Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Design-based research: an introduction


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Design-based research: an introduction

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. Motives More relevance for pedagogical decision making in schools. (Anne Brown) Capture the innovations that teachers (not only researchers) produce (Alan Collins) DBR
  3. 3. A definition  “A systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.” Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 6
  4. 4. Aspiration “DBR involves the creation of a theoretically-inspired innovation, usually a learning environment, to directly address a local problem”. But credible evidence for local gains is not sufficient. In addition, the researcher needs to: “…generate evidence-based claims about learning that address contemporary theoretical issues and further the theoretical knowledge of the field” (Barab, 2008, p. 155)
  5. 5. Positioning DBR Low Control High R e l e v a n c e L H Action Research Correlation Studies Experiments DBR Quasi- Experiments
  6. 6. Variables and context  Levels: individual, interpersonal, group, resource, institution  Types of dependent variables: climate, learning, and systemic  Types of contextual variables: setting, nature of learners, resources for implementation, professional development, financial requirements, implementation path.  Time horizon and measurement points.
  7. 7. Factorial designs DVs IV IV IV CVs DV = f(IV1, IV2, …Ivk | CV1…m) with f usually linear
  8. 8. Repeated Measurements Design Time Design&Refine Implement&ObserveAnalyze Design&Refine Implement&ObserveAnalyze Design&Refine Implement&ObserveAnalyze Design Change Design Change
  9. 9. Repeated Measurements Design Time Interventions Relevant performance measure Baseline
  10. 10. Not only a research process  The design artifact is essential:  it outlasts the study and can be adopted, adapted, and re-used by others.To the extent that the design artifact reifies a model of teaching/learning, that model/theory gets tested (elsewhere) as well.  Process (models) as artifacts Teaching experiments  Software as artifact  “learning environments”
  11. 11. What kind of knowledge is produced by DBR? 1. Designs for process and/or software. 2. Software (where applicable). 3. “Design narratives”:  How to allow others to re-contextualize (and perhaps re-implement) a design with respect to local particulars?  Rich descriptions how designs are enacted. 4. Theoretical accounts: Propositional systems reporting “rich models of interaction” .
  12. 12. How is a design study (proto- )typically done? Phase 1: Preparing the experiment  Clarifying the instructional goals  Documenting the instructional starting points  Delineating an envisioned learning trajectory  Placing the experiment in a theoretical context Phase 2: Experimenting to support learning  Collecting data in cycles of design and analysis  Applying interpretive frameworks  Formulating and testing domain-specific instructional theories Phase 3: Conducting retrospective analyses  Explicating the argumentative grammar  Establishing trust in the findings  Ensuring repeatability  Ensuring generalizability
  13. 13. Delineating a learning trajectory  Testable conjectures  about significant shifts in students’ reasoning, and  the means for supporting and organising these shifts, including:  “Tangibles” such as instructional tasks, materials, ICTs,...  “Intangibles” such as classrooms norms and nature of classroom discourse, …  Teacher as co-designer of the ‘means’ and part of them.  Basis for the conjectures:  Research literature  Experience  Creativity
  14. 14. Placing the experiment in a theoretical context  The goal of DBR is to produce knowledge that will be useful in providing guidance to others in their attempts to support learning processes.  Hence, the specific experiment needs to be framed as a paradigmatic instance of broader phenomena.  This framing is best done in terms of ‘mid-range’ theories  E.g., meta-representational competence (diSessa, 1992) rather than ‘constructivism’.
  15. 15. Data analysis  Huge range of methods, ranging from mathematical and computational modeling over statistical analysis to content analysis and ethnomethdological or phenomenological methods.  Video analysis very prominent  Log file analysis very prominent in some quarters (CSCL)  Typically, mixed methods approach applied.  (Statistical) “Generalisations” often required by policy makers.
  16. 16. DBR’s Argumentative Grammar  How are claims to knowledge justified? What form does the warrant take?  Demarcation: Can the set of methods establish boundaries between sound and unsound claims about learning and teaching?  Meaningfulness: Can the set of methods help to generate meaningful/powerful (construct-advancing) hypotheses/models?
  17. 17. The full research process 1 Grounded Models 2 Development of Artifact 3 Feasability Study 4 Prototyping & Trials (DBR) 5 Field Study (Quasi- Experiment, DBR) 6 Definitive Test (Full Experiment) 7 Dissemination & Impact
  18. 18. Teacher-led design research  Required for long-term design research.  Required for continuous design improvements.  Develops capacity in teachers and in the organisation “school” to not only ‘implement’, but t0 generate (sustainable) innovations.
  19. 19. Challenges  Methodological  Researcher involvement, Hawthorne effect  Reliability  Incremental contributions, comparison across studies  Design methodology  Data gathering and analysis  Capturing context and process  Managing and integrating various, often ‘rich’ data formats  Data deluge  Dissemination and scalability  Publishing design studies  Going beyond the case  Researcher “training” (including teacher “training”)
  20. 20. Key Readings  Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R.A., & Baek, J.Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education. NewYork: Routledge.  Reimann, P. (2009).Time is precious:Variable- and event- centered approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 239-257.  Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., &Vatrapu, R. (2007). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Minds, mind, and society. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007) (pp. 694-703). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.