Developing the Teach21 Online Authoring Tool

Supporting Primary School Teachers

in Designing 21

Century Design based Education

Ruurd Taconis

, Tilde Bekker

, Saskia Bakker

and Anika van der Sande

Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Keywords: Design based Education, Authoring Tool, Primary Education.

Abstract: Students need to learn ‘21

century skills’. However, teaching materials for this are scarce. Moreover 21

century teaching is adaptive and teachers often need to design teaching materials themselves. Design Based

Learning (DBL) is a promising approach for teaching 21

century skills. This paper describes the development

of a tool to support primary school teachers in creating 21

century skills teaching materials, DBL materials

in particular. After defining initial requirements, the study moves on as ‘design research’ comprising iterative

design rounds. The resulting tool largely fulfils the stakeholders’ and teachers’ expectations, supports teachers

in creating 21

century education and activates teacher reflection, even though it does not yet produce

classroom ready material. To be effective in promoting DBL, it is necessary to further elaborate the concept

of DBL and to supplement it with an explicit pedagogical strategy and concrete assessment procedures.

1 INTRODUCTION

As in many other countries Dutch education is

changing to meet future challenges. So called 21

century skills are identified as critically important

(Cogan & Derricott, 2014; Rotherham & Willingham,

2010). Primary education has to change, but this is

challenging for most teachers. In particular since 21

century teaching typically requires students to work

in groups and learn from open-ended authentic

projects with relevance for the students and their local

environment. For this type of education, only few

teaching materials are available. The materials need

to be tailored to the students’ needs and the situation.

This demand that teachers create their own materials.

Teachers need support for developing such

teaching materials. Firstly to provide them with

‘pedagogical models’ and examples that underpin 21

century teaching, a way of teaching sometimes new

to them. Secondly, to support and guide them in the

process of designing education. This support can

(best) be delivered online.

This paper describes the creation of an online tool

that supports primary school teachers as reflective

practitioners in designing 21

century teaching. It

uses the ‘pedagogical model’ of Design Based

Learning (DBL).

2 BACKGROUND

Many Dutch teachers are convinced of the need for

changes in their teaching approach and are motivated

to implement these changes. Apart from challenges

such as taking a more coaching role in classroom, a

key challenge is the lack of teaching materials. This

requires design tools that also store the lessons

designed to help teachers and to allow them to

effectively profit from earlier initiatives. Moreover,

the changing practice is such that teachers must

design their own – student tailored - materials, putting

an even greater demand on their competencies.

Finally, the examination syllabus has not (yet) been

fully adapted to the renewal, and teachers have to

combine the new challenges with the classical

curricular aims (‘kerndoelen’), that concern

knowledge and (mainly) instrumental skills.

Teachers meet various challenges in designing

century learning activities. Firstly, teachers have

worries about learning goals and assessment. For

example: how to make sure that the projects

effectively address the various 21

century skills?

How to make sure that all of the obligatory ‘classical

aims’ such as mathematics or language skills are

well-covered? How to efficiently move forward to

Bekker, T., Taconis, R., Bakker, S. and an der Sande, A.

Developing the Teach21 Online Authoring Tool.

DOI: 10.5220/0006690100910098

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 91-98

ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2

create learning activities that have the right balance

between ‘classical aims’ and 21

century skills?

Secondly, teachers lack the skills and experience of

educational designers. In educational literature, a

variety of educational frameworks for developing

classroom materials is available. For example, the

curricular ‘spider-web’ schema by Van den Akker,

Gravemeijer, McKenney, and Nieveen (2006). Such

frameworks can stimulate and structure educational

design. However, teachers are usually not acquainted

with these, and these resources should be made

available to the teachers in an easy-to-use way.

Thirdly, teachers may have no clear view of what

the new education would look like. Coherent and

challenging projects are needed and Design Based

Learning (DBL) has been put forward as a model.

2.1 Design Based Learning

Design Based Learning (Bekker, Bakker, Douma,

Van Der Poel, & Scheltenaar, 2015) is a teaching

approach in which students learn by collaboratively

creating designing solutions to open (societal)

challenges. DBL allows students to work on authentic

challenges. This often leads to intrinsic motivation

and deeper insights into how the learned knowledge

and skills can be applied in practice.

DBL is a form of ‘inductive learning’ (Prince &

Felder, 2006) with the potential to provoke a major

shift in educational practice and constitute a new

pedagogy which might transform education (Sharples

et al., 2016). DBL can promote design thinking which

directly contributes to 21

century skills. It is

generally defined as “an analytic and creative process

that challenges the learner to experiment, to create

and prototype models, gather feedback, and to

redesign” (Razzouk & Shute, 2012, p. 330).

In this study a more precise description of the

characteristics of DBL is needed for developing and

evaluating the design tool. Gomez Puente, Van Eijck,

and Jochems (2013) have described properties of

DBL through an extensive literature review and a

subsequent empirical validation in higher education.

This framework was used in earlier studies to define

characteristics of DBL in primary and secondary

education (Bekker et al., 2015; Scheltenaar et al.,

2015). From this a set of DBL-characteristics is

defined for use in this study (Table 1).

2.2 Online Teacher Support Systems

Online support of teachers designing education has

been extensively studied (McKenney, Nieveen, &

Van den Akker, 2002). In this, a principal dilemma is

the trade-off between flexibility on one hand, and

structuring, channelling, guiding and scaffolding

design choices (Pérez et al., 2017) on the other. It is

key to find an effective balance that limits design-

space in support of teachers yet respects teachers’

professional autonomy en encourages their

reflectiveness.

Designing learning tasks comprises an overwhelming

number of interrelated choices leading to massive

cognitive (over)load for novices (Sweller, Ayres, &

Kalyuga, 2011). For teachers that are novices or

inexperienced in the type of teaching to be developed,

the time needed for designing and preparing a lesson

may be over 10 times the duration of the lesson itself.

Novice teachers and teachers confronted with an

innovation new to them lack insights underpinning

the innovation that could guide design decisions (see

Vos, Taconis, Jochems, & Pilot, 2011). Clearly tools

and exemplars are needed. Furthermore, teachers

should have access to the rationale behind the

innovation. This could provide criteria for

considering various design options and can support

them in making design choices.

To support designing teachers, it is crucial to

reduce the ‘design space’. A first component is

structuring the design process. This takes away much

of the interrelatedness of the various design choices

which is difficult to understand for the novice

teacher/designer. Structuring can be less strict for

more proficient teachers/designers that already can

understand the ‘when and why’ of various choices

(Silver, 1991). A second component is to make design

options transparent, and to reduce their number

through pre-selection.

To make websites that present complex processes

or situations in an intuitive and predictable way, these

should be structured according to users’ mental

model(s) of these processes or situations. An example

is the lay-out of the railway station manager’s

dashboard. Hence the online design tool should be

organized according to the teachers' perception of the

process of ‘planning education’. This model can be

found by examining how a representative groups of

teachers views this (Bernard, 2000; Roth, Schmutz,

Pauwels, Bargas-Avila, & Opwis, 2009).

Structuring the design process and pre-selecting

design options alone would ‘robotize’ the teachers’

Table 1: Characteristics of Design Based Learning.

 An authentic design task relevant to student (and

society)

 Requires knowledge to be activated and collected

 Allows students to choose their step and encourage

student reflection

 Comprise design-steps; divergent and convergent

thinking in particular.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

design process, frustrate teachers as autonomous

professionals and hinder their development as

reflective practitioners (Schon, 1984). Hence the

online support system should give room for teachers’

professional autonomy and professional decisions.

Moreover, it should stimulate reflection while

designing education. Even more so for designing

DBL since reflection is in the heart of the design

process itself (Bekker et al., 2015).

Hence, structuring and pre-selection of design

choices should be minimized, but must also be

rigorous enough to prevent cognitive overload.

Scaffolding and guidance to support teacher in taking

the remaining design-decisions is key. Jackson,

Krajcik, and Soloway (1998) have developed such an

adaptive strategy: Guided Learner Adaptable

Scaffolding (GLAS). They distinguish 3 types of

scaffolds: supportive (e.g. advise, highlighting

options), reflective (e.g. clarifying alternatives and

criteria, asking for deliberations), intrinsic (e.g.

relating to the design process as a whole).

3 AIM

The central Aim of the study is to create a tool

supporting primary school teachers in creating DBL

with a productive balance between structuring,

guiding and reflecting, that also is well

implementable. It should also promote DBL and

design thinking in education.

3.1 Research Questions

The central question in this project is: Can an online

tool be developed that supports primary school

teachers creating 21st century lessons that include

‘classical learning goals’ using DBL?

Specific sub-questions are:

a) Does the tool support teachers in designing and

in reflecting during design?

b) Is the tool well adopted and implementable?

c) Does the tool effectively promote DBL as a

pedagogical model?

4 RESEARCH/DESIGN METHOD

The projects was set-up as an educational design

research project. Such projects move forward in

rounds in which design – and testing/evaluation

alternate (Van den Akker et al., 2006). Evaluation in

often carried out using a multi method approach in

which the results of e.g. material-analysis, classroom

observations and interview or questionnaires are

combined (Meijer, Verloop, & Beijaard, 2002).

The various data sources principally address the

education to be evaluated at different curriculum

levels (Goodlad, 1979). Interviews with teachers – for

example - address the ‘perceived curriculum’,

whereas classroom observations address the

‘observed curriculum’. Hence, the data from the

various sources supplement each other. Alignment

and discrepancies point out the level to which the

‘intended curriculum’ was actually transformed in

‘classroom reality’. These ‘levels of curriculum are

also found in the evaluation scheme (Table 2).

Table 2: General evaluation scheme.

Curriculum level

1. General Aspects of education: goals, methods, evaluation, …

(Van Gelder, Peters, Oudkerk Pool, & Sixma, 1973)

2. Adoption and Implementation: Understandability, Usefulness, Easy to use, Congruence

(Doyle & Ponder, 1977)

3. DBL characteristics: Structure, Steps, Reflection

(Rotherham & Willingham, 2010; Scheltenaar, van der Poel, & Bekker, 2015)

4. Teacher Guidance: Structure / Fit to teachers mental model, Option reduction / Cognitive

Load, Guidance, Reflectiveness, (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006)

5. Learning Goals within DBL created: Classical learning goals, 21

century goals

Goodlad (1979) levels of curriculum:

T = Theoretical curriculum: analysis of the tool, expert panel, user interviews

P = Perceived curriculum: teacher interviews, classroom observations

M = Material curriculum: analysis of classroom materials

E = Experienced curriculum: classroom observations, student interviews

Developing the Teach21 Online Authoring Tool

4.1 Evaluation Scheme

Data collection and analysis was organized according

to the evaluation scheme shown in Table 2. Five

‘main variables’ are evaluated on 4 of the Goodlad -

curriculum levels: Theoretical, Perceived, Material

and Experienced curriculum. For each level particular

data-sources are available (bottom row in Table 2).

When used, the cell of the scheme fill, and

comparison of the findings in one row over various

columns reveals how the intentions underpinning the

tool worked through in e.g. teacher perceptions,

teaching materials created and/or classroom reality.

The categories reflect the studies research

questions. The first category is fundamental to

evaluate the general effects off the tool on the created

education and concern general aspects of learning

environments according to (Van Gelder et al., 1973).

The second employs the work of (Doyle & Ponder,

1977) on adoption of educational innovations and

implementability. Key factors considered here are:

understandability, usefulness, ‘easy to use’, and

congruence with the teachers convictions.

The third category ensures the evaluation of the

way the tool addresses the various DBL components

(see Table 1). The fourth category focusses on teacher

support and the stimulation of reflection. The fifth

category concerns the educational goals.

4.2 Setting and Respondents

Data were collected from expert panels, stake-holder

panels, user sessions, user interviews, analysis of the

tool, analysis of the classroom material designed, and

classroom observations. Five teachers and four

stakeholders participated in the project. They were all

from the PlatOOlab (2017) group of schools. This is

a regional network of primary school collaborating in

modernizing education in close cooperation with

educational institutes and the city administration.

Expert panels comprised 12 experts with expertise in

educational design, educational research and/or

teacher training. The main researcher worked in close

cooperation with the design team, but was not a

member of it.

5 STUDY DESCRIPTION

5.1 Initial Specifications and Tool

At the start of project a preliminary tool by

Van der Sanden (2016) was used as input for two

stakeholder meetings with PlatOOlab school-leaders

and leading teachers. Also a panel of 6 experts was

asked to give feedback on the preliminary tool.

Finally, existing tool-kits for supporting teachers in

teaching ‘design’ were evaluated (e.g. IDEO, 2013).

This led to a list of must-haves, should-haves and

could-haves. Implementation of particularly the

must-haves led to the initial tool used in the first

round.

The initial tool (Figure 1) provides support for

handling the openness of the design activities, 2)

linking a design problem/challenge to a theme and

learning goals, 3) building up a set of learning

activities linked to concrete learning goals, 4)

selecting design methods related to design phases, 5)

selecting collaboration forms for the different

learning activities.

Figure 1: Screenshot from the initial tool.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Table 3: Main results of design round 1.

Not all lesson-components are

addressed in the tool e.g.

homework, assessment

(nevertheless) teachers

consider all lesson-

components

(all lesson-components

occur)

A&I

Workflow not always clear, no

classroom ready output (limited

understandability)

Aims fit very well to

teachers’ view of modern

education (congruence)

No classroom-ready

products (low usefulness)

DBL

The concept of DBL is partly

implicit in the tool e.g. only

implicit support on ‘design

specifications’

No mention

Student material contains

‘design specifications’

Teacher removes

‘design specifications’

as un could-have

during the lessons.

The tool structures the design

process, presents alternatives

addresses the way teachers

should design only implicitly

Teachers are challenged to

explore design options

and report being more

reflective

Teachers reflect during

teaching and make

adaptation to the

lessons

Tool comprises a list of classical

learning aims which is

unconnected to design-activities

No mention

Absent

Classical learning aims

play no role in the

lessons

5.2 First Design Round

In the first round five teachers were interviewed about

the tool, and three teachers were observed while

working with the tool. Teaching materials developed

were evaluated, and 4 lessons previously designed

using the tool were observed in classroom. Both the

teachers and the students were observed.

5.2.1 Results

Overall, the tool is used as intended. While using the

tool the teachers struggle with the workflow which is

sometimes ‘a bit illogical’ or unclear. The workflow

in the tool also differs from what these proficient

teachers usually do when designing education, and

comprises typical design-activities which they are

still unacquainted with.

Table 3 shows the results in the format of the

general evaluation scheme, which we will discuss

row by row. The first row shows that some general

aspects of learning activities (e.g. homework,

assessment) lack in the tool. The teachers were able

to compensate for this and arrive at complete

educational arrangements nevertheless; but this

critically depends on their (apparently sufficient)

proficiency as designers.

The second row shows that the initial tool scores

high on congruence, but low on usefulness and

understandability – which is in line with the findings

in the first row. The third row shows that the tool only

partly succeeds in making clear the concept DBL on

a theoretical level. This appears echoed in the ‘P-

column’ where the concept is absent, and the ‘E-

column’ where the key DBL-concept of ‘design

specifications’ is removed during the lessons in

classroom immediately after a brief introduction.

Apparently the tool did not clearly convey that this

concept is key to DBL.

The finding in the fourth row shows that the tool

is effective in guiding the teachers. No signs of

cognitive overload (e.g. confusion) were observed.

Finally, row 5 indicates that the ‘classical learning

aims’ apparently get lost during the design of DBL

learning activities.

5.2.2 Adaptations

In round 2 it was concluded that the structure of the

tool should be made more clear and should primary

reflect the teacher mental model of ‘lesson planning’

thus including for example homework and test.

The guiding-strategy apparently worked but

could still be improved after the removal of

incoherencies in the support of the first phase of

educational design. The previously existing ‘design

skeleton’ comprising 3 phases: Meta description

(level, subject, theme, central-question etc.),

Choosing matching activities, Elaborating chosen

activities was implemented more rigorously.

Teachers can however leap forward, backward,

upwards and downwards while using the tool.

This firm skeleton allowed for a more

systematical implementation of the key elements of

DBL, for a better pre-selection of e.g. design

activities on the basis of element in the meta-

description, and for making connections between

classical learning goals and design-activities. Effort

was made to have the tool produce classroom-ready

products wherever possible.

Developing the Teach21 Online Authoring Tool

5.2.3 Second Design Round

Due to the overhauling of the skeleton the second

version of the tool had to be completely rebuild in

another platform (Bakker, Bekker, & Taconis, 2017).

The new tool provides a better structure for the

teachers to decide on various elements of the lessons

to be developed, such as learning goals, educational

activity, length and mapping to design phases. The

tool takes them through a process of first deciding on

the global theme of the design activity, the intended

students, and the deliverables (steps one and two in

Figure 2). It then helps them to decide on how many

lessons to design, the linkage of the lessons to what

design activities, and choosing the design methods

that will be incorporated in the lessons (step 3 in

Figure 2).

Research in the second design round comprised

an expert review by (8) educational experts. Also the

improved tool was used by 4 teachers with a

researcher present. The design product resulting from

these sessions was analysed. Teachers-users and

stakeholders were interviewed. Unfortunately no

classroom use was possible due to logistical issues.

5.2.4 Results

The general picture is that the teachers-users are very

happy with the new tool. Those who have used the

initial version agreed that the revised tool is much

better structured, more informative, and more useful.

Table 4 shows the results in more detail. The first two

rows show that the tool now is a more clear, complete

and usable design support tool, that comprises all

aspects of and components of lessons to be planned.

The clear skeleton contributes to this. The tool also is

adequate in stimulating informed reflective design

decisions (row four).

However (row three) shows that the concept of DBL

still stays implicit. Users primarily value the tool as

an instrument for designing 21

century education in

a structured and reflective way. Besides this, the

second version of the tool did not succeed in

connecting 21

century aims and classical learning

aims to the DBL learning tasks designed.

Table 4: Main results of design round 2.

All lesson-components

are in the tool

Teachers consider all

lesson-components

A&I

Workflow is clear,

output of use to

teachers

Fits very well to

teachers’ convictions of

modern education;

output usable

DBL

The concept of DBL is

clear.

Teacher value the tool

for the structured way of

designing modern

education (rather than

DBL per sé)

The tool follows the

mental model of

‘lesson planning’ and

guides teacher choices

on learning activities

Teachers report being

more reflective; and are

inspired by the suggested

learning activities

century aims and

classical learning aims

are pre-selected form

meta-description

No mention

Figure 2: Screenshot of the revised tool.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

6 CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION

Teachers and stakeholders value the design tool as an

instrument for designing 21

century education in a

structured way that also stimulates reflection. The

tool appears to be successful in this. However, it was

not found to be effective in promoting DBL.

Besides this, it remains unclear what exactly are

the learning effects of the DBL education that was

designed using the tool. Moreover, the tool can

clearly be improved in connecting specific ‘21

century learning goals’ and ‘classical learning goals’

to the DBL education designed. Two things seem

critical to make further improvements.

Firstly, the concept of DBL needs to be

supplemented with a pedagogical strategy that

describes the particular cognitive demands of the

design activities. Thus allowing to link these to skills

and knowledge needed to complete these. For this the

‘levels of inquiry’ by Ireland, Watters, Lunn

Brownlee, and Lupton (2014) may be used. This

would also allow for a better underpinning of the pre-

selection of design options presented in step 3 on the

basis of the ‘global decision’ made in step 1 and 2.

Secondly, assessment should get more attention

in future projects. Assessing of 21st-century

competencies is beyond the capabilities of most

traditional assessment formats (e.g., multiple-choice

test, self-report survey)’ (Razzouk & Shute, 2012, p.

330). As students work on their tasks, evidence can

be collected to evaluate their performance. But

teachers need support in this. The design tool should

preferably offer assessment formats that teachers can

use to create adequate assessments as an integrated

part of their DBL.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work is financed by the Netherlands

Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), project

number 405-16-5010. Thanks to the PlatOOlab

schools, and Eduventure for their input to the project.

REFERENCES

Bakker, S., Bekker, M. M., & Taconis, R. (2017). Teach21

online authoring tool voor Design Based Learning

(version 2.0) Retrieved from http://dbl.studiotast.com/

Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., Van Der Poel, J., &

Scheltenaar, K. (2015). Teaching children digital

literacy through design-based learning with digital

toolkits in schools. International Journal of Child-

Computer Interaction, 5, 29-38.

Bernard, M. (2000). Constructing user-centered websites:

design implications for content organization. Usability

News, 2(2).

Cogan, J., & Derricott, R. (2014). Citizenship for the 21st

century: An international perspective on education:

Routledge.

Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic

in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.

Gomez Puente, S. M., Van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W.

(2013). Empirical validation of characteristics of

design-based learning in higher education.

International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2),

491.

Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry. The Study of

Curriculum Practice.

IDEO. (2013). Design Thinking for educators: Toolkit v2.

Retrieved from

https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/

Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Lunn Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M.

(2014). Approaches to Inquiry Teaching: Elementary

teacher's perspectives. International Journal of Science

Education, 36(10), 1733-1750.

Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The

design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in

interactive learning environments. Paper presented at

the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human

factors in computing systems.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why

minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An

analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based

teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Van den Akker, J. (2002).

Computer support for curriculum developers:

CASCADE. Educational technology research and

development, 50(4), 25-35.

Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-

method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers'

practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal

validity. Quality and Quantity, 36(2), 145-167.

Pérez, A., Ignacio, J., Dimitriadis, Y. A., Pozzi, F.,

Hernández Leo, D., Prieto, L. P., . . . Villagrá Sobrino,

S. L. (2017). Towards teaching as design: Exploring the

interplay between full-lifecycle learning design tooling

and Teacher Professional Development.

PlatOOlab. (2017). PlatOOlab. Retrieved from

www.platoolab.nl

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching

and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and

research bases. Journal of engineering education,

95(2), 123-138.

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking

and why is it important? Review of Educational

Research, 82(3), 330-348.

Roth, S. P., Schmutz, P., Pauwels, S. L., Bargas-Avila, J.

A., & Opwis, K. (2009). Mental models for web

objects: Where do users expect to find the most frequent

objects in online shops, news portals, and company web

pages? Interacting with computers, 22(2), 140-152.

Developing the Teach21 Online Authoring Tool

Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st-

Century” Skills. American Educator, 17.

Scheltenaar, K., van der Poel, J., & Bekker, M. (2015).

Design-based learning in classrooms using playful

digital toolkits. Paper presented at the International

Conference on Entertainment Computing.

Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How

professionals think in action (Vol. 5126): Basic books.

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M.,

Herodotou, C., Koh, E., . . . Rienties, B. (2016).

Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University

Innovation Report 5: Institute of Educational

Technology, The Open University.

Silver, M. S. (1991). Decisional guidance for computer-

based decision support. MIS Quarterly, 105-122.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load

theory (Vol. 1): Springer.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., &

Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research:

Routledge.

Van der Sanden, A. (2016). Eduvation: A toolkit that

empowers teachers to create DBL activities. Retrieved

from Eindhoven

Van Gelder, L., Peters, J., Oudkerk Pool, T., & Sixma, J.

(1973). Didactische Analyse Werk-en Studieboek 2:

Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Vos, M. A. J., Taconis, R., Jochems, W. M., & Pilot, A.

(2011). Classroom Implementation of Context‐ based

Chemistry Education by Teachers: The relation

between experiences of teachers and the design of

materials. International Journal of Science Education,

33(10), 1407-1432.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education