Hello everyone. I am Naohiro Higuchi, a second-year master’s student.
In this article, I will review the paper I introduced at the English seminar on October 23, 2025.
This study explores how we can support teachers’ daily practice with data in today’s technology-driven world. Specifically, it discusses how technology can integrate and create synergies among three processes: “Learning Analytics,” “Lesson Design,” and “Teacher Inquiry.”
Paper Information
・Paper Title: Supporting teachers in data-informed educational design
・Authors: McKenney, S., & Mor, Y.
・Journal: British journal of educational technology
・Volume/Issue/Pages: 265-279, 46(2)
・Year: 2015
The Gap Between Increasingly Complex Teacher Practice and Research
In recent years, there has been growing attention toward “evidence-based education,” but the results of academic research cannot always be applied directly to diverse educational settings.
Teachers intuitively perform “lesson design” while observing their students (data) every day, and they engage in “reflection (inquiry)” after class. These are also, in essence, data-informed practices.
However, these practices tend to rely on individual experience and intuition, creating a disconnect from academic approaches that systematically collect and analyze data using technology. To bridge the gap between the research community and the practitioner community, this study focuses on the following three keywords:
1. Learning Analytics (LA):
The measurement, collection, and analysis of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs.
2. Learning Design (LD):
A field that aims to improve the quality of design by making the process of lesson planning and its artifacts (such as lesson plans) visible and shareable.
3. Teacher Inquiry (TI):
A process in which teachers themselves identify “inquiry questions” in their practice, collect and analyze evidence (data), and apply it to their next lesson design.
This paper points out that while LA, LD, and TI have been studied individually, there are insufficient tools and mechanisms to integrate them and enable teacher-led cycles of practice and inquiry. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the characteristics of tools that can integratively support teachers engaged in these three processes.
A “Synergy” Model Integrating the Three Processes
The authors base their research on a theoretical model where these three processes influence each other to create “synergy.”
At the center of this model lies the “Rationale.” This represents the fundamental thinking behind practice, such as educational goals, classroom context, and the teacher’s educational vision and values.
With this “Rationale” at the core, the three processes interact. Insights from LA (Learning Analytics) enhance the quality of LD (Learning Design), LD (design tools) provides a framework for TI (Teacher Inquiry), and the results of TI (inquiry into practice) are fed back into the improvement of the next LD (Lesson Design).
Research Method: Retrospective Analysis of CASCADE-SEA
This study adopted an approach of learning from successful past cases.
Specifically, it focused on a software program called “CASCADE-SEA” developed in the 1990s. This was a proven system widely used to support curriculum development and professional growth for secondary education (science and mathematics) teachers in Southern Africa.
Although CASCADE-SEA was designed before the modern terms LA, LD, and TI were coined, its functions integratively included these three fundamental elements.
Therefore, the authors retrospectively analyzed (re-coded) an existing four-year dataset (including interviews and questionnaires from 510 participants) collected during the system’s design, development, and evaluation process from the new perspectives of LA, LD, and TI.
Findings from the Analysis
As a result of re-analyzing the data from the perspectives of LA, LD, and TI, the following insights were obtained regarding the important characteristics that integrated tools should possess:
1. Analysis (Related to LA)
・Importance of collaboration: Since teachers often work in groups, the system was expected to support not only individual work but also group collaboration.
・Promoting “Why” thinking: It was suggested that functions that prompt teachers to think by asking about the causes (Why) behind the current situation (What), rather than just presenting data to grasp the status quo, are important.
・Effect of continuous use: The system was evaluated as useful for learning curriculum development, but it was also noted that the learning effect is sustained only when used regularly.
2. Design (Related to LD)
・Value of resources (databases): Databases compiling past design cases (lesson plans) and teaching resources were highly valued by teachers.
・Promoting reflection: Through the use of the system, teachers were encouraged to think deeply about their own teaching practice. For many, this was their first experience reflecting on their own educational philosophy and values (=Rationale).
・Willingness to share: Teachers showed a desire not only to use resources but also to provide the lesson plans they created, and they also desired community features that would allow them to comment on others’ practices.
3. Evaluation (Related to TI)
・Effectiveness of guidance: Step-by-step, concrete guidance was highly valued for planning and executing classroom evaluations (inquiry).
・Tension between “guidance and freedom”: On the other hand, there is a concern that excessive guidance might cause teachers to stop thinking (become lazy), while too much freedom leads to confusion. This showed that the appropriate balance between “structure” and “freedom” is a key issue in tool design.
Implications for Future Tool Design
Based on these analysis results, the authors propose design principles that modern integrated tools should possess.
At the root of this is the design concept proposed by educational scholar Donald Schön: “reflective conversation with the materials of the situation.” This is the idea that educators design activities by predicting learner growth, but they only know if it went as intended after confirming how they actually learned (data).
Based on this concept, excerpts of the proposed guidelines are as follows:
・LA Principles: Utilize mobile technology to collect face-to-face (classroom) data. Support group work for teachers and provide guidance from the perspective of “how to utilize data for education.”
・LD Principles: Provide a database where past excellent material designs can be referenced. Ensure transparency and flexibility in the design process, and provide concrete support for tasks using checklists, etc.
・TI Principles: Features that support teachers in reviewing data, reflecting on the impact on practice, and sharing results with other teachers. Also, maintain a mechanism that provides user-specific advice rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
・Synergy Principles: Most importantly, the system should seamlessly strengthen the “connections” between LA, LD, and TI. Throughout the entire process, provide support for teachers to continuously re-examine and refine their core “Rationale.”
Future Prospects and Challenges: An Approach as “Citizen Science”
Finally, the authors propose a “Citizen Science” approach as a way to develop this further.
This is a vision where not only professional researchers but also numerous teachers actively participate in collecting and analyzing data in their own classrooms. The vast amount of data aggregated from the field in this way has the potential to form a body of scientifically valid evidence.
However, to realize this vision, challenges remain: “cultural and resource challenges” such as teachers needing to adopt a “data inquirer” mindset and being provided with the time, resources, and rewards to practice; “methodological challenges” regarding how to aggregate and integrate research results from diverse classrooms; and “ethical challenges” regarding how to protect learner privacy.
Reflections
Since the theory I am using for my own development research is exactly in line with the flow of this paper, I reviewed this paper focusing on the system (CASCADE-SEA) that was designed and implemented in strict accordance with that theory.
As a reflection, perhaps due to the historical context, I felt that the part regarding detailed data utilization in LA was a bit weak. This might be because the primary purpose of this program was originally material development, but in my research, I felt once again that I want to push LA to the forefront and enable higher-granularity analysis and reflection by utilizing learning logs obtained from digital learning material systems.
Also, it was a great takeaway that the perspective of teachers’ collaborative work and sharing of insights was frequently introduced within the system. I had been thinking that it would be interesting for the system I am developing to function as a system where teachers can set common issues and rationales as a team, and then conduct classroom practice, analysis, accumulation of insights, and discussion, so I obtained materials that reinforce that idea.
Since the manuscript for the CLE research meeting I will attend in November was about the formative evaluation of my system’s prototype, the flow of the paper’s structure—background theory of the system, functional explanation, and evaluation and discussion based on the theory—was very helpful for writing it. I will continue my future research while valuing the balance between development and theory.
Responsible for content: Naohiro Higuchi
