The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DESIGNING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE WITH TEACHERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CO-DESIGN PROCESS
Open accessAbstract
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, team-based 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,361
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,249
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1993) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,576
(1999) · Cited by 12,812
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 1×
“The difference in viewpoint was important to us as researchers to address, since studies on formative assessment show that assessment for learning, but not necessarily assessment of learning, can contribute to improved learning outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 1998).”
BackgroundWhat Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 · Cited by 5,047
Design Experiments in Educational Research
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x032001009 · Cited by 3,548
The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture
Shepard, L. A. (2000) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x029007004 · Cited by 2,161 · cited 1×
“…a commitment to involving students actively in self-assessment in ways that would be consistent with research on how people learn (e.g., National Research Council, 1999), what is alternately called student-centered classroom assessment (Stiggins, 1997) or assessment for learning (Shepard, 2000).”
BackgroundOversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom
Cuban, L. (2009) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvk12qnw · Cited by 1,904
Cited by
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008 · Cited by 1,574
Research–Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x16631750 · Cited by 939
Self-citationOrganizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x11421826 · Cited by 757
Self-citationUser‐centered design for psychosocial intervention development and implementation.
Lyon, A. R., & Koerner, K. (2016) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/cpsp.12154 · Cited by 478
Teachers as participatory designers: two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments
Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H.-J., & Könings, K. D. (2015) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0 · Cited by 136
Metadata
- Authors
- PENUEL, W. R., ROSCHELLE, J., & SHECHTMAN, N.
- Venue
- Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 02
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 51-74
- ISSN
- 1793-2068 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-7078
- OpenAlex
- W2144506006
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 12.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DESIGNING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE WITH TEACHERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CO-DESIGN PROCESS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1142/s1793206807000300
- The paper
- PENUEL, W. R., ROSCHELLE, J., & SHECHTMAN, N. (2007). DESIGNING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE WITH TEACHERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CO-DESIGN PROCESS. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793206807000300
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
