Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning

References

• Abbit, J., & Ophus, J. (2008). What we know about the impacts of WebQuests: A review of research. AACE Journal, 16(4), 441–456.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, G. (2017). Participatory action research (PAR) as democratic disruption: New public management and educational research in schools and universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(5), 432–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1303211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archambault, L., Leary, H., & Rice, K. (2022/this issue). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2051513
   Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1991). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness (1st Classic Paperback ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Aronson, I. D., Marsch, L. A., & Acosta, M. C. (2013). Using findings in multimedia learning to inform technology-based behavioral health interventions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 3(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0137-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2009). Contextual inquiry and requirements shaping. In Information systems development (pp. 225–236). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68772-8_18
   Google Scholar
• Bell, P. L. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P. (2013, April). Multimodal learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 102–106). https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460316
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
   Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, R. J. (2006). Educational psychology: The distinctive contribution. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(4), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360600999393
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (2020). Common ground. In J. Stanislaw (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology (pp. 1–5). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0064
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Bielaczyc, K., & Joseph, D. (2004). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
   Google Scholar
• Cook, B. G., Fleming, J. I., Hart, S. A., Lane, K. L., Therrien, W. J., van Dijk, W., & Wilson, S. E. (2021). A how-to guide for open-science practices in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 2021, 074193252110191. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211019100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cress, U., Rose, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (2021). International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Design-Based Research Collective (DBRC). (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (2003). Psychology and social practice. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899–1924. Volume 1: 1899–1901, Essays, The School and Society, The Educational Situation (Vol. 6, pp. 132–146). InteLex. (Original work published 1890)
   Google Scholar
• DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Easterday, M. W., Lewis, D. R., & Gerber, E. M. (2014). Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, and L. D’Amico (Eds.). Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2014 (Volume 1., pp. 317–324). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.128636
   Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, D. E., Remde, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Landauer, T. K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C. C. (1989). Formative design evaluation of superbook. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/64789.64790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallman, D. (2007). Why research-oriented design isn’t design-oriented research: On the tensions between design and research in an implicit design discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-007-9022-8
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein, J. E. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. Jossey-Bass (Wiley).
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.2190/51D4-F6L3-JQHU-9M31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again (S. Sampson, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, R. (2004). Video perspectivity meets wild and crazy teens: A design ethnography. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640410001700543
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (2014). Video research in the learning sciences. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), ajet.1344. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1344
   Google Scholar
• Greenhow, C., Graham, C. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2022/this issue). Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhow, C., Sonnevend, J., & Agur, C. (2016). Education and social media: Toward a digital future. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, S. (1979). Design studies—the new capability [Editorial]. Design Studies, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90018-8
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J., Darling-Aduana, J., Good, A., & Cheng, H. (2019). A look inside online educational settings in high school: Promises and pitfalls for improving educational opportunities and outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2147–2188. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219838776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2004). Learning together online. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611482
   Google Scholar
• Hoadley, C. (2002). Creating context: Design-based research in creating and understanding CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002. Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 453–462) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/3808/1/453-462.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoadley, C. (2018). A short history of the learning sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (pp. 11–23). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-2
   Google Scholar
• Hossain, Z., Bumbacher, E., Brauneis, A., Diaz, M., Saltarelli, A., Blikstein, P., & Riedel-Kruse, I. H. (2018). Design guidelines and empirical case study for scaling authentic inquiry-based science learning via open online courses and interactive biology cloud labs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(4), 478–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0150-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, D., Looi, C.-K., & Hin, L. T. W. (2005). Facilitating inter-collaborations in the learning sciences. Educational Technology, 45(4), 41–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes [Keynote Presentation] International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2016. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21293.33760
   Google Scholar
• Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. (2020). Design-based research methods in CSCL: Calibrating our epistemologies and ontologies. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. Wise, and J. Oshima (Eds.), International Handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31503.20642
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko, A. J. (2020). How to design. In Design Methods. University of Washington. https://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/books/design-methods/#/design
   Google Scholar
• Laurel, B. (2003). Design research: Methods and perspectives. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
   Google Scholar
• Legg, C., & Hookway, C. (2020). Pragmatism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/pragmatism/
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. R., Carlson, S., Riesbeck, C., Lu, K., Gerber, E., & Easterday, M. (2020). The logic of effective iteration in design-based research. In M. Gresalfi and I. S. Horn (Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020) (Vol. 2, pp. 1149–1156). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, T. H. (1979). Formative evaluation. ACM SIGSOC Bulletin, 11(1), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1103002.1103007
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002003
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45(1/3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006964925094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R., & Lindgren, R. (2008). Video collaboratories for research and education: An analysis of collaboration design patterns. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Farrell, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal for Education of Students at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platt, J. (1983). The development of the “participant observation” method in sociology: Origin myth and history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 19(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198310)19:4<379::AID-JHBS2300190407>3.0.CO;2-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poirier, M., Law, J. M., & Veispak, A. (2019). A spotlight on lack of evidence supporting the integration of blended learning in K-12 education: A systematic review. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 11(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2019100101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raven, M. E., & Flanders, A. (1996). Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences. ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/227614.227615
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohse, S., & Anderson, T. (2006). Design patterns for complex learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), v1i3.35. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i3.35
   Google Scholar
• Ryu, S. (2020). The role of mixed methods in conducting design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1794871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2017). Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in Change Laboratories. Management Learning, 48(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616671285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sannino, A., & Laitinen, A. (2015). Double stimulation in the waiting experiment: Testing a Vygotskian model of the emergence of volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P. I., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315864341-2
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001025
   Google Scholar
• Shea, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2022 /this issue). Building bridges to advance the community of inquiry framework for online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.60
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding, and problem solving in design. In A. Collen & W. W. Gasparski (Eds.), Design and systems: General applications of methodology (Vol. 3, pp. 245–257). Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1987) 10.1184/pmc/simon/box00070/fld05401/bdl0001/doc0001
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, L. (1989). Is scientific research value‐neutral? Inquiry, 32(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748908602188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabak, I. (2004). Reconstructing context: Negotiating the tension between exogenous and endogenous educational design. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020701638814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2022/this issue). Equity in online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2062597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Multi-method, multi-theoretical, multi-level research in the learning sciences. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 117–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vakil, S., McKinney de Royston, M., Suad Nasir, N., & Kirshner, B. (2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1169817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weston, C., McAlpine, L., & Bordonaro, T. (1995). A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704
   Google Scholar