Making Visible the Struggles of Research in Design-Based Research

While design-based research is performed from within academic research settings, it is not often clear what research consists of at the beginning of the process, and how to make the decisions around design, data collection and analysis transparent at various points of the process. Senior Design-Based Research Scholars will join the discussions of this unit, presenting examples of their work to illustrate the ins and outs of the contextual practice-centered approach to research.

Facilitators

Katie Van Horne
Facilitator
University of Colorado Boulder
Daniela DiGiacomo
Facilitator
CU Boulder
Sinem Siyahhan
Facilitator
Cal State University San Marcos

Objectives

    • Being able to communicate the steps involved in design-based work to test conjectures about the design of learning environments and
    • Being able to communicate the logic behind organizing data collection and analysis within the process
    • Engaging with researchers (at various stages of the process) about the work that is being done in the field to attend to the struggles of thoughtful design based research

Schedule

Kick-off Live Event: Monday, May 4, 2:30 – 3:30 PM PDT (3:30 PM CDT/5:30 PM EDT)

Title: Making Visible the Struggles of Research in Design-Based Research [Webinar]

Participants: Eve Manz, William Penuel, Susan Jurow

Description: Engaging in design-based research is a challenging enterprise with many moving parts. Researchers must make principled decisions before beginning a study, during the micro-cycles of iteration that make up a study’s implementation, and when deciding how to analyze and write about data collected during implementation. During the live webinar, facilitators and invited participants will talk about how they approach methodological decisions at each of these key junctures and will guide discussion about two articles that delineate key design research methods. We hope to use this discussion to jumpstart a discussion and feedback loop within our DMLCommons Community.

Structure: Before the live webinar, facilitators and participants suggest attendees complete the week 1 pre-reading. During the live webinar, facilitators and invited participants will discuss their experiences planning research in DBR. The DMLCommons community can add notes, questions, and relevant resources for the discussion in the shared Etherpad. After the webinar, we will compile these resources and link them permanently to the unit page for future reference.

Week 2 Prep: After the week 1 webinar event, we invite all participants to submit their questions or puzzling scenarios from the field into the Etherpad before the webinar on May 13. We will host another live event on that date with stories from the field and time to address participants’ questions.

Live Event: Wednesday, May 13, 2:30 PM PDT (4:30 PM CDT/5:30 PM EDT)

Title: Stories from the Field: Research in DBR

Participants: Eve Manz, Bill Sandoval, William Penuel

Description: Digging into examples of DBR research in the field, this webinar explores the struggles, complexities, and tools of research through stories from our facilitators and presenters. This webinar will feature conjecture maps as a tool for DBR research and Bill Sandoval will  talk about how he uses conjecture mapping to guide collection and writing.

Structure: Before the live webinar, facilitators and participants suggest attendees complete the week 2 pre-reading. During the live webinar, facilitators and presenters will share stories from the field and address questions from the Etherpad.

Resources


Week 1

Week 2

Tools: Data Collection

  • Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413-451.
  • Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don’t show nothing I didn’t know: Emerging tensions between culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 139-174.
  • Rosebery, A., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322-357.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.

Tools: Data Analysis

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53.
  • Engle, R. A., Conant, F. R., & Greeno, J. G. (2007). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 239-254). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Jurow, A. S., Hall, R., & Ma, J. Y. (2008). Expanding the disciplinary expertise of a middle school mathematics classroom: Re-contextualizing student models in conversations with visiting specialists. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 338-380.

Etherpad for discussions

⇐ Unit 2 (Design Research)Unit 4 (Design Research) ⇒