<emph>making decisions [...] without a clear question, a conversation, or exploring knowledge'</emph> (F01). The inquisitive dialogue helped to prevent this and the facilitator felt that this was most the most helpful element of the PDI for lecturers.</p> <p>Various tools to encourage a positive and reflective inquisitive dialogue about the learning principles were introduced, such as appreciative inquiry and positive gossip assignments. Lecturers appreciated these tools and the dialogue in general. For some of the participants, the importance of knowledge and external sources use became increasingly evident during the meetings: <emph>'I enjoy diving into the literature as well. You know, really taking the time for it? I found that to be very stimulating</emph> (P03). Although not all team members actively engaged with academic literature, as illustrated by the following statement, <emph>'Of course, I did notice how few people actually take the time to read the literature or really explore what's out there'</emph> (P03), the team showed an increasing recognition of its importance in providing a solid foundation for discussions and interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-18">Shared Vision</hd> <p>The aim of the inquisitive dialogue was to create a shared vision focused on underlying educational philosophy and the underlying learning principles. One of the atelier-facilitators described the learning principles as '<emph>the core values of our education</emph>' (P03). This indicates that they recognized the importance of the underlying learning principles for strategic pedagogical interventions in DBE. Lecturers valued the collective reflection on the learning principles with the aim to achieve educational goals. As one of the participants mentioned, '<emph>It was a good moment for us to talk about education.'</emph> (P04).</p> <p>The dialogue about the shared vision also stimulated collective team learning and supported lecturers '<emph>to understand each other's perspectives on the learning principles</emph>' (P03), since 'a <emph>dialogue about the shared vision [on the learning principles] helps us to use the same language'</emph> (P03) and '<emph>gives the team direction'</emph> (F01).</p> <p>Lecturers also faced challenges in developing a shared vision. One lecturer was frustrated that colleagues seemed to be interested in other outcomes than the shared formulated question related to one of the underlying learning principles of DBE. It gave insight that in the team there are many perspectives and '<emph>It turns out there are quite a lot of assumptions</emph>' (P03).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-19">Collective Action</hd> <p>Most lecturers recognized the value of starting with small interventions in their collective actions, to avoid overwhelming or inefficient processes. The team had a tendency to jump into solutions, one lecturer called it an <emph>'adhocacy'</emph> (P03), where decisions were often reactive rather than strategic, due to the novelty of DBE. Despite this, one of the lecturers mentioned that they maintain '<emph>a goal-oriented approach, seeking to learn from past interventions</emph>' (P06). Another lecturer mentioned '<emph>We continuously presented what we had to each other [...] you didn't only design the intervention, you also tested it, so we needed to actively design that in advance.'</emph> (P02).</p> <p>Initially, there was confusion regarding the expected scale of the interventions, indicating potential communication issues that led to misunderstandings about the scope of DBLS. '<emph>We initially thought we had to carry out something big, but eventually we learned it was about a small intervention</emph>' (P01). To act collectively the clarification of expectations of the designed interventions was "<emph>experienced as crucial</emph>" (F01), specifically in reflecting on both practical implementation and the meaning-making within the team.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-20">Evaluation and Reflection</hd> <p>Lecturers had taken a positive step by setting predefined indicators to evaluate interventions, which provided a clear framework for assessing effectiveness: '<emph>We carefully considered in advance what we want to achieve and how we are going to test it</emph>' (P02), however it was challenging '<emph>to clearly establish the goals and expected outcomes'</emph> (F01).</p> <p>One of the goals of DBLS was to stimulate a team learning culture with activities like presentations and poster presentations. Lecturers valued learning from each other without judgment, but there was still a sense that the reflection processes could be deepened and improved.</p> <p>Challenges in implementation became evident for some interventions: '<emph>when we shared the intervention, almost everyone said "I don't dare to do this"'</emph> (P02), pointing to a gap between ideas and practice, possibly due to lecturers' comfort, or their resistance to change and doubts about applicability.</p> <p>In addition to the inspiration for new ways to design teaching, several lecturers discussed ways in which they changed their educational practice following DBLS, or as a result of their experiences during the intervention project. In general, the interventions led to positive changes in students' behavior or knowledge, which solidified lecturers' choices to, for example, focus more on activities to elicit active learning and motivation (P04, P06), or to engage in scaffolding their facilitation strategies more than they did before, instead of having students discover everything by themselves (P02). One experienced participant did not complete their intervention and did not change their educational practice as a result of the DBLS, '<emph>because [DBLS] is finished, and it is not used anymore. [...] I followed the course, I have a vague idea about the circle and what is intended</emph>.' (P01).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-21">Contribution of Congruence</hd> <p>The DBLS was explicitly designed to be congruent with DBE, enabling participants to experience DBE from the perspective of a student. In some cases lecturers showed '<emph>the same behavior as students</emph>' (F01) and they experienced many of the same challenges in DBLS that they observed with their students in DBE, as evidenced by these two statements from P02: '<emph>We went through a sort of mini-DBE [...] we systematically went through several phases [...] and I saw what I observed in my students</emph>' and '<emph>I was personally excited about what we did there, precisely because I could clearly see the parallel process between what we were doing and what was happening in the ateliers</emph>'.</p> <p>This parallel experience heightens lecturers'awareness of how hard DBE can be for students, '<emph>That awareness also made me think, wow, what are we actually asking of them?</emph>' (P02). This in turn led her to make changes in her teaching:<emph>I noticed that when I looked at group processes in my students, it almost happened outside of me, I was looking at it in a very teachery way. But now you're put in that position yourself, and I thought: 'you know what, it's a universal human principle that this is difficult'. It made me much milder</emph> (P02).</p> <p>However, not all lecturers recognized the parallel processes. This was mentioned by some lecturers themselves: '<emph>For me it was kind of separate, I don't feel that by participating in DBLS I learned more about DBE. Yeah, we talked about the learning principles, but that's kind of separate of DBE'</emph> (P05), and observed by others about their colleagues '<emph>It was noticeable that not everyone dealt with it easily, like, "Hey, wait a minute, my students go through this too"'</emph> (P03).</p> <p>During the DBLS, some lecturers were looking for enhanced guidance or mentioned that they '<emph>would have liked to have more structure</emph>' (P01), a process that is also quite common in students. However, others preferred a less structured approach '<emph>We have to do this now, and we have to do that now, so it felt a bit forced'.</emph> (P06). These experiences could also influence their educational practice, where a balance needs to be struck to avoid structuring student learning processes too much.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-22">Additional Results</hd> <p>In the interviews lecturers revealed insights about their learning processes during and after the DBLS that were not part of the research questions but were interesting enough to present here.</p> <p>Overall, lecturers' attitudes towards DBE were positive. They expressed appreciation for elements such as the authenticity of students working collaboratively, as well as the collaboration between students and industry partners. They also appreciated the integration of design thinking in DBE, which they found particularly commendable.</p> <p>Lecturers realized that knowledge supported the slowing down decision-making, and that knowledge stimulates thoughtful and effective strategies, as it created space for deeper reflection on the underlying principles of DBE. While this slower pace required time and patience, they found it essential for making conscious, well-considered decisions. As the facilitator mentioned '<emph>We should be more intentional with interventions and thinking ahead about what we actually want to achieve with them'</emph> (F01). By adopting a cyclic, systematic approach, they fostered continuous learning and improvement in their processes.</p> <p>The DBLS-facilitator identified some early changes in professional practice. He noticed that there was '<emph>less stacking of opinions, more critical questions based on knowledge and theory</emph>' (F01) and another lecturer mentioned '<emph>I don't know if it's consciously or unconsciously, you see sort of small DBLS circles appearing, [...] with conducting the intervention and evaluating the effects'</emph> (P03). However, lecturers also realized that it would take multiple years to fully integrate the new way of working proposed by DBLS.</p> <p>Participants referenced a variety of factors that facilitated or inhibited their learning.</p> <p>In line with the DBLS set-up centered around collective learning, the most referenced facilitating factor was the inclusion of collaborative group work and exchange with colleagues. Working in a team was seen as nice and motivating, and in some cases, participants felt <emph>'[they] really complemented each other as a team'</emph> (P06). Other facilitating factors were the exchange of information (through presentations and posters) between the subgroups about the different intervention projects, the variety of learning activities and the clear setup of the DBLS program, the possibility to delve into something, the feedback they received from facilitators or peers, guidance and support from the facilitators, congruence and seeing the results from the intervention.</p> <p>The main factor that was cited as inhibiting successful learning outcomes was a lack of time to prepare the sessions and devote to the program. One sub-group was unable to execute their intervention project to their satisfaction, because they could not find time in their schedules: '<emph>we didn't have that much time [...] and that's the whole point. We were doing this on the side and if you want to do it well, it will take a lot of time</emph>' (P05). A second, related inhibiting factor was the timing of the DBLS. Lecturers expressed that they felt they needed more experience in DBE to be able to contextualize the DBLS, like P01 who said '<emph>we were told to practice what we preach, but I didn't make that connection. I'm still in the middle of experiencing what it is that we preach, and how to do that</emph>'. Other inhibiting factors were the fact that meetings contained an overabundance of activities and information, uncertainty about how to really embed the new ways of working into practice after the DBLS ended or problems in collaboration.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The current research explored how collective learning (Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]) and congruence between student and lecturer learning approaches impacted pedagogical strategies in implementing an innovative educational concept.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-24">Collective Learning</hd> <p>The findings demonstrated the crucial role collective learning plays in enhancing lecturers'professional development and moving to another pedagogical approach than they are used to (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref59">3</reflink>]; Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). Participants reported a generally positive experience, with improvements in their perception of collective learning after participating in DBLS. Lecturers particularly valued inquisitive dialogue and the opportunity to collaborate with and learn from colleagues, often through tools offered during the DBLS meetings to stimulate inquisitive dialogues. Consistent with earlier research that highlights the importance of collective learning and working with peers in professional development initiatives, sharing experiences and challenges encountered in DBE-ateliers was highly appreciated (Assen & Otting, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>]). DBLS seems to provide a valuable platform for collective learning.</p> <p>As in previous research (Assen et al, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]; Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]), inquisitive dialogue emerged as the most crucial factor in collective learning. Initially, there was minimal knowledge sharing, which constrained lecturers' ability to design evidence-informed pedagogical strategies. More reflective and thoughtful dialogues were highly valued, as inquisitive dialogues helped prevent an ad-hoc approach (Ros et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]). DBLS meetings created a space for more thorough engagement with literature about educational theories, fostering a deeper understanding of pedagogical strategies. However, tensions arose between lecturers who sought to deepen their knowledge using literature and those who did not rely on external sources. Since using these external sources also influences the quality of the other factors of collective learning (Godfrey & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]), it is crucial that facilitators share relevant knowledge (external or their own knowledge) just-in-time and in a way that is appropriate for the group process (Fransen, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Lecturers felt comfortable sharing their challenges, perspectives, and beliefs about teaching and learning. However, while structured dialogues about educational philosophy brought new insights (Lodders, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref67">25</reflink>]), building a shared vision around DBE principles proved more challenging. Since perceptions and beliefs around DBE within the team seemed to be different, there was a struggle to go from several individual visions to a collective shared vision about DBE and its underlying principles. These challenges may stem from a focus on collaborative learning —working together toward individual goals— rather than collective learning, which centers on shared outcomes (Simons & De Laat, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]). As previous research suggests, a shared vision on shared outcomes is crucial for successfully implementing educational innovations (Stevens et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref69">35</reflink>]). According to Pearce and Ensley ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref70">27</reflink>]), this is strongly related to team effectiveness in innovation.</p> <p>Nevertheless, dialogue about a shared vision was seen as essential for creating a common language and direction within the team (Assen & Otting, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]). While the shared vision was still developing, it helped lecturers reflect more critically on their pedagogical strategies. However, the lack of a fully developed shared vision may have contributed to some less positive experiences with DBLS. Some lecturers had expected that the program would include sweeping changes and expressed doubts about the relevance of their questions or designs, because they felt too small. However, collective action within the team was gradual and characterized by small iterative strategies rather than sweeping changes. It can be assumed that as the team continues to move through collective learning, lecturers become more aware of the iterative strategies and thus the questions and designs become more related to their shared practical challenges, which is an essential characteristic of effective professional development (Borko et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]; Cerbin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]; Fairman et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>]). One goal of DBLS is to support lecturers in collectively designing and applying pedagogical strategies aligned with DBE principles. Through ongoing collaboration and feedback, lecturers became more deliberate and structured in their actions, leading to greater confidence in applying DBE principles effectively.</p> <p>Fitting with our assertion that the lecturers are still in the middle of developing their collective learning processes, evaluation and reflection were less developed than the other factors of collective learning, even though they are recognized as important components as well. Lecturers struggled to set clear indicators and assess outcomes, despite acknowledging the value of these processes. Some expressed a need for more feedback and deeper reflection, but time constraints often limited their ability to engage fully in evaluative dialogues. While DBLS helped lecturers develop indicators for evaluating pedagogical strategies, establishing consistent reflection practices remained a challenge. Therefore, more time and support are needed to foster a cyclical and systematic approach to reflection (De Vries, Roorda & Van Veen, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>]), which could lead to sustained educational improvements and a meaning- oriented collective approach (Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref76">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-25">Congruence between Student and Lecturer Learning Approaches</hd> <p>With regards to the congruence between student and lecturer learning approaches, the study revealed that there were parallels between the challenges lecturers faced in DBLS and their students' experiences in DBE. By experiencing DBE from the perspective of students, lecturers became more aware of the complexities and difficulties involved in group work, problem-solving and decision-making under pressure. This congruence helped lecturers reflect on their own teaching practices and improve their facilitation of student learning.</p> <p>DBLS provided lecturers with a first-hand experience of DBE, allowing them to gain insights into the student experience (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref77">13</reflink>]). This experience not only fostered a more learner-oriented approach to teaching but also prompted lecturers to reconsider their facilitation strategies. Similar to students, lecturers have diverse educational needs and would like to be approached in various ways. Some lecturers expressed a desire for clearer guidelines and more structure, mirroring the support their students often seek during DBE. Others, however, preferred a less structured, more exploratory approach, reflecting the diversity of teaching styles within the group.</p> <p>Despite the benefits of congruence, not all lecturers fully recognized or embraced the parallel learning process. Some struggled to see the connection between their own experiences in DBLS and the challenges faced by their students, indicating a need for more explicit links between lecturer and student learning. These more explicit links could also further allow lecturers to explore their apprehensions about the innovation, which could benefit the implementation process (Girvan et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). The transition from experiencing DBE as a student to implementing it as a lecturer was not always smooth. While some lecturers applied new insights to their teaching practice, others found it difficult to integrate lessons learned into their daily routines, particularly after the formal DBLS sessions ended. Professional development is one of the factors that influence the sustainability of educational innovations (Prenger et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]), but the current results indicate an ongoing challenge of embedding innovative educational practices into long-term teaching strategies (Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-26">Facilitating or Inhibiting Factors</hd> <p>Several factors were mentioned as facilitating or inhibiting the outcomes of the DBLS. The most frequently cited facilitating factors was collaborative group work, this in turn fostered knowledge exchange and team building, which have both been identified as important for scaling up innovations (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]). This stresses the importance of creating a safe learning environment, where participants feel free to share their ideas and views (Randel et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]). Skilled facilitators are able to do this, as well as guide collective learning processes for participants that lack experience in managing collective learning (Cerbin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]). Time to devote to and the timing of the DBLS were mentioned as being inhibiting successful outcomes, which is in line with earlier research indicating that consideration of work pressure and time were critical factors for successful professional development (Schaap et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-27">Limitations</hd> <p>The current study presents interesting findings surrounding collective learning in a congruent PDI aimed at implementing an educational innovation. However, several limitations should be considered. This study was explorative and investigated one learning community in a single educational program. Additionally, because the survey was sent out via email after the evaluative discussion in the final session it was not completed by all participants. This narrow context and small sample of participants could impede the generalization of the results. However, the outcomes could be used to further investigate factors of collective professional development in different contexts.</p> <p>Even though the DBLS was specifically aimed towards professional development of the innovative educational concept DBE, the fact that the introduction of DBE was quite recent may have been detrimental. Lecturers were not yet used to the new practice of working together in a team, and there was no strong shared vision on DBE. Future professional development initiatives should pay attention to optimal timing for professional development, for example by more clearly taking lecturers' learning needs into account.</p> <p>The current study did not explore lecturers' professional identities and how these may have influenced their experiences in the DBLS, since the DBLS focused on pedagogical approaches. To further investigate teachers' identities, it might be important to organize formal dialogues about their perceptions about teaching and learning and how their perceptions could be aligned with the innovative educational concept (Assen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref85">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-28">Conclusions</hd> <p>The current study indicated that congruent professional development initiatives aimed towards collective learning support lecturers to move to innovative educational concepts.</p> <p>The outcomes confirmed that educational innovations and professional development initiatives should not be two separate processes. Meaning-oriented approaches, such as DBLS, prevent a jump-into-solution attitude. They support lecturers to integrate the inquisitive dialogue about shared vision, collective action and evaluation and reflection processes in their daily practice. The current study demonstrated that the effectiveness of PDIs depends on organizational issues such as time and scheduling. Impact on lecturers' learning and behavior necessitates commitment and willingness of all participants, conditions and facilities for collective learning, alongside the support of a skilled, experienced and knowledgeable facilitators.</p> <p>Although the study proved the benefits of collective learning PDIs, it is obvious that these initiatives are not a one size fits all concept. It is important to understand and explore all the aspects of professional development initiatives and choose for the PDI that fits best for the type of innovation, the teams, or the individual lecturers. The congruent design of DBLS offers valuable insights into experiential learning, but its long-term impact will depend on lecturers' ability to integrate these lessons learned into their teaching practices. To integrate collective learning into daily practice, consistent support and a culture of continuous learning are essential.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-29">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Hans Otting for critical feedback on the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-30">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Conceptualization: Indira N.Z. Day, Hanneke J.H.E. Assen, Tim M. Stevens, Jan D. Vermunt;</p> <p>Methodology: Indira N.Z. Day, Hanneke J.H.E. Assen, Tim M. Stevens, Jan D. Vermunt;</p> <p>Formal analysis and investigation: Indira N.Z. Day, Hanneke J.H.E. Assen;</p> <p>Writing - original draft preparation: Indira N.Z. Day, Hanneke J.H.E. Assen;</p> <p>Writing - review and editing: Indira N.Z. Day, Hanneke J.H.E. Assen, Tim M. Stevens, Jan D. Vermunt;</p> <p>Funding acquisition: Hanneke J.H.E. Assen, Jan D. Vermunt;</p> <p>Supervision: Jan D. Vermunt</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-31">Funding</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Netherlands Initiative for Educational Research, project number 40.5.19945.600. The funding organization had no influence on the design and results of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-32">Data Availability</hd> <p>To ensure anonymity of the participants, data is not available. The coding scheme is available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-33">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191658344-34">Competing interests</hd> <p>Authors have no financial interests to disclose. Hanneke Assen acted as a DBE knowledge expert in the program under investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-35">Human Ethics and Consent to Participate Declaration</hd> <p>The methodology of this study was approved by the ethical review board at Eindhoven University of Technology, reference number ERB2022ESOE8. All participants singed an informed consent form before participating in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-36">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0191658344-37">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191658344-38"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Assen JHE, Otting HCoelen R, Assen JHE, Donker A, Geitz G. Lecturers' perceptions of collective learning: A collective move to Design Based Education. Stepping into DBE. 2021; NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Assen JHE, Meijers F, Otting H, Poell RF. Explaining discrepancies between teacher beliefs and teacher interventions in a problem-based learning environment: A mixed method study. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 60: 12-23. 10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Assen JHE, Koops H, Meijers F, Otting H, Poell R. How can a dialogue support teachers' professional identity development? Harmonising multiple teacher I-positions. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 73: 130-140. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Assen, H, Van Felius, N, De Vries, S, & Van Katwijk, L. (2023). Het optimaal benutten van externe kennis in Design Based Learning Study. [Optimally leveraging external knowledge in Design Based Learning Study. Pedagogy for Profession and Vocation], Didaktiek voor Vak en Beroep Magazine, 62-71. Lectoraat Didactiek voor Vak en Beroep, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences. https://<ulink href="http://www.nhlstenden.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/Didactiek%20voor-Vak-en-Beroep-Magazine-%202023-interactief.pdf">www.nhlstenden.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/Didactiek%20voor-Vak-en-Beroep-Magazine-%202023-interactief.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref51" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Associate Professorship Hospitality Education. (2023). The fundament of design-based hospitality education: Conceptualization matrix educational philosophy & learning principles. Hotel Management School Leeuwarden. (internal document)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beijaard D, Verloop N, Vermunt JD. Teachers' perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2000; 16: 749-764. 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00023-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bleicher RE. A collaborative action research to professional learning. Professional Development in Education. 2014; 40; 5: 802-821. 10.1080/19415257.2013.842183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Borko, H, Jacobs, J, & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 548–556). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00654-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref55" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3; 2: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruggink, M, & Harinck, F. (2012). De onderzoekende houding van leraren: Wat wordt daaronder verstaan? [The inquiry stance of teachers: What does that mean?]. Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders (VELON/VELOV), 33(3), 46–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerbin, B. (2011). Lesson study. Using classroom inquiry to improve teaching and learning in higher education. Stylus Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L, Hyler, M. E, & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond L, McLaughlin MW. Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan. 2011; 92; 6: 81-92. 10.1177/003172171109200622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Vries, S, Roorda, G, & Van Veen, K. (2017). Lesson study: Effectief en bruikbaar in het Nederlands Onderwijs. [Lesson Study: Effective and useful in Dutch education]. University of Groningen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entwistle N. Student learning and academic understanding: A research perspective with implications for teaching. 2018; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fairman JC, Smith DJ, Pullen PC, Lebel SJ. The challenge of keeping teacher professional development relevant. Professional Development in Education. 2023; 49; 2: 197-209. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1827010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fransen. J. (2015). Teaching, learning & technology; instrumentatie van betekenisvolle interacties. [Instrumention of meaningful interactions]. Hogeschool InHolland. <ulink href="http://inholland.nl/onderzoek/publicaties/teaching-learning-technology-instrumentatie-van-betekenisvolle-interacties">http://inholland.nl/onderzoek/publicaties/teaching-learning-technology-instrumentatie-van-betekenisvolle-interacties</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Girvan C, Conneely C, Tangney B. Extending experiential learning in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 58: 129-139. 10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godfrey, D, spsampsps Brown, C. (Eds.). (2019). An ecosystem for research-engaged schools: Reforming education through research. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinojosa-Pareja EF, García-Cano M. Excellence is not an island: Team-based professional development in higher education. Professional Development in Education. 2023; 49; 2: 368-386. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1814382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmelo-Silver CE, Barrows HS. Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 2006; 1; 1: 21-39. 10.7771/1541-5015.1004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoekstra A, Brekelmans M, Beijaard D, Korthagen F. Experienced teachers' informal learning: Learning activities and changes in behavior and cognition. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25; 5: 663-673. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar A. What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved practices in higher education?. Innovative Higher Education. 2011; 36; 4: 235-247. 10.1007/s10755-011-9174-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A, Hallett, R. E, Corwin, Z. B, & Hypolite, L. (2024). Moving toward institutional culture change in higher education: An exploration into cross-functional professional learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 50(2), 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09753-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodders N. Teachers learning and innovating together (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 2013; University of Twente</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meirink JA, Meijer PC, Verloop N, Bergen TCM. Understanding teacher learning: The relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25; 1: 89-100. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearce CL, Ensley MD. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004; 25; 2: 259-278. 10.1002/job.235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prenger, R, Tappel, A. P. M, Poortman, C. L, & Schildkamp, K. (2022). How can educational innovations become sustainable? A review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Education,7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.970715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randel AE, Galvin BM, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, Kedharnath U. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review. 2018; 28; 2: 190-203. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt M, Owens Farmer S, McQueen K, Grissom JA. Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 2015; 52; 3: 475-514. 10.3102/0002831215585562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ros, A, Amels, J, Stallaert, M, Van de Stolpe & Volman, M. (2022). Leidraad Werken aan onderwijsverbetering. Evidence-informed naar een lerende organisatie in het primair onderwijs. Weten wat werkt en waarom. [Guideline Working on Educational Improvement. Evidence-informed toward a learning organization in primary education. Knowing what works and why.]. NRO. https://<ulink href="http://www.onderwijskennis.nl/kennisbank/leidraad-werken-aan-onderwijsverbetering">www.onderwijskennis.nl/kennisbank/leidraad-werken-aan-onderwijsverbetering</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaap H, Louws M, Meirink J, Oolbekkink-Marchand H, Van Der Want A, Zuiker I, Zwart R, Meijer P. Tensions experienced by teachers when participating in a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education. 2019; 45; 5: 814-831. 10.1080/19415257.2018.1547781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons P, De Laat MM. Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. European Journal of Vocational Training. 2002; 27: 13-24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens RJ. Why do educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What can we do?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2004; 20; 4: 389-396. 10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens TM, Day INZ, den Brok PJ, Prins FJ, Assen HJHE, ter Beek M, Bombaerts G, Coppoolse R, Cremers PHM, Engbers R, Hulsen M, Kamp RJA, Koksma JJ, Mittendorff K, Riezebos J, van der Rijst RM, van de Wiel MWJ, Vermunt JD. Teacher professional learning and development in the context of educational innovations in higher education: A typology of practices. Higher Education Research & Development. 2024; 23; 2: 437-454. 10.1080/07294360.2023.2246412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Töytäri A, Tynjälä P, Piirainen A, Ilves V. Higher education teachers' descriptions of their own learning: A quantitative perspective. Higher Education Research and Development. 2017; 36; 6: 1295-1304. 10.1080/07294360.2017.1303455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vangrieken K, Dochy F, Raes E, Kyndt E. Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review. 2015; 15: 17-40. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermunt Jan D, Endedijk Maaike D. Patterns in teacher learning in different phases of the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21; 3: 294-302. 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermunt, J. D, Vrikki, M, Warwick, P, & Mercer, N. (2017). Connecting teacher identity formation to patterns in teacher learning. In The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education, (pp. 143–159). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402042.n8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang T, Ramdeo J, McLaughlin C. Experiencing and experimenting: An exploration of teacher agency in an international collaborative teacher professional development programme using experiential learning. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 104: 103389. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weitze CL. Designing pedagogical innovation for collaborating teacher teams. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2017; 43; 3: 361-373. 10.1080/02607476.2017.1319511</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Indira N. Z. Day; Hanneke J. H. E. Assen; Tim M. Stevens and Jan D. Vermunt</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Indira N. Z. Day Indira N. Z. Day works as an assistant professor at the Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, her research focus is teacher professional development in higher education. Previously, she worked on this topic as a postdoctoral researcher in the Teachers2Learn project at Utrecht University.</p> <p>Hanneke J. H. E. Assen Hanneke J. H. E. Assen works as a professor of International Hospitality Education at NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences. She was a partner in the Teachers2Learn project.</p> <p>Tim M. Stevens Tim M. Stevens works as postdoctoral researcher in Sustainability Education at the Copernicus Institue of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University. Previously, he worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Teachers2Learn project at Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology.</p> <p>Jan D. Vermunt Jan D. Vermunt is Emeritus Professor of Learning Sciences and Educational Innovation at Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology. He was the project leader for the Teachers2Learn project, which studied teacher professional development in higher education in the context of educational innovation.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref81"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1508391
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Practice What You Preach: Lecturers Learning about Design-Based Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Indira+N%2E+Z%2E+Day%22">Indira N. Z. Day</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5511-1061">0000-0002-5511-1061</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hanneke+J%2E+H%2E+E%2E+Assen%22">Hanneke J. H. E. Assen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tim+M%2E+Stevens%22">Tim M. Stevens</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jan+D%2E+Vermunt%22">Jan D. Vermunt</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 51(1):387-405.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– 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="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-025-09804-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Higher education programs introduce educational innovations to prepare students for their future professions. These innovations often require new lecturer roles, which in turn requires lecturers' professional development. Previous research has indicated that collective learning and congruence between the approach of the professional development and the educational innovation support lecturers' learning. The current study investigates a design-based professional development initiative, focusing on collective and congruent learning, that supports lecturers to move towards their role as facilitators in a design-based learning context. Survey and interview results reveal that lecturers had positive experiences with the four key aspects of collective learning: inquisitive dialogue, shared vision, collective action, and evaluation and reflection. However, not all factors were experienced to the same extent. The inquisitive dialogue was experienced as the most important factor, which stimulated the dialogue about the underlying principles of the educational innovation and led to meaning-oriented pedagogical activities. Not all lecturers recognized the congruence between the professional development initiative and educational innovation, but if they did, they experienced it as a positive impact on their learning. Lecturers' referenced working with colleagues as a factor that facilitated their learning, whereas a lack of time inhibited positive outcomes of the professional development initiative.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1508391
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1508391
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-025-09804-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 387
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Practice What You Preach: Lecturers Learning about Design-Based Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Indira N. Z. Day
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hanneke J. H. E. Assen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tim M. Stevens
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jan D. Vermunt
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1