Archive | Design Research Blog Posts

All blog posts syndicated related to Design Research

DBR U1 Webinar 1: Introduction with Bill Penuel

Introduction with Bill Penuel [Webinar]
Tuesday, April 7, 2015 9:00 AM PDT
Facilitators: Dixie Ching, Rafi Santo
Participants: Bill Penuel, Professor of Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The first webinar of the Design-Based Research strand focused on the goals, purposes and argumentative grammar of design-based research, and presented design-based implementation research as a nuanced approach. Here my take aways.

DBR U1 Webinar 1: Introduction with Bill Penuel

A Few Points

Design is always a political act, even if it is not explicitly stated.
We have to ask: Who is at the table? Whose future is valued?
DBR is still evolving and in flux
Be intentional about purposes and questions
Listen to the classroom setting and the questions that are emerging.
Iteration and changes of direction are common.
You need a big team to address all purposes at once.
Take things off the table.
Apprenticing with experts who are skilled and have experience in the kinds of research can be invaluable experience.
DBIR is always a collaborative effort.

Goals and Purposes of Design-Based Research

Design-based research studies interventions, how the intervention is designed (and evolves), and how that intervention supports the intended outcomes of the design. Doing design is a way to learn about learning, and combining design and research given the opportunity to study learning and to create the structures for supporting learning. One example would be the creation of an innovative way of learning a particularly difficult concept at an earlier age than it was possible before the innovation.
Design-based research develops local and humble theories that are closely tied to the specific context of the design-based research intervention. Humble theories can relate to learning and design. For example, Through the active and interventionist engagement, design and implementation of innovations in real world settings, such as classrooms, researchers can get better understanding of how learning is done in this context. This gives that an opportunity to develop, for example, local theories of learning. At the same time, a close look at how design was organized in this context can reveal a better understanding of theoretical perspectives about design.
Design-based research give knowledge about implementation. Particularly design-based implementation research focuses on how to anchor, scale and sustain design-based research innovations across a wide range of contexts. Studying adaptations can provide knowledge on how to implement design-based research before, during and after the fact.

Panuel and his students are working on a theoretical perspective of how to organize collaborative design within design research, including to what extend collaboration supports teacher’s agency. One question includes: How should design be organized to expand teacher’s agency on what they may be able to teach? This might change how we see the the metaphorical notion of design, introducing organization as a new way of looking at design-based research.

The Argumentative Grammar of Design-Based Research

Argumentative Grammar refers to the notion of the logic that guides the use of a method and support of the data it provides. This does not relate to the strength of an argument, but rather something related to your methodological approach that can be isolated from context and can be appreciated by anyone outside of your field of research. The argumentative grammar of design-based research has not been fully developed yet. It is a family of approaches that moves towards a set of standards and tools to help evaluate claims. This is meant when people say that design-based research is an evolving field.

To help move this forward, Sandoval introduced the idea of Conjecture Maps. The idea is that researchers make their suppositions about learning as explicit as possible in the beginning in order to be able to backtrack how they are embodied in the form of the design created through design-based research. This is a way to critique theories and designs, as it leaves room for questions. The opportunities for critical conversation about the results of design-based research studies can help strengthen the argumentative grammar of the area of research.

Penuel added the idea to brainstorm ideas of how designs may fail, that is how a design may be used in unanticipated ways that would not lead to the kinds of learning we were hoping to see as a result of the design. While we cannot anticipate all unintentional uses in advance, imagining some possible failures can help address possible biases towards ones own work.

Yet another way would be to build on prior design work in a similar area. This can help knit the field closer together and form tighter justifications for why particular decisions were made.

Design-Based Implementation Research

Design-based implementation research relates to the critiques on what it takes to scale an innovation. There are many different things that can come out of a design-based research project. Even if the project does not go well, one can share valuable insights. Further, there is no need to completely abandon the innovation. The idea here is to think about how to adapt the innovation and at the same time to consider how the context could be rebuild. DBIR shifts focus on design across levels (e.g., professional development, environmental factors, infrastructure etc.) and looks at what it would take for the innovation to be widely and effectively implemented. This systems look is considered to help see how innovation may fit, and what would need to change (in the system and/or the innovation) to make it work without compromising the essence of the original motivations.

How are you engaging with DML Commons? Share your stories!

In makerspaces, the sheer array of tools and materials available can inspire imaginative wondering about making of so many possible projects. Some makers may find it challenging to dive in and to commit to a project, knowing that this means that it may be impossible to make everything one dreamed up.

During the first week of the DMLCommons, we noticed that the new distributed online course format relies quite a bit on savvy use of social media tools and a certain level of confidence and comfort with the feeling of not being able to catch it all. At the same time, the Professional Pathways and the Design-Based Research strand are mainly aimed towards graduate students who are often highly ambitious people and frequently approach coursework by doing everything and more.

The wonderful responsiveness of the DML Hub and the growing DML Commons community as well as the Blog Talk Garage sessions are two very helpful ways for increasing comfort with only joining parts of the course offering. They are confidence boosters, encouraging participants to find and follow their own path of engaging with the courses.

We think that another way to lower the learning curve and ease people into embracing the distributed and loosely connected structure of the DML Commons would be to share engagement stories and experiences.

How have you been engaging with the course? What sessions are you planning on joining? What challenges have you had (technical and learning practice)? What do you like about the course? What would you encourage others to try?

It would be wonderful to hear stories and experiences of how you engaged in the courses throughout. Please share them as comments directly underneath this post, or on Twitter using the DML Common hashtag (#DMLcommons). Sharing these stories can help others feel more comfortable and confident exploring their own ways of engaging. We are looking forward to hearing your ideas!

– Anna and Kylie

Some Thoughts on the Development of a DBR Argumentative Grammar

This week’s introduction to design based research (DBR) hosted by Rafi Santo and Dixie Ching has kicked my brain gears into a real grind mode. Last night, I jumped into a Twitter chat about the challenges of coalescing an “argumentative grammar” for DBR, but I still have a lot of questions about what such a grammar could look like, and its role in studying and reforming education (and education research). As the DBR community struggles to define this grammar, here are some of my thoughts/concerns:

Since DBR often (always?) involves a process of cooperation between researchers and practitioners (teachers, school admins, other stakeholders) designing interventions, there is a need for a common language that both researchers and practitioners understand and can use to converge on shared goals, interpret events, and augment/alter the design of an intervention as needed. I’ve found that in my work with practitioners (and as one myself), the theories and evidence that help structure an intervention are often inaccessible to those outside of the research community. As a result, this can create tensions around power (e.g., seeing interventions as top-down, rather than grass-roots), feelings of alienation, and even resistance. Obviously, these can have a huge effect on the success and scale of an intervention – especially if practitioners perceive a threat that they are being treated as “guinea pigs” rather than as partners. As researchers, I think this means we need to find ways to talk about our research in ways that are humanizing, give credence to the lived experiences of practitioners, and generate points of entry for practitioners to see how learning/educational theory relates to their work.
An argumentative grammar is necessary for any genre/approach/framework of science (social or natural) for many reasons, and so developing an argumentative grammar is one way for DBR to establish its legitimacy among other paradigms of scientific research. I worry a little that in an attempt to prove the robustness and validity of DBR as a “hard science,” we will lose touch with practitioners by building theories and methods that leave little room for them to feel central to the research-design process. I’m not trying to be pessimistic – I just want to highlight this as a concern for the DBR community to consider.

I’m sure more thoughts/concerns will emerge as the DML Commons DBR “course” unfolds over the next several weeks – and I certainly do not have answers at the moment for any of these questions. But I DO love that the DML community is bringing these issues to the fore, and making a real attempt to make these conversations accessible to a wide range of participants.

A Webniar Facilitation Model

As the DML Commons are kicking off strong with two live seminars on Tuesday, we would like to take a moment to highlight the fantastic work of the co-facilitators. The sessions were topically so informative and inspired a whole lot of thinking, connecting and sharing.

Another aspect that stood out to us was the smooth facilitation of both webinars. This made us wonder which practices junior scholars could adapt in their development of becoming a better public speakers in the webinar format. To show one way of successfully facilitating a webinar, we highlight the structure of the first Professional Pathways webinar “Getting Started: How to Fund, Launch, and Collaborate on a Research Project.” If you have other ideas, please leave comments!

Initiation

Matt starts by welcoming people in the hangout and those viewing.
He summarizes the topics that will be addressed.
He introduces himself (name, affiliation, interest in topic) and calls on co-facilitators and participants.
Cassidy and Adar, the co-facilitators, introduce themselves next.
Lastly, Rena and Christo, the participants, introduce themselves.
Matt addresses the viewers and encourages them to join the Etherpad to chat, ask questions and add resources. He explains that questions will be turned to in the last minutes of the webinar.
Matt presents the webinar structure. This webinar was sectioned in three topics: Funding, Methods, and Collaboration. Each topic will be discussed for 15 minutes.

Topic 1: Funding

The conversation is initiated by Cassidy.
Adar recounts her experiences first.
Cassidy recalls her personal experience as a shift over to Christo
Christo contributes to the conversation.

Topic 2: Methods

Matt moves the conversation forward, making this action explicit, adding that this is done in the interest of time.
He gives an overview of the topic and explains his personal interests in the topic
Matt reminds viewers to add questions to the Etherpad and the Twitter channel, which gives speakers time to think about their contribution to the conversation.
Christo responds first
Matt reflects on Christo’s response and Christo takes the conversation further.
Adar contributes her reflection.

Short reflection of lessons learned

The group shortly pauses in their established structure, recalling the sticking points that the conversation brought out.
Matt, Cassidy, and Adar also share their ideas on the outcomes of the unit and preview the second live event of their unit.

Topic 3: Collaboration

Returning back to methods, Cassidy initiates a shift to collaboration.
Rena picks up the conversation.
Christo joins in

Last thoughts

Close to the hour, Cassidy and Adar share their last thoughts before the webinar closes.
Matt transitions to conclusion, by sharing his thoughts on the idea of DML Commons.
He previews the date and time of next week’s live event and shares the planned content for the event.
He mentions activities in between, asking viewers to share ideas, questions and possible road blocks on the Etherpad explaining how this may support next week’s session and serve the viewers in crowd-sourcing.

If you have ideas for how to make the DML Commons webinars even better, please add your comments below!

– Anna & Kylie

Funding, Methods, Collaboration: PP U1 Webinar 1

Getting Started: How to Fund, Launch, and Collaborate on a research Project [Webinar]

Tuesday, April 7, 12:00 PM PDT (2PM CDT/3PM EDT)

Facilitators: Cassidy Puckett, Matt Rafalow, Adar Ben-Eliyahu

Participants:

Rena Dorph, Director of the Research, Evaluation and Assessment Group at the Lawrence Hall of Science at University of California at Berkeley.
Christo Sims, Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication of the University of California at San Diego.

The inaugural session of the Professional Pathways strand focused on the ins and out of getting started with research. The webinar encompassed discussion on three broad topics:

Funding, Methods, and Collaboration. Here a summary of them main points raised per topic.

FUNDING

“Funding is part planning, part luck, part keeping eyes open for connecting to people that may provide an avenue for funding.” – Rena Dorph

Planning for funding includes consideration of short term and long term funding cycles, and research trajectories. An opportunistic practice, funding can be sought in various places, including private and public foundations. In weaving together funding tapestry that spans across various research projects and interests, it is important to have a clear research agenda. This can help to keep an open mind towards non-traditional funding sources, such as contracting grants. Being prepared is another important aspect of funding. This may include having a robust set of written work to pull language from, or a set of literature references to draw on. An invaluable tool for this can be an organized and growing document structure or database that includes prior proposals, concept papers or needs statements that are written for various audiences. Further, institutional history and knowledge about past funding efforts and where to find traces of these can be another indispensable resource. Weaving all of this together, part of being prepared also includes relationships. One way to make networking more targeted is by connecting to people who have access to networks one might not have access to. There can be tensions between academic, political, ethical interests of researchers and funding agencies. These tensions can also be considered a reflexive approach, in which researchers choose to work on projects that reflect interests of funding agencies and provide space for researchers to pursue their own interests. However, funding is not the only way for researchers to make a living. It depends on the institutional position, set-up, and even the departmental structures on how important funding is: “Finding is not integral to all situations” (Christo Sims).

What to do right now while in graduate school

Practice grant writing in graduate schools through opportunities including the NSF dissertation improvement grants. Applying and reapplying is a good way to learn to think about longer timelines of research.
Apprenticeship model: involve yourself with people who are involved with grant writing, watching them and listening in.

METHODS

“A lot of people may think of methods as toolkit for generating data and building theory from that. … But you can’t really separate theory from methods.” – Christo Sims

The professional pathways of researchers of getting to the established set of methods they apply most frequently and feel most comfortable with are diverse. Inspiration and past experiences are the building blocks for getting started on this journey. Here, an apprenticeship model can be useful as well. Having the opportunity to watch and work with more experienced peers, can help surface and clarify questions. While there are many different methods that can surface aspects about a phenomena, developing an understanding of the relation between theory and methods is perhaps more important than developing a methodological tool box and skill set. There are different theoretical stances people can take, and the theoretical stance shapes research methods and questions. Overall, an agility in relation to qualitative and quantitative work can help with funding and networking for funding.

What to do right now while in graduate school:

To refine ethnographic skills: Collaborate on taking observational notes during the same event, then compare notes to see how people can look at the same event and recognize different aspects of it. Follow up on this by writing a paper together and then one individually on how to approach and frame the work to see how different perspectives and different theoretical lenses may be applied.

COLLABORATION

“Not all of the expertise needs to sit inside myself” – Rena Dorph

Collaboration can start by being part of a research team and offering one’s help to others with more experience. This can have build and accelerate experiences also in relation to methods and funding. However, at times different stances of collaborators can lead to conflicting approaches. While it can be difficult to bring different research identities together, acknowledging different ways of working and making room for diverse perspectives can be a productive way to move forward. When a single result is aimed for with a project (e.g., a book) it is more difficult to bring an multi-theoretical stance out as compared to talking. Taking a moment to articulate what everyone would like to get out of the collaborative effort is important to approach hierarchies of power within the collaborative experiences. One way to make the collaboration more dialogical is to ask particularly unpaid collaborators how their involvement could truly support their personal interests and goals. In efforts to make collaboration work, it is important to carefully consider whom to collaborate with and how. To have ongoing and fruitful collaboration, it is important to have some form of mutual understanding and appreciation of each other also in relation to the channels of communication. While some people prefer face-to-face work, other collaborative efforts can strive through online collaborative practices.

What to do right now while in graduate school:

Write about the theoretical stances of particular authors and how these may be productive for your work.
One good way to facilitate sharing and an ongoing conversation before writing, is to share tasks among people and to facilitate periodical round table discussions that make room for sharing, exploring and commenting on stances.