design based research an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry

Help & FAQ

Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry

Administration, Leadership & Technology

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

The authors argue that design-based research, which blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments, is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why educational innovations work in practice. Design-based researchers’ innovations embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and help us understand the relationships among educational theory, designed artifact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge, and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research also may contribute to the growth of human capacity for subsequent educational reform.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to document.

10.3102/0013189X032001005

Fingerprint

paradigm Social Sciences 100%
innovation Social Sciences 65%
educational theory Social Sciences 59%
educational reform Social Sciences 53%
learning Social Sciences 51%
educational research Social Sciences 48%
artifact Social Sciences 44%
Teaching Social Sciences 43%

T1 - Design-Based Research

T2 - An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry

AU - The Design-Based Research Collective

AU - Baumgartner, Eric

AU - Bell, Philip

AU - Brophy, Sean

AU - Hoadley, Christopher

AU - Hsi, Sherry

AU - Joseph, Diana

AU - Orrill, Chandra

AU - Puntambekar, Sadhana

AU - Sandoval, William

AU - Tabak, Iris

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - The authors argue that design-based research, which blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments, is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why educational innovations work in practice. Design-based researchers’ innovations embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and help us understand the relationships among educational theory, designed artifact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge, and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research also may contribute to the growth of human capacity for subsequent educational reform.

AB - The authors argue that design-based research, which blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments, is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why educational innovations work in practice. Design-based researchers’ innovations embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and help us understand the relationships among educational theory, designed artifact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge, and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research also may contribute to the growth of human capacity for subsequent educational reform.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84993683936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84993683936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3102/0013189X032001005

DO - 10.3102/0013189X032001005

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84993683936

SN - 0013-189X

JO - Educational Researcher

JF - Educational Researcher

Design-Based Research

First Online: 24 October 2010

Cite this chapter

design based research an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry

Peter Reimann 4

Part of the book series: Methodos Series ((METH,volume 9))

5825 Accesses

35 Citations

Design-based research, with the design experiment as its main practical method, can be characterised as an inter-disciplinary ‘mixed-method’ research approach conducted ‘in the field’ that serves applied as well as theory-building purposes. Substantial progress has been made over recent years in articulating the methodological and epistemological basis for design-based research and in developing it into a teachable method. This chapter delineates these lines of development and provides a short overview of how a prototypical design study is conducted. It identifies and problematises the notions of design and design methods arguing that they need further conceptual development and integration with the methodological foundation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Schools and classrooms are the most typical locations where design studies are conducted. However, there is no principled reason why DBR should not be applied in other learning settings.

Differently from grounded theory, though, DBR has no particular interest in fencing off prior theories and encourages theory-building that incorporates elements beyond the observations.

To avoid confusion with more conventional notions of ‘theory’, one may speak of ‘models’ here rather than theories. The notion of ‘a learning design model’ captures well the distinction between a model and more or less customised instances of that model, as developed in the more technical research on learning design (e.g. Koper , 2005 ). However, the terminology used by Cobb and Gravemeijer ( 2008 ) that is also representative for other researchers in the learning sciences is used predominately in this chapter.

Abell, P. (2004). Narrative explanations: An alternative to variable-centered explanation? Annual Review of Sociology, 30 , 287–310.

Article Google Scholar

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2008). Teacher Design Research. An emerging paradigm for teachers’ professional development. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 246–262). New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Barab, S. A., Baek, E.-O., Schatz, S., Scheckler, R., & Moore, J. (2008). Illuminating the braids of change in a web-supported community. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 320–352). New York: Routledge.

Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1–14.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking , R. C. (Eds.). (2000). How People learn: Brain, mind, experience and school . Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Willams, S. M. (1990). Anchored Instruction: Why we need It and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 , 141–178.

Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 68–95). New York: Routledge.

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (2), 119–142.

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology . Berlin: Springer.

Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–152). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M. S., Penuel, W. R., & Toyama, Y. (2008). Supporting the art of teaching in a data-rich, high-performance learning environment. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement (pp. 109–129). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 105–121.

Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 43–76.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine.

Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: design patterns and pattern languages . Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53 , 5–26.

Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15 , 135–175.

Jacobson, M. J., & Reimann, P. (Eds.). (2010). Designs for learning environments of the future . New York: Springer.

Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 3–4.

Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 115–128.

Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education . New York: Routledge.

Koper, R. (2005). An introduction to learning design. In R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning design. A handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Springer.

Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (Eds.). (2005). Learning design. A handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training . Berlin: Springer.

Lesh, R. A., Kelly, A. E., & Yoon, C. (2008). Multitiered design experiments in mathematics, science, and technology education. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 131–148). New York: Routledge.

Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. L. (2004). Internet environments for science education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mandinach, E. B., & Honey, M. (Eds.). (2008). Data-driven school improvement . New York: Teachers College Press.

Markauskaite, L., & Reimann, P. (2008). Enhancing and scaling-up design-based research: The potential of e-research . Paper presented at the International Learning Science Conference - ICLS 2008, Utrecht, The Netherlands Retrieved July 24–28, 2008, from http://www.fi.uu.nl/en/icls2008/343/paper343.pdf

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33 (2), 3–11.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Piaget, J. (1976). The child’s conception of the world . Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-Design Theories and Models. (Vol. II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4 , 239–257.

Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future . (pp. 233–263) New York: Springer.

Chapter Google Scholar

Rothkopf, E. Z. (2008). Reflections on the field: Aspirations of learning science and the practical logic of instructional enterprises. Educational Psychology Review, 20 , 351–368.

Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations . Cambridge, England: Cambride University Press.

Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39 (4), 199–201.

Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences . New York: Cambride University Press.

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Schank, R., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The Design of Goal-Based Scenarios, The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 3 (4), 305–345.

Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

The Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 5–8.

van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker , N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and development research in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53 (4), 5–23.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Social Work, Research Centre for Computer-supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Peter Reimann

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Reimann .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Fac. Education & Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, New South Wales, Australia

Lina Markauskaite

Peter Freebody

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Reimann, P. (2011). Design-Based Research. In: Markauskaite, L., Freebody, P., Irwin, J. (eds) Methodological Choice and Design. Methodos Series, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_3

Published : 24 October 2010

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-90-481-8932-8

Online ISBN : 978-90-481-8933-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Introduction
Acknowledgements
1. Groundwork
1.1. Research
1.2. Knowing
1.3. Theories
1.4. Ethics
2. Paradigms
2.1. Inferential Statistics
2.2. Sampling
2.3. Qualitative Rigor
2.4. Design-Based Research
2.5. Mixed Methods
3. Learning Theories
3.1. Behaviorism
3.2. Cognitivism
3.3. Constructivism
3.4. Socioculturalism
3.5. Connectivism
Appendix A. Supplements
Appendix B. Example Studies
Example Study #1. Public comment sentiment on educational videos
Example Study #2. Effects of open textbook adoption on teachers' open practices
Appendix C. Historical Readings
Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
On the Origin of Species (1859)
Science and the Savages (1905)
Theories of Knowledge (1916)
Theories of Morals (1916)
Translations

Design-Based Research

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

In an educational setting, design-based research is a research approach that engages in iterative designs to develop knowledge that improves educational practices. This chapter will provide a brief overview of the origin, paradigms, outcomes, and processes of design-based research (DBR). In these sections we explain that (a) DBR originated because some researchers believed that traditional research methods failed to improve classroom practices, (b) DBR places researchers as agents of change and research subjects as collaborators, (c) DBR produces both new designs and theories, and (d) DBR consists of an iterative process of design and evaluation to develop knowledge.

Origin of DBR

DBR originated as researchers like Allan Collins (1990) and Ann Brown (1992) recognized that educational research often failed to improve classroom practices. They perceived that much of educational research was conducted in controlled, laboratory-like settings. They believed that this laboratory research was not as helpful as possible for practitioners.

Proponents of DBR claim that educational research is often detached from practice (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2002). There are at least two problems that arise from this detachment: (a) practitioners do not benefit from researchers’ work and (b) research results may be inaccurate because they fail to account for context (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2002).

Practitioners do not benefit from researchers’ work if the research is detached from practice. Practitioners are able to benefit from research when they see how the research can inform and improve their designs and practices. Some practitioners believe that educational research is often too abstract or sterilized to be useful in real contexts (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2002).

Not only is lack of relevance a problem, but research results can also be inaccurate by failing to account for context. Findings and theories based on lab results may not accurately reflect what happens in real-world educational settings.

Conversely, a problem that arises from an overemphasis on practice is that while individual practices may improve, the general body of theory and knowledge does not increase. Scholars like Collins (1990) and Brown (1992) believed that the best way to conduct research would be to achieve the right balance between theory-building and practical impact.

Paradigms of DBR

Proponents of DBR believe that conducting research in context, rather than in a controlled laboratory setting, and iteratively designing interventions yields authentic and useful knowledge. Sasha Barab (2004) says that the goal of DBR is to “directly impact practice while advancing theory that will be of use to others” (p. 8). This implies “a pragmatic philosophical underpinning, one in which the value of a theory lies in its ability to produce changes in the world” (p. 6). The aims of DBR and the role of researchers and subjects are informed by this philosophical underpinning.

Aims of DBR

Traditional, experimental research is conducted by theorists focused on isolating variables to test and refine theory. DBR is conducted by designers focused on (a) understanding contexts, (b) designing effective systems, and (c) making meaningful changes for the subjects of their studies (Barab & Squire, 2004; Collins, 1990). Traditional methods of research generate refined understandings of how the world works, which may indirectly affect practice. In DBR there is an intentionality in the research process to both refine theory and practice (Collins et al., 2004).

Role of DBR Researcher

In DBR, researchers assume the roles of “curriculum designers, and implicitly, curriculum theorists” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p.2). As curriculum designers, DBR researchers come into their contexts as informed experts with the purpose of creating, “test[ing] and refin[ing] educational designs based on principles derived from prior research” (Collins et al., 2004, p. 15). These educational designs may include curricula, practices, software, or tangible objects beneficial to the learning process (Barab & Squire, 2004). As curriculum theorists, DBR researchers also come into their research contexts with the purpose to refine extant theories about learning (Brown, 1992).

This duality of roles for DBR researchers contributes to a greater sense of responsibility and accountability within the field. Traditional, experimental researchers isolate themselves from the subjects of their study (Barab & Squire, 2004). This separation is seen as a virtue, allowing researchers to make dispassionate observations as they test and refine their understandings of the world around them. In comparison, design-based researchers “bring agendas to their work,” see themselves as necessary agents of change and see themselves as accountable for the work they do (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 2).

Role of DBR Subjects

Within DBR, research subjects are seen as key contributors and collaborators in the research process. Classic experimentalism views the subjects of research as things to be observed or experimented on, suggesting a unidirectional relationship between researcher and research subject. The role of the research subject is to be available and genuine so that the researcher can make meaningful observations and collect accurate data. In contrast, design-based researchers view the subjects of their research (e.g., students, teachers, schools) as “co-participants” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 3) and “co-investigators” (Collins, 1990, p. 4). Research subjects are seen as necessary in “helping to formulate the questions,” “making refinements in the designs,” “evaluating the effects of...the experiment,” and “reporting the results of the experiment to other teachers and researchers” (Collins, 1990, pp. 4-5). Research subjects are co-workers with the researcher in iteratively pushing the study forward.

Outcomes of DBR

DBR educational research develops knowledge through this collaborative, iterative research process. The knowledge developed by DBR can be separated into two categories: (a) tangible, practical outcomes and (b) intangible, theoretical outcomes.

Tangibles Outcomes

A major goal of design-based research is producing meaningful interventions and practices. Within educational research these interventions may “involve the development of technological tools [and] curricula” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 1). But more than just producing meaningful educational products for a specific context, DBR aims to produce meaningful, effective educational products that can be transferred and adapted (Barab & Squire, 2004). As expressed by Brown (1992), “an effective intervention should be able to migrate from our experimental classroom to average classrooms operated by and for average students and teachers” (p.143).

Intangible Outcomes

It is important to recognize that DBR is not only concerned with improving practice but also aims to advance theory and understanding (Collins et al., 2004). DBR’s emphasis on the importance of context enhances the knowledge claims of the research. “Researchers investigate cognition in context...with the broad goal of developing evidence-based claims derived from both laboratory-based and naturalistic investigations that result in knowledge about how people learn” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p.1). This new knowledge about learning then drives future research and practice.

Process of DBR

A hallmark of DBR is the iterative nature of its interventions. As each iteration progresses, researchers refine and rework the intervention drawing on a variety of research methods that best fit the context. This flexibility allows the end result to take precedence over the process. While each researcher may use different methods, McKenny and Reeves (2012) outlined three core processes of DBR: (a) analysis and exploration, (b) design and construction, and (c) evaluation and reflection. To put these ideas in context, we will refer to a recent DBR study completed by Siko and Barbour regarding the use of PowerPoint games in the classroom.

Analysis and Exploration

Analysis is a critical aspect of DBR and must be used throughout the entire process. At the start of a DBR project, it is critical to understand and define which problem will be addressed. In collaboration with practitioners, researchers seek to understand all aspects of a problem. Additionally, they “seek out and learn from how others have viewed and solved similar problems ” (McKenny & Reeves, 2012, p. 85). This analysis helps to provide an understanding of the context within which to execute an intervention.

Since theories cannot account for the variety of variables in a learning situation, exploration is needed to fill the gaps. DBR researchers can draw from a number of disciplines and methodologies as they execute an intervention. The decision of which methodologies to use should be driven by the research context and goals.

Siko and Barbour (2016) used the DBR process to address a gap they found in research regarding the effectiveness of having students create their own PowerPoint games to review for a test. In analyzing existing research, they found studies that stated teaching students to create their own PowerPoint games did not improve content retention. Siko and Barbour wanted to “determine if changes to the implementation protocol would lead to improved performance” (Siko & Barbour, 2016, p. 420). They chose to test their theory in three different phases and adapt the curriculum following each phase.

Design and Construction

Informed by the analysis and exploration, researchers design and construct interventions, which may be a specific technology or “less concrete aspects such as activity structures, institutions, scaffolds, and curricula” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, pp. 5–6). This process involves laying out a variety of options for a solution and then creating the idea with the most promise.

Within Siko and Barbour’s design, they planned to observe three phases of a control group and a test group. Each phase would use t-tests to compare two unit tests for each group. They worked with teachers to implement time for playing PowerPoint games as well as a discussion on what makes games successful. The first implementation was a control phase that replicated past research and established a baseline. Once they finished that phase, they began to evaluate.

Evaluation and Reflection

Researchers can evaluate their designs both before and after use. The cyclical process involves careful, constant evaluation for each iteration so that improvements can be made. While tests and quizzes are a standard way of evaluating educational progress, interviews and observations also play a key role, as they allow for better understanding of how teachers and students might see the learning situation.

Reflection allows the researcher to make connections between actions and results. Researchers must take the time to analyze what changes allowed them to have success or failure so that theory and practice at large can be benefited. Collins (1990) states:

It is important to analyze the reasons for failure and to take steps to fix them. It is critical to document the nature of the failures and the attempted revisions, as well as the overall results of the experiment, because this information informs the path to success. (pg. 5)

As researchers reflect on each change they made, they find what is most useful to the field at large, whether it be a failure or a success.

After evaluating results of the first phase, Siko and Barbour revisited the literature of instructional games. Based on that research, they first tried extending the length of time students spent creating the games. They also discovered that the students struggled to design effective test questions, so the researchers tried working with teachers to spend more time explaining how to ask good questions. As they explored these options, researchers were able to see unit test scores improve.

Reflection on how the study was conducted allowed the researchers to properly place their experiences within the context of existing research. They recognized that while they found positive impacts as a result of their intervention, there were a number of limitations with the study. This is an important realization for the research and allows readers to not misinterpret the scope of the findings.

This chapter has provided a brief overview of the origin, paradigms, outcomes, and processes of Design-Based Research (DBR). We explained that (a) DBR originated because some researchers believed that traditional research methods failed to improve classroom practices, (b) DBR places researchers as agents of change and research subjects as collaborators, (c) DBR produces both new designs and theories, and (d) DBR consists of an iterative process of design and evaluation to develop knowledge.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education (Report No. 1). Washington, DC: Center for Technology in Education.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

Mckenney, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2012) Conducting Educational Design Research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Siko, J. P., & Barbour, M. K. (2016). Building a better mousetrap: how design-based research was used to improve homemade PowerPoint games. TechTrends, 60(5), 419–424.

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

This content is provided to you freely by BYU Open Learning Network.

Access it online or download it at https://open.byu.edu/education_research/design_based_research .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry

2003, Educational Researcher

Related Papers

Educational Psychologist

Philip Bell

World Journal on Educational Technology

Tina Štemberger

The appropriate implementation of innovation is a crucial factor in improving educational practice. In the implementation process, there is, however, often a lack of interaction between designers and practitioners that would enable the latter to become competent enough to implement theoretical knowledge into practice and to have an ongoing support from designers. Design-based research is based on close cooperation between researchers, practitioners and designers which consequently allows greater integration of research and practice in education. In the present paper, the beginnings, development, basic characteristics, advantages, disadvantages and the research process of design-based research are reviewed and an example of design-based research is presented. Keywords: design-based research; educational research; educational innovation; mixed methods research; educational improvement

EDeR. Educational Design Research

Rupert Wegerif

Quality & Quantity

Ilya Zitter

Dor Abrahamson

Design research is a broad, practice-based approach to investigating problems of education. This approach can catalyze the development of learning theory by fostering opportunities for transformational change in scholars’ interpretation of instructional interactions. Surveying a succession of design-research projects, I explain how challenges in understanding students’ behaviors promoted my own recapitulation of a historical evolution in educators’ conceptualizations of learning – Romantic, Progressivist, and Synthetic (Schön 1981) – and beyond to a proposed Systemic view. In reflection, I consider methodological adaptations to design-research practice that may enhance its contributions in accord with its objectives.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Thomas C Reeves

This special issue of the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology includes an introductory article by the guest editors and six papers that illustrate the potential of educational design research (EDR) to address important problems in higher education. In this final paper, reflections on the papers are made. Then the rationale for conducting EDR instead of media comparison studies is described with a concrete example. This paper concludes with a proposal for expanding educational design research through the establishment of consortia of collaborating researchers, practitioners, and funding agencies focused on the most salient challenges faced in education today.

Educational Researcher

Brenda Bannan

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences

Jen Scott Curwood , Dana Gnesdilow

Design provides a unifying metaphor for describing research across fields of education. We propose a design framework as a visual and cognitive representation to unify the discourse of educational researchers, instructional designers, teachers, and policy makers by providing a common vocabulary of practice. An artifact-based design perspective illustrates how education research can be conducted to investigate intended design outcomes, to critically study the mismatch between stated and unstated intentions and outcomes, and to evaluate studies that trace learning outcomes from designed learning interventions. We then explicate three applications of the design framework to different fields of educational inquiry.

Maribel González Allende

Nurul K H A I R A N I Rhara

Educational design research is the systematic study of designing, developing, and evaluating educational programs, processes, and products. It can be an invaluable process, yielding considerable insight into how to optimize educational interventions and better understand teaching and learning. However, the fact that such investigations are typically carried out in naturalistic settings-with all the color and complexity that accompany real classrooms and schools-presents researchers with significant methodological challenges, and scientific rigor can be difficult to maintain. This book addresses a clear and growing need to better understand and address the challenges faced by educational design researchers. Educational Design Research has been written to appeal to the rapidly growing international audience of educational researchers who situate their studies in practice. The publication contains four main parts, plus supplementary materials available on a companion website. First, a mixture of substantive information is presented for those interested in learning about the essence of design research. The second part of the book features examples of design research, and in the third, researchers share their views on quality assurance. Finally, policy implications are offered and discussed, with particular attention paid to understanding and evaluating design research work. Altogether, this book provides an informative and instructive platform for considering the domain of design research in education.

Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry

Associated projects, team members.

If you would like to edit a resource, please email us to submit your request.

AERA Open Editors
AERJ Editors
EEPA Editors
ER Issues and Archives
JEBS Editors
JSTOR Online Archives
RER Editors
RRE Editors
AERA Examination and Desk Copies
Mail/Fax Book Order Form
International Distribution
Books & Publications
Merchandise
Search The Store
Online Paper Repository
Inaugural Presentations in the i-Presentation Gallery
Research Points
AERA Journal Advertising Rate Cards
Publications Permissions
Publications FAQs

All files are in PDF, unless otherwise noted.

Features Theme Issue: The Role of Design in Educational Research Anthony E. Kelly, Guest Editor

Research as Design

Anthony E. Kelly Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry The Design-Based Research Collective Design Experiments in Educational Research Paul Cobb, Jere Confrey, Andrea diSessa, Richard Lehrer, and Leona Schauble Design Experiments and Laboratory Approaches to Learning: Steps Toward Collaborative Exchange Bruce D. McCandliss, Mindy Kalchman, and Peter Bryant How Design Experiments Can Inform a Rethinking of Transfer and Vice Versa Joanne Lobato The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework Brenda Bannan-Ritland On the Science of Education Design Studies Richard J. Shavelson, D. C. Phillips, Lisa Towne, and Michael J. Feuer Exploring Modeling Aspects of Design Experiments Finbarr C. Sloane and Stephen Gorard Clinical Design Sciences: A View From Sister Design Efforts Raul Zaritsky, Anthony E. Kelly, Woodie Flowers, Everett Rogers, and Patrick O’Neill Master Reference List

Book Reviews Thinking About Asian Americans Keith Osajima

In Addition Annual Meeting 2003 Theme and Highlights Professional Development and Training Courses Update and Classifieds

About this Book
Learning Theories
Behaviorism
Cognitivism
Constructivism
Socioculturalism
Research Methods
Case Studies

Design-Based Research

Inferential Statistics
Learning Analytics
Psychometrics
Design and Development
Continuous Improvement Dashboards
Design Layers
Gamification
Informal Learning
Instructional Design Methods
Personalized and Blended Learning
Project-Based Learning
Secure Web Application Development
Socratic Seminar
Visual Aesthetics
List of Authors
Translations

Choose a Sign-in Option

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Origin of DBR

Proponents of DBR claim that educational research is often detached from practice (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2002). There are at least two problems that arise from this detachment: (a) practitioners do not benefit from researchers’ work and (b) research results may be inaccurate, because they fail to account for context (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2002).

Paradigms of DBR

Aims of DBR

Role of DBR Researcher

Role of DBR Subjects

Outcomes of DBR

Tangibles Outcomes

Intangible Outcomes

Process of DBR

The Iterative Process of Design-Based Research