Researchers in the learning sciences have explored a collaborative approach to developing innovations that fit into real classroom contexts. The co-design process relies on teachers' ongoing involvement with the design of educational innovations, which typically employ technology as a critical support for practice. To date, investigators have described the application and results of co-design, but they have not defined the process nor explored how it plays out over time. In this paper, we define co-design as a highly-facilitated, teambased process in which teachers, researchers, and developers work together in defined roles to design an educational innovation, realize the design in one or more prototypes, and evaluate each prototype's significance for addressing a concrete educational need. We suggest seven key process components and use data from a systematic set of interviews to illustrate the roles of teachers and researchers in co-design and describe how tensions in the process can unfold and be resolved over time.

The authors present three studies (two randomized controlled experiments and one embedded quasi-experiment) designed to evaluate the impact of replacement units targeting student learning of advanced middle school mathematics. The studies evaluated the SimCalc approach, which integrates an interactive representational technology, paper curriculum, and teacher professional development. Each study addressed both replicability of findings and robustness across Texas settings, with varied teacher characteristics (backgrounds, knowledge, attitudes) and student characteristics (demographics, levels of prior mathematics knowledge). Analyses revealed statistically significant main effects, with student-level effect sizes of .63, .50, and .56. These consistent gains support the conclusion that SimCalc is effective in enabling a wide variety of teachers in a diversity of settings to extend student learning to more advanced mathematics.

No abstract

A new circumplex model of interpersonal interaction emphasizes the motives that drive interpersonal behaviors and the negative affect (such as anger) that occurs when a strongly activated motive is frustrated. This study examined the model experimentally by varying conditions designed to activate and frustrate interpersonal motives. One hundred twenty-nine students engaged in text-based discussions using a computer. Three factors were varied: (a) activation of interpersonal motives--participants believed the interaction was interpersonal (with a human) or noninterpersonal (with a computer); (b) individual differences in motive activation--assertive and nonassertive participants were compared (strong vs. weak motive to influence others); and (c) level of frustration of activated motives--the "partner's" messages contained dominating or nondominating language. Participants who believed their interaction was interpersonal produced more interpersonal behaviors of various types. Assertive participants who interacted with a dominating and apparently human partner produced a disproportionate amount of hostility, indicating anger ascribed to frustrated motives.