Design-Based Research

What is design-based research? How does it differ from traditional research?

I like 2 definitions of design research:

1. The book definition on page 48, Design research uses continuous cycles of design, implementation, analysis, and redesign. Design research not only uses but also produces sharable theories that have implications for practitioners and designers with a focus on design in authentic setting.
2. Ann Brown’s 1992 definition that design research “was introduced with the expectation that researchers would systematically adjust various aspects of the designed context so that each adjustment served as a type of experimentation that allowed the researchers to test and generate theory in naturalistic contexts” (Barab & Squire, p. 3).

Both of these definitions give a good explanation of design research. I think there are a few keys to understanding design-based research and how it differs from traditional research.

1. Cyclical Process = Design, Revision & Evaluation - This form of research is a process that is continually evaluated and revised as needed throughout the study. This revision is one of the key aspects of design research. Traditional research does not change throughout the process, rather the experiment takes place in a controlled laboratory setting in which the researcher observes the differences between the control group and experimental group with as little interference as possible from the researcher. The outcomes are then reported as the study’s findings. In design research if the intervention is not working, or needs to be modified evaluation and revision is an acceptable part of the process - in fact it is a key element of design research!
2. Naturalistic setting/Authentic setting - For me, the ability to conduct research about learning and teaching has to take place in a realistic setting - the classroom. This ability to conduct research in the actual classrooms (the most natural or authentic setting for learners) is critical to accurately testing theories or practices. While there are limitations to research in a classroom because of the many variables that can affect learning, those limitations can be carefully accounted for and moderated to the best of the researcher’s ability.

Which type makes more sense to you and would be more valuable in advancing theory, research and practice of educational technology?

I believe that design research would be most beneficial to advancing theory, research, and practice of educational technology because the research is conducted in that naturalistic, authentic classroom setting. In my experience, once you take the students out of their natural learning environment (the classroom) they tend to act differently than they would in the “normal” classroom. More importantly, the aspects of design research that allow for changes to be made as the research process continues is one of the most important aspects of design research. What works for one student or group of students won’t always work for every student. The ability to make changes and try again or try another approach can provide valuable insight into the learning process. Researcher conclusions about why one intervention worked with one group and not the other can help future researchers either repeat the same study or better anticipate ways in which to modify the study to achieve results.

This evolutionary process is important to educational technology because technology changes so quickly! If research was based on one specific type of technology, i.e. a certain brand of software or hardware, that study would be very limited in terms of generizability and applicability to other situations. If research is more focused on educational technology theories and practices, those studies will remain useful as the technologies change because the theories will be backed by research studies that can attest to their applicability.

How would you use design-based research in an educational or training setting you're familiar with?

This is ideal for conducting research in an actual classroom like my own. In fact, when I was looking at other types of research in preparing for my wiki study last semester, design research seemed like a feasible solution. True experimental groups are hard to come by in a school. As I have experienced, the group that does not get the experimental treatment feels “left out.” In my case it was my World History Senior classes that weren’t even part of the study. When they heard I was using a wiki in my American History classes they immediately asked why I wasn’t using it with them! So imagine having 2 American History classes that get a treatment that is supposed to benefit the students and enhance the class and 1 American History class that did not receive this treatment. The students in the class may care (or in my case, may not care :( ) that they did not receive this treatment and feel left out - if the kids don’t care their parents certainly will!

Another classroom issue concerning research is that you are teaching students who ultimately do need to learn the material. If an intervention fails to teach the lesson or if students fail to learn for any reason it has to be retaught. Teachers (well good ones at least!) cannot just simply say "oh that didn't work" and move on to the next lesson. Design research allows for those changes to be made in the intervention so that the material can still be taught in a way for the students to understand. Design research also sees value in theory building based on these types of observations.

Ultimately, I classified my wiki study as Action Research which is very similar to design research. To make my wiki study follow a more design-based research structure, the research questions would have to change to be more theoretical and less prescriptive/explanatory. My research questions focused on how and why the wiki would change behavior, attitudes, etc. but to be more design research they would need to be more theoretical in nature & focus more on the learning process.