design based research in education theory and applications

1st Edition

Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications

Description

Effective research in educational settings requires collaboration between researchers and school-based practitioners to codesign instruction and assessment, analyze findings to inform subsequent iterations, and make thoughtful revisions. This innovative reference and course text examines the theory and practice of design-based research (DBR), an important methodology for conducting studies in authentic educational contexts. Leading experts provide specific examples of high-quality DBR addressing different research foci, grade levels, and subject areas (literacy/English language arts, math, and science). Applications are presented for curriculum development, intervention, assessment, and digital contexts, as well as teaching second-language learners. Also addressed is DBR’s role in educator preparation, professional development, dissertation research, and technical education.

Zoi A. Philippakos, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her research interests include reading and writing instruction in K-12 and postsecondary classrooms, strategy instruction with self-regulation, and teacher professional development. She collaborates with teachers to design and evaluate instructional approaches through design-based research methodologies and engages in experimental studies. Dr. Philippakos has published her research in leading journals and presents her work at national and international conferences. Emily Howell, PhD, is a faculty member in literacy in the Department of Education and Human Development at Clemson University. She has taught English and writing at the secondary and collegiate levels and currently teaches preservice teachers and graduate students in education. Her research interests include multiliteracies, adolescent literacy, writing instruction, and digital tools. Dr. Howell approaches research through partnerships with teachers using methodologies such as design-based research. Her research has been published in leading journals of education. Anthony Pellegrino, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Prior to his work in higher education, he worked in K-12 classrooms and in public school administration for a decade. Dr. Pellegrino’s research interests include student learning of difficult history and counternarratives in history/social studies education, as well as the experiences of preservice educators in clinical practice.

Critics' Reviews

"Why DBR? This book with chapters by experienced researchers in the field will guide you through all you need to know about this growing methodology in one place. Chapters cover what DBR is, how to do it, and specific applications. This book is suitable and informative for those just being introduced to the field, as well as for those of us who have been using DBR for years."--Diane Jass Ketelhut, EdD, Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park "Is it worth reading an entire book on a single research methodology? Absolutely. DBR merits extended attention given its versatility, its complexity, and, especially, its potential to bridge the notorious gap between research and practice. The book offers concrete, accessible guidance on the process of conducting DBR and shares examples of findings from DBR investigations in a range of educational domains and contexts. Graduate students will particularly appreciate the chapter on writing a DBR dissertation, and all readers will be inspired to include this approach in their methodological repertoires."--Nell K. Duke, EdD, Literacy, Language, and Culture concentration and the Combined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan "DBR in authentic contexts is a crucial activity for scholars who wish to overcome the global challenges in education that we now confront. This important book describes the contributions of DBR to the planning and development of effective collaborative research in schools--a crucial stage in the continuum from early pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. The volume provides important insights for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers."--Chris Dede, EdD, Timothy E. Wirth Professor in Learning Technologies, Harvard Graduate School of Education "This book pairs thorough discussions of what DBR is with detailed, informative descriptions of a variety of DBR projects. The power of DBR lies in its focus on research projects that have real-world impact. This book shows how to involve teachers as professional collaborators and carry out design experiments in naturalistic settings."--Koeno Gravemeijer, PhD, School of Education (Emeritus), Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands "Having taught a doctoral-level DBR course multiple times, I am delighted to finally see an edited volume that discusses the charms and challenges of the approach and shows what DBR looks like in a variety of content areas and contexts. This book will be of value to researchers hoping to learn more about DBR, those who are already engaged in it and seek to disseminate their work, and those looking for support in furthering the method in the field of education."--Jacquelynn A. Malloy, PhD, Department of Teaching and Learning, Clemson University-

About VitalSource eBooks

VitalSource is a leading provider of eBooks.

Access your materials anywhere, at anytime.
Customer preferences like text size, font type, page color and more.
Take annotations in line as you read.

Multiple eBook Copies

This eBook is already in your shopping cart. If you would like to replace it with a different purchasing option please remove the current eBook option from your cart.

Book Preview

Design-Based Research – Grounding, Understanding and Empirical Illustration in the Context of Vocational Education

First Online: 31 August 2022

Cite this chapter

Karl-Heinz Gerholz 8 &
Anne Wagner 8

Part of the book series: Professional and Practice-based Learning ((PPBL,volume 33))

1554 Accesses

4 Citations

Design-based research is an approach to develop new theories and educational practices in a context-sensitive manner. The aim of this chapter is to introduce design-based research using the example of a concrete design research project. The combination of theory building and practical design is central to this approach. The research process is carried out in iterative design cycles consisting of design, implementation and evaluation. The orientation to the respective context, theory-based procedure, collaboration of practitioners and researchers, and, related to this, interconnection of theory and practice are characteristic of design research. Building on the theoretical and methodical basics of design research, the chapter shows a possible implementation of this approach based on a project in vocational education. The research interest of this project relates to the design of vocational education lessons with tablets to prepare vocational students for the requirements in digitized working processes. Building on the theoretical framework of the project, it illustrates how design, implementation and evaluation were implemented in cooperation with teachers – the educational practice – at the vocational schools (e.g. digital consultation hours, workshops). Results of the project are presented in terms of didactical design principles. At the end of the chapter, three reflected recommendations for design research projects – documentation and structuring of time, relevance of a design research portfolio and dealing with data formats – will be carved out.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
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

Design Research Model: Establishing a Link Between Design Education, Practice and Theory

Impact of Design Research on Practice: The IISc Experience

The Role of Teachers in Design Research in Education

Bannan-Ritland, B., & Baek, J. (2008). Investigating the act of design in design research: The road taken. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, mathematics and engineering (pp. 299–319). Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

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

Article Google Scholar

Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Kemper, C. J., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Ein Messinstrument zur Erfassung subjektiver Kompetenzerwartungen. Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskala (ASKU) . (GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften) Mannheim. https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/kurzskalen/working_papers/ASKU_Workingpaper.pdf

Broekkamp, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13 (3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701626127

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.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668.

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

Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4 (2), 131–160.

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

Ejersbo, L. R., Frolunde, L., Engelhardt, R., Hanghoj, T., Magnussen, R., & Misfeldt, M. (2008). Balancing product design and theoretical insights. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), The handbook of design research in mathematics, science and technology education, Chapter: 2: Design research and its argumentative grammar (pp. 149–163). Routledge.

Ertl, H., & Sloane, P. F. E. (2004). A comparison of VET structures in Germany and England: Contexts of complex teaching-learning arrangements. In R. Mulder & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), New approaches to vocational education in Europe (pp. 27–42). Symposium Books.

Euler, D. (2012). Unterschiedliche Forschungszugänge in der Berufsbildung: Eine feindliche Koexistenz? In E. Severing & R. Weiss (Eds.), Qualitätsentwicklung in der Berufsbildungsforschung (pp. 29–46). W. Bertelsmann.

Euler, D. (2014). Design-research – A paradigm under development. In D. Euler & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Design-based research (pp. 15–44). Franz Steiner Verlag.

Euler, D. (2017). Design principles as bridge between scientific knowledge production and practice design. EDeR – Educational Design Research, 1 (1), 1–15.

Euler, D., & Sloane, P. F. E. (Eds.). (2014). Design-Based Research: Beiheft Zeitschrift für berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik . Franz Steiner.

Finch, D., Falkenberg, L., McLaren, P. G., Rondeau, K. V., & O’Reilly, N. (2018). The rigour–relevance gap in professional programmes: Bridging the ‘unbridgeable’ between higher education and practice. Industry and Higher Education, 32 (3), 152–168.

Fischer, C., Goller, M., Brinkmann, L., & Harteis, C. (2018). Digitalisation of work: Between affordances and constraints for learning at work. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Digital workplace learning: Bridging formal and informal learning with digital technologies (pp. 227–249). Springer.

Chapter Google Scholar

Geisberger, E., & Broy, M. (2012). Acatech Studie: Integrierte Forschungsagenda – Cyber-physical systems. Online: https://www.bmbf.de/files/acatech_STUDIE_agendaCPS_Web_20120312_superfinal.pdf (02 Sept 2021).

Gerholz, K.-H. (2009). Das Forschungsportfolio – Ein Dokumentator und Reflektor im Rahmen von qualitativen Sozialforschungsprozessen. In H.-H. Kremer & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Paderborner Forschungs- und Entwicklungswerkstatt (pp. 65–88). Band II. Paderborn: Eusl.

Gerholz, K.-H. (2014). Selbstreguliertes Lernen gestalten – Darstellung eines Design Research-Zyklus in der wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Hochschulbildung. In D. Euler & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Design Research: Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik (pp. 215–229). Franz Steiner.

Gerholz, K.-H. (2020). Unterrichtsarbeit an beruflichen Schulen im Zuge der digitalen Transformation – Ein fachdidaktisches Modell für den Einsatz digitaler Medien. In U. Buchmann & M. Cleef (Eds.), Digitalisierung über berufliche Bildung gestalten (pp. 169–180). wbv.

Gerholz, K.-H. (2022). Berufliche Bildung. In H. Reinders, D. Bergs-Winkels, I. Post, & A. Prochnow (Eds.), Handbuch empirische Bildungsforschung: Eine elementare Einführung . Springer.

Gerholz, K.-H., & Brahm, T. (2014). Apprenticeship and vocational education. In C. Harteis, A. Rausch, & J. Seifried (Eds.), Discourses on professional learning: On the boundary between learning and working (pp. 143–158). Springer.

Gerholz, K.-H., & Dormann, M. (2017). Ausbildung 4.0: Didaktische Gestaltung der betrieblich-beruflichen Ausbildung in Zeiten der digitalen Transformation . bwp@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik – Online, Ausgabe 32.

Gerholz, K.-H., Ciolek, S., & Wagner, A. (2020). Digitales Lernen an beruflichen Schulen wirksam gestalten: Erste Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung von tabletBS.dual. SchulVerwaltung BW, 4 (7–8), 217–221.

Harteis, C., Rausch, A., & Seifried, J. (2014). Discourses on professional learning: On the boundary between learning and working. In C. Harteis, A. Rausch, & J. Seifried (Eds.), Discourses on professional learning: On the boundary between learning and working (pp. 1–7). Springer.

Honey, M., & Hilton, M. (Eds.). (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations . The National Academies Press.

Jerusalem, M., Drössler, S., Kleine, D., Klein-Heßling, J., Mittag, W., & Röder, B. (2009). Förderung von Selbstwirksamkeit und Selbstbestimmung im Unterricht . Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. https://www.erziehungswissenschaften.hu-berlin.de/de/paedpsych/forschung/Skalenbuch_FoSS.pdf

Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (3), 516–533.

KMK: Kultusministerkonferenz. (2017). Bildung in der digitalen Welt: Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz.

Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Die Entstehung des Neuen: Studien zur Struktur der Wissenschaftsgeschichte . Suhrkamp.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research: What it is, how we do it, and why . Routledge.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T.C. (2018). Conducting educational design research: What it is, how we do it, and why . 2nd edition. Routledge.

Mulder, M. (2012). Competence-based education and training. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18 (3), 305–314.

Perna, L. W. (2016). Throwing down the gauntlet: Ten ways to ensure that higher education research continues to matter. The Review of Higher Education, 39 (3), 319–338.

Plomp, T. (2007). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–36). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).

Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research – Part A: An introduction (pp. 10–51). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).

Raatz, S. (2015). Die Entwicklung von Einstellungen gegenüber verantwortungsvoller Führung: eine Design-based Research Studie in der Executive Education . Springer VS.

Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. V. D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). Routledge.

Reinmann, G. (2005). Innovation ohne Forschung? Ein Plädoyer für den Design-Based Research-Ansatz in der Lehr-Lernforschung. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 1 , 52–69.

Reinmann, G. (2014). Welchen Stellenwert hat die Entwicklung im Kontext von Design Research? Wie wird Entwicklung zu einem wissenschaftlichen Akt? In D. Euler & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Design-based Research: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik (Beiheft) (pp. 63–78). Franz Steiner.

Reinmann, G., & Sesink, W. (2014). Begründungslinien für eine entwicklungsorientierte Bildungsforschung: Methodologie und Methoden medienpädagogischer Forschung. In Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 10 (pp. 75–92). VS-Verlag.

Ritzmann, S., Hagemann, V., & Kluge, A. (2014). The Training Evaluation Inventory (TEI) – Evaluation of training design and measurement of training outcomes for predicting training success. Vocations and Learning, 7 (1), 41–73.

Schallberger, U. (2005). Kurzskalen zur Erfassung der Positiven Aktivierung, Negativen Aktivierung und Valenz in Experience Sampling Studien (PANAVA-KS): Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen, Konstruktvalidität und psychometrische Eigenschaften bei der Beschreibung intra- und interindividueller Unterschiede . Forschungsbericht aus dem Projekt: Qualität des Erlebens in Arbeit und Freizeit. Online: http://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/institut/angehoerige/emeriti/schallberger/schallberger-pub/PANAVA_05.pdf (04 Mar 2020).

Schwartz, D. L., Chang, J., & Martin, L. (2005). Instrumentation and innovation in design experiments: Taking the turn towards efficiency . Stanford University. Online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.4720&rep=rep1&type=pdf (20 Oct 2021)

Sloane, P. F. E. (2017). ‘Where no man has gone before!’ – Exploring new knowledge in design-based research projects: A treatise on phenomenology in design studies. EDeR – Educational Design Research, 1 (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.1.1026

Spinath, B. (2011). Lernmotivation. In H. Reinders, H. Ditton, C. Gräsel, & B. Gniewosz (Eds.), Empirische Bildungsforschung: Gegenstandsbereiche (pp. 45–55). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

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

Van den Akker, J. (2007). Curriculum design research: An introduction to educational design research SLO (pp. 37–52). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Karl-Heinz Gerholz & Anne Wagner

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl-Heinz Gerholz .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Educational Science, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany

Michael Goller

Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Susanna Paloniemi

Department of Education, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway

Crina Damşa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Gerholz, KH., Wagner, A. (2022). Design-Based Research – Grounding, Understanding and Empirical Illustration in the Context of Vocational Education. In: Goller, M., Kyndt, E., Paloniemi, S., Damşa, C. (eds) Methods for Researching Professional Learning and Development. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08518-5_23

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08518-5_23

Published : 31 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-08517-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-08518-5

eBook Packages : Education Education (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

Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications

Cover image: Design-Based Research in Education 9781462547371

Author(s) Philippakos
Publisher The Guilford Press

Print ISBN 9781462547371, 1462547370

Etext isbn 9781462547395, 1462547397.

Copyright 2021
Available from $ 27.00 USD SKU: 9781462547395R180

The world’s #1 eTextbook reader for students. VitalSource is the leading provider of online textbooks and course materials. More than 15 million users have used our Bookshelf platform over the past year to improve their learning experience and outcomes. With anytime, anywhere access and built-in tools like highlighters, flashcards, and study groups, it’s easy to see why so many students are going digital with Bookshelf.

Over 2.7 million titles available from more than 1,000 publishers

Over 65,000 customer reviews with an average rating of 9.5

Over 5 billion digital pages viewed over the past 12 months

Over 7,000 institutions using Bookshelf across 241 countries

Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications is written by Philippakos and published by The Guilford Press. The Digital and eTextbook ISBNs for Design-Based Research in Education are 9781462547395, 1462547397 and the print ISBNs are 9781462547371, 1462547370. Save up to 80% versus print by going digital with VitalSource.

Select your cookie preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie notice . We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie notice . Your choice applies to using first-party and third-party advertising cookies on this service. Cookies store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. The 96 third parties who use cookies on this service do so for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalized ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click "Decline" to reject, or "Customise" to make more detailed advertising choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie preferences , as described in the Cookie notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy notice .

Health, Family & Lifestyle
Psychology & Psychiatry
Methodology

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications Hardcover – 30 Sept. 2021

ISBN-10 1462547389
ISBN-13 978-1462547388
Edition 1st
Publisher Guilford Press
Publication date 30 Sept. 2021
Language English
Dimensions 17.78 x 2.07 x 25.4 cm
Print length 324 pages
See all details

Product description

"Why DBR? This book with chapters by experienced researchers in the field will guide you through all you need to know about this growing methodology in one place. Chapters cover what DBR is, how to do it, and specific applications. This book is suitable and informative for those just being introduced to the field, as well as for those of us who have been using DBR for years."--Diane Jass Ketelhut, EdD, Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park "Is it worth reading an entire book on a single research methodology? Absolutely. DBR merits extended attention given its versatility, its complexity, and, especially, its potential to bridge the notorious gap between research and practice. The book offers concrete, accessible guidance on the process of conducting DBR and shares examples of findings from DBR investigations in a range of educational domains and contexts. Graduate students will particularly appreciate the chapter on writing a DBR dissertation, and all readers will be inspired to include this approach in their methodological repertoires."--Nell K. Duke, EdD, Literacy, Language, and Culture concentration and the Combined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan "DBR in authentic contexts is a crucial activity for scholars who wish to overcome the global challenges in education that we now confront. This important book describes the contributions of DBR to the planning and development of effective collaborative research in schools--a crucial stage in the continuum from early pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. The volume provides important insights for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers."--Chris Dede, EdD, Timothy E. Wirth Professor in Learning Technologies, Harvard Graduate School of Education "This book pairs thorough discussions of what DBR is with detailed, informative descriptions of a variety of DBR projects. The power of DBR lies in its focus on research projects that have real-world impact. This book shows how to involve teachers as professional collaborators and carry out design experiments in naturalistic settings."--Koeno Gravemeijer, PhD, School of Education (Emeritus), Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands "Having taught a doctoral-level DBR course multiple times, I am delighted to finally see an edited volume that discusses the charms and challenges of the approach and shows what DBR looks like in a variety of content areas and contexts. This book will be of value to researchers hoping to learn more about DBR, those who are already engaged in it and seek to disseminate their work, and those looking for support in furthering the method in the field of education."--Jacquelynn A. Malloy, PhD, Department of Teaching and Learning, Clemson University-

About the Author

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Guilford Press; 1st edition (30 Sept. 2021)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 324 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1462547389
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1462547388
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 17.78 x 2.07 x 25.4 cm

About the author

Zoi a. philippakos.

Zoi A. Philippakos, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the College of

Education at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She completed her Ph.D. at the

University of Delaware, where she worked with Charles A. MacArthur on the development of a

writing curriculum for basic college writers. Her dissertation examined the effects of peer review

using genre-specific criteria on fourth and fifth-grade students’ persuasive writing. Her

research interests include reading and writing instruction for students in the elementary

grades, strategy instruction and self-regulation, and professional development for

classroom teachers. She has worked as an elementary school teacher and literacy

coach, and she provides professional development to teachers on effective reading and

writing strategies. She is first author of the book Developing Strategic Writers Through Genre

Instruction: Resources for Grades 3-5 (2015) with Charles Macarthur and David Coker, co-

author of Effective Read-Alouds for Early Literacy: A Teacher’s Guide for PreK-1 (2012) with

Katherine Beauchat and Katrin Blamey, and co-author of Differentiated Reading Instruction in

Grades 4 and 5: Strategies and Resources (2011) with Sharon Walpole and Michael McKenna.

She has codeveloped and organized since 2010 the Writing Research Study Group at the Literacy

Research Association (LRA), and she is the Chair of the Writing Task Force at the International

Literacy Association (ILA). She has also published several articles and chapters on strategy

instruction in writing and presented her research at national and international conferences.

Customer reviews

5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 83%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 17%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

UK Modern Slavery Statement
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell on Amazon Business
Sell on Amazon Handmade
Associates Programme
Fulfilment by Amazon
Seller Fulfilled Prime
Advertise Your Products
Independently Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Make Money with Us
The Amazon Barclaycard
Credit Card
Amazon Money Store
Amazon Currency Converter
Payment Methods Help
Shop with Points
Top Up Your Account
Top Up Your Account in Store
COVID-19 and Amazon
Track Packages or View Orders
Delivery Rates & Policies
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Amazon Mobile App
Customer Service
Accessibility

Conditions of Use & Sale
Privacy Notice
Cookies Notice
Interest-Based Ads Notice

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

a lower case character,
an upper case character,
a special character

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Design-Based Research: A Methodology to Extend and Enrich Biology Education Research

Emily E. Scott
Mary Pat Wenderoth
Jennifer H. Doherty

*Address correspondence to: Emily E. Scott ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Search for more papers by this author

Recent calls in biology education research (BER) have recommended that researchers leverage learning theories and methodologies from other disciplines to investigate the mechanisms by which students to develop sophisticated ideas. We suggest design-based research from the learning sciences is a compelling methodology for achieving this aim. Design-based research investigates the “learning ecologies” that move student thinking toward mastery. These “learning ecologies” are grounded in theories of learning, produce measurable changes in student learning, generate design principles that guide the development of instructional tools, and are enacted using extended, iterative teaching experiments. In this essay, we introduce readers to the key elements of design-based research, using our own research into student learning in undergraduate physiology as an example of design-based research in BER. Then, we discuss how design-based research can extend work already done in BER and foster interdisciplinary collaborations among cognitive and learning scientists, biology education researchers, and instructors. We also explore some of the challenges associated with this methodological approach.

INTRODUCTION

There have been recent calls for biology education researchers to look toward other fields of educational inquiry for theories and methodologies to advance, and expand, our understanding of what helps students learn to think like biologists ( Coley and Tanner, 2012 ; Dolan, 2015 ; Peffer and Renken, 2016 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). These calls include the recommendations that biology education researchers ground their work in learning theories from the cognitive and learning sciences ( Coley and Tanner, 2012 ) and begin investigating the underlying mechanisms by which students to develop sophisticated biology ideas ( Dolan, 2015 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). Design-based research from the learning sciences is one methodology that seeks to do both by using theories of learning to investigate how “learning ecologies”—that is, complex systems of interactions among instructors, students, and environmental components—support the process of student learning ( Brown, 1992 ; Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Collins et al. , 2004 ; Peffer and Renken, 2016 ).

The purpose of this essay is twofold. First, we want to introduce readers to the key elements of design-based research, using our research into student learning in undergraduate physiology as an example of design-based research in biology education research (BER). Second, we will discuss how design-based research can extend work already done in BER and explore some of the challenges of its implementation. For a more in-depth review of design-based research, we direct readers to the following references: Brown (1992) , Barab and Squire (2004) , and Collins et al. (2004) , as well as commentaries by Anderson and Shattuck (2012) and McKenney and Reeves (2013) .

WHAT IS DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH?

Design-based research is a methodological approach that aligns with research methods from the fields of engineering or applied physics, where products are designed for specific purposes ( Brown, 1992 ; Joseph, 2004 ; Middleton et al. , 2008 ; Kelly, 2014 ). Consequently, investigators using design-based research approach educational inquiry much as an engineer develops a new product: First, the researchers identify a problem that needs to be addressed (e.g., a particular learning challenge that students face). Next, they design a potential “solution” to the problem in the form of instructional tools (e.g., reasoning strategies, worksheets; e.g., Reiser et al. , 2001 ) that theory and previous research suggest will address the problem. Then, the researchers test the instructional tools in a real-world setting (i.e., the classroom) to see if the tools positively impact student learning. As testing proceeds, researchers evaluate the instructional tools with emerging evidence of their effectiveness (or lack thereof) and progressively revise the tools— in real time —as necessary ( Collins et al. , 2004 ). Finally, the researchers reflect on the outcomes of the experiment, identifying the features of the instructional tools that were successful at addressing the initial learning problem, revising those aspects that were not helpful to learning, and determining how the research informed the theory underlying the experiment. This leads to another research cycle of designing, testing, evaluating, and reflecting to refine the instructional tools in support of student learning. We have characterized this iterative process in Figure 1 after Sandoval (2014) . Though we have portrayed four discrete phases to design-based research, there is often overlap of the phases as the research progresses (e.g., testing and evaluating can occur simultaneously).

FIGURE 1. The four phases of design-based research experienced in an iterative cycle (A). We also highlight the main features of each phase of our design-based research project investigating students’ use of flux in physiology (B).

Design-based research has no specific requirements for the form that instructional tools must take or the manner in which the tools are evaluated ( Bell, 2004 ; Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ). Instead, design-based research has what Sandoval (2014) calls “epistemic commitments” 1 that inform the major goals of a design-based research project as well as how it is implemented. These epistemic commitments are: 1) Design based research should be grounded in theories of learning (e.g., constructivism, knowledge-in-pieces, conceptual change) that both inform the design of the instructional tools and are improved upon by the research ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Barab and Squire, 2004 ). This makes design-based research more than a method for testing whether or not an instructional tool works; it also investigates why the design worked and how it can be generalized to other learning environments ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ). 2) Design-based research should aim to produce measurable changes in student learning in classrooms around a particular learning problem ( Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ; McKenney and Reeves, 2013 ). This requirement ensures that theoretical research into student learning is directly applicable, and impactful, to students and instructors in classroom settings ( Hoadley, 2004 ). 3) Design-based research should generate design principles that guide the development and implementation of future instructional tools ( Edelson, 2002 ). This commitment makes the research findings broadly applicable for use in a variety of classroom environments. 4) Design-based research should be enacted using extended, iterative teaching experiments in classrooms. By observing student learning over an extended period of time (e.g., throughout an entire term or across terms), researchers are more likely to observe the full effects of how the instructional tools impact student learning compared with short-term experiments ( Brown, 1992 ; Barab and Squire, 2004 ; Sandoval and Bell, 2004 ).

HOW IS DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH DIFFERENT FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH?

Many BER studies employ experimental approaches that align with traditional scientific methods of experimentation, such as using treatment versus control groups, randomly assigning treatments to different groups, replicating interventions across multiple spatial or temporal periods, and using statistical methods to guide the kinds of inferences that arise from an experiment. While design-based research can similarly employ these strategies for educational inquiry, there are also some notable differences in its approach to experimentation ( Collins et al. , 2004 ; Hoadley, 2004 ). In this section, we contrast the differences between design-based research and what we call “experimental approaches,” although both paradigms represent a form of experimentation.

The first difference between an experimental approach and design-based research regards the role participants play in the experiment. In an experimental approach, the researcher is responsible for making all the decisions about how the experiment will be implemented and analyzed, while the instructor facilitates the experimental treatments. In design-based research, both researchers and instructors are engaged in all stages of the research from conception to reflection ( Collins et al. , 2004 ). In BER, a third condition frequently arises wherein the researcher is also the instructor. In this case, if the research questions being investigated produce generalizable results that have the potential to impact teaching broadly, then this is consistent with a design-based research approach ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ). However, when the research questions are self-reflective about how a researcher/instructor can improve his or her own classroom practices, this aligns more closely with “action research,” which is another methodology used in education research (see Stringer, 2013 ).

A second difference between experimental research and design-based research is the form that hypotheses take and the manner in which they are investigated ( Collins et al. , 2004 ; Sandoval, 2014 ). In experimental approaches, researchers develop a hypothesis about how a specific instructional intervention will impact student learning. The intervention is then tested in the classroom(s) while controlling for other variables that are not part of the study in order to isolate the effects of the intervention. Sometimes, researchers designate a “control” situation that serves as a comparison group that does not experience the intervention. For example, Jackson et al. (2018) were interested in comparing peer- and self-grading of weekly practice exams to if they were equally effective forms of deliberate practice for students in a large-enrollment class. To test this, the authors (including authors of this essay J.H.D., M.P.W.) designed an experiment in which lab sections of students in a large lecture course were randomly assigned to either a peer-grading or self-grading treatment so they could isolate the effects of each intervention. In design-based research, a hypothesis is conceptualized as the “design solution” rather than a specific intervention; that is, design-based researchers hypothesize that the designed instructional tools, when implemented in the classroom, will create a learning ecology that improves student learning around the identified learning problem ( Edelson, 2002 ; Bell, 2004 ). For example, Zagallo et al. (2016) developed a laboratory curriculum (i.e., the hypothesized “design solution”) for molecular and cellular biology majors to address the learning problem that students often struggle to connect scientific models and empirical data. This curriculum entailed: focusing instruction around a set of target biological models; developing small-group activities in which students interacted with the models by analyzing data from scientific papers; using formative assessment tools for student feedback; and providing students with a set of learning objectives they could use as study tools. They tested their curriculum in a novel, large-enrollment course of upper-division students over several years, making iterative changes to the curriculum as the study progressed.

By framing the research approach as an iterative endeavor of progressive refinement rather than a test of a particular intervention when all other variables are controlled, design-based researchers recognize that: 1) classrooms, and classroom experiences, are unique at any given time, making it difficult to truly “control” the environment in which an intervention occurs or establish a “control group” that differs only in the features of an intervention; and 2) many aspects of a classroom experience may influence the effectiveness of an intervention, often in unanticipated ways, which should be included in the research team’s analysis of an intervention’s success. Consequently, the research team is less concerned with controlling the research conditions—as in an experimental approach—and instead focuses on characterizing the learning environment ( Barab and Squire, 2004 ). This involves collecting data from multiple sources as the research progresses, including how the instructional tools were implemented, aspects of the implementation process that failed to go as planned, and how the instructional tools or implementation process was modified. These characterizations can provide important insights into what specific features of the instructional tools, or the learning environment, were most impactful to learning ( DBR Collective, 2003 ).

A third difference between experimental approaches and design-based research is when the instructional interventions can be modified. In experimental research, the intervention is fixed throughout the experimental period, with any revisions occurring only after the experiment has concluded. This is critical for ensuring that the results of the study provide evidence of the efficacy of a specific intervention. By contrast, design-based research takes a more flexible approach that allows instructional tools to be modified in situ as they are being implemented ( Hoadley, 2004 ; Barab, 2014 ). This flexibility allows the research team to modify instructional tools or strategies that prove inadequate for collecting the evidence necessary to evaluate the underlying theory and ensures a tight connection between interventions and a specific learning problem ( Collins et al. , 2004 ; Hoadley, 2004 ).

Finally, and importantly, experimental approaches and design-based research differ in the kinds of conclusions they draw from their data. Experimental research can “identify that something meaningful happened; but [it is] not able to articulate what about the intervention caused that story to unfold” ( Barab, 2014 , p. 162). In other words, experimental methods are robust for identifying where differences in learning occur, such as between groups of students experiencing peer- or self-grading of practice exams ( Jackson et al. , 2018 ) or receiving different curricula (e.g., Chi et al. , 2012 ). However, these methods are not able to characterize the underlying learning process or mechanism involved in the different learning outcomes. By contrast, design-based research has the potential to uncover mechanisms of learning, because it investigates how the nature of student thinking changes as students experience instructional interventions ( Shavelson et al. , 2003 ; Barab, 2014 ). According to Sandoval (2014) , “Design research, as a means of uncovering causal processes, is oriented not to finding effects but to finding functions , to understanding how desired (and undesired) effects arise through interactions in a designed environment” (p. 30). In Zagallo et al. (2016) , the authors found that their curriculum supported students’ data-interpretation skills, because it stimulated students’ spontaneous use of argumentation during which group members coconstructed evidence-based claims from the data provided. Students also worked collaboratively to decode figures and identify data patterns. These strategies were identified from the researchers’ qualitative data analysis of in-class recordings of small-group discussions, which allowed them to observe what students were doing to support their learning. Because design-based research is focused on characterizing how learning occurs in classrooms, it can begin to answer the kinds of mechanistic questions others have identified as central to advancing BER ( National Research Council [NRC], 2012 ; Dolan, 2015 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ).

DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH IN ACTION: AN EXAMPLE FROM UNDERGRADUATE PHYSIOLOGY

To illustrate how design-based research could be employed in BER, we draw on our own research that investigates how students learn physiology. We will characterize one iteration of our design-based research cycle ( Figure 1 ), emphasizing how our project uses Sandoval’s four epistemic commitments (i.e., theory driven, practically applied, generating design principles, implemented in an iterative manner) to guide our implementation.

Identifying the Learning Problem

Understanding physiological phenomena is challenging for students, given the wide variety of contexts (e.g., cardiovascular, neuromuscular, respiratory; animal vs. plant) and scales involved (e.g., using molecular-level interactions to explain organism functioning; Wang, 2004 ; Michael, 2007 ; Badenhorst et al. , 2016 ). To address these learning challenges, Modell (2000) identified seven “general models” that undergird most physiology phenomena (i.e., control systems, conservation of mass, mass and heat flow, elastic properties of tissues, transport across membranes, cell-to-cell communication, molecular interactions). Instructors can use these models as a “conceptual framework” to help students build intellectual coherence across phenomena and develop a deeper understanding of physiology ( Modell, 2000 ; Michael et al. , 2009 ). This approach aligns with theoretical work in the learning sciences that indicates that providing students with conceptual frameworks improves their ability to integrate and retrieve knowledge ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ).

Before the start of our design-based project, we had been using Modell’s (2000) general models to guide our instruction. In this essay, we will focus on how we used the general models of mass and heat flow and transport across membranes in our instruction. These two models together describe how materials flow down gradients (e.g., pressure gradients, electrochemical gradients) against sources of resistance (e.g., tube diameter, channel frequency). We call this flux reasoning. We emphasized the fundamental nature and broad utility of flux reasoning in lecture and lab and frequently highlighted when it could be applied to explain a phenomenon. We also developed a conceptual scaffold (the Flux Reasoning Tool) that students could use to reason about physiological processes involving flux.

Although these instructional approaches had improved students’ understanding of flux phenomena, we found that students often demonstrated little commitment to using flux broadly across physiological contexts. Instead, they considered flux to be just another fact to memorize and applied it to narrow circumstances (e.g., they would use flux to reason about ions flowing across membranes—the context where flux was first introduced—but not the bulk flow of blood in a vessel). Students also struggled to integrate the various components of flux (e.g., balancing chemical and electrical gradients, accounting for variable resistance). We saw these issues reflected in students’ lower than hoped for exam scores on the cumulative final of the course. From these experiences, and from conversations with other physiology instructors, we identified a learning problem to address through design-based research: How do students learn to use flux reasoning to explain material flows in multiple physiology contexts?

The process of identifying a learning problem usually emerges from a researcher’s own experiences (in or outside a classroom) or from previous research that has been described in the literature ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ). To remain true to Sandoval’s first epistemic commitment, a learning problem must advance a theory of learning ( Edelson, 2002 ; McKenney and Reeves, 2013 ). In our work, we investigated how conceptual frameworks based on fundamental scientific concepts (i.e., Modell’s general models) could help students reason productively about physiology phenomena (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; Modell, 2000 ). Our specific theoretical question was: Can we characterize how students’ conceptual frameworks around flux change as they work toward robust ideas? Sandoval’s second epistemic commitment stated that a learning problem must aim to improve student learning outcomes. The practical significance of our learning problem was: Does using the concept of flux as a foundational idea for instructional tools increase students’ learning of physiological phenomena?

We investigated our learning problem in an introductory biology course at a large R1 institution. The introductory course is the third in a biology sequence that focuses on plant and animal physiology. The course typically serves between 250 and 600 students in their sophomore or junior years each term. Classes have the following average demographics: 68% male, 21% from lower-income situations, 12% from an underrepresented minority, and 26% first-generation college students.

Design-Based Research Cycle 1, Phase 1: Designing Instructional Tools

The first phase of design-based research involves developing instructional tools that address both the theoretical and practical concerns of the learning problem ( Edelson, 2002 ; Wang and Hannafin, 2005 ). These instructional tools can take many forms, such as specific instructional strategies, classroom worksheets and practices, or technological software, as long as they embody the underlying learning theory being investigated. They must also produce classroom experiences or materials that can be evaluated to determine whether learning outcomes were met ( Sandoval, 2014 ). Indeed, this alignment between theory, the nature of the instructional tools, and the ways students are assessed is central to ensuring rigorous design-based research ( Hoadley, 2004 ; Sandoval, 2014 ). Taken together, the instructional tools instantiate a hypothesized learning environment that will advance both the theoretical and practical questions driving the research ( Barab, 2014 ).

In our work, the theoretical claim that instruction based on fundamental scientific concepts would support students’ flux reasoning was embodied in our instructional approach by being the central focus of all instructional materials, which included: a revised version of the Flux Reasoning Tool ( Figure 2 ); case study–based units in lecture that explicitly emphasized flux phenomena in real-world contexts ( Windschitl et al. , 2012 ; Scott et al. , 2018 ; Figure 3 ); classroom activities in which students practiced using flux to address physiological scenarios; links to online videos describing key flux-related concepts; constructed-response assessment items that cued students to use flux reasoning in their thinking; and pretest/posttest formative assessment questions that tracked student learning ( Figure 4 ).

FIGURE 2. The Flux Reasoning Tool given to students at the beginning of the quarter.

FIGURE 3. An example flux case study that is presented to students at the beginning of the neurophysiology unit. Throughout the unit, students learn how ion flows into and out of cells, as mediated by chemical and electrical gradients and various ion/molecular channels, sends signals throughout the body. They use this information to better understand why Jaime experiences persistent neuropathy. Images from: uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayl:Blausen_0822_SpinalCord.png and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Figure_38_01_07.jpg.

FIGURE 4. An example flux assessment question about ion flows given in a pre-unit/post-unit formative assessment in the neurophysiology unit.

Phase 2: Testing the Instructional Tools

In the second phase of design-based research, the instructional tools are tested by implementing them in classrooms. During this phase, the instructional tools are placed “in harm’s way … in order to expose the details of the process to scrutiny” ( Cobb et al. , 2003 , p. 10). In this way, researchers and instructors test how the tools perform in real-world settings, which may differ considerably from the design team’s initial expectations ( Hoadley, 2004 ). During this phase, if necessary, the design team may make adjustments to the tools as they are being used to account for these unanticipated conditions ( Collins et al. , 2004 ).

We implemented the instructional tools during the Autumn and Spring quarters of the 2016–2017 academic year. Students were taught to use the Flux Reasoning Tool at the beginning of the term in the context of the first case study unit focused on neurophysiology. Each physiology unit throughout the term was associated with a new concept-based case study (usually about flux) that framed the context of the teaching. Embedded within the daily lectures were classroom activities in which students could practice using flux. Students were also assigned readings from the textbook and videos related to flux to watch during each unit. Throughout the term, students took five exams that each contained some flux questions as well as some pre- and post-unit formative assessment questions. During Winter quarter, we conducted clinical interviews with students who would take our course in the Spring term (i.e., “pre” data) as well as students who had just completed our course in Autumn (i.e., “post” data).

Phase 3: Evaluating the Instructional Tools

The third phase of a design-based research cycle involves evaluating the effectiveness of instructional tools using evidence of student learning ( Barab and Squire, 2004 ; Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ). This can be done using products produced by students (e.g., homework, lab reports), attitudinal gains measured with surveys, participation rates in activities, interview testimonials, classroom discourse practices, and formative assessment or exam data (e.g., Reiser et al. , 2001 ; Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Barab and Squire, 2004 ; Mohan et al. , 2009 ). Regardless of the source, evidence must be in a form that supports a systematic analysis that could be scrutinized by other researchers ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Barab, 2014 ). Also, because design-based research often involves multiple data streams, researchers may need to use both quantitative and qualitative analytical methods to produce a rich picture of how the instructional tools affected student learning ( Collins et al. , 2004 ; Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ).

In our work, we used the quality of students’ written responses on exams and formative assessment questions to determine whether students improved their understanding of physiological phenomena involving flux. For each assessment question, we analyzed a subset of student’s pretest answers to identify overarching patterns in students’ reasoning about flux, characterized these overarching patterns, then ordinated the patterns into different levels of sophistication. These became our scoring rubrics, which identified five different levels of student reasoning about flux. We used the rubrics to code the remainder of students’ responses, with a code designating the level of student reasoning associated with a particular reasoning pattern. We used this ordinal rubric format because it would later inform our theoretical understanding of how students build flux conceptual frameworks (see phase 4). This also allowed us to both characterize the ideas students held about flux phenomena and identify the frequency distribution of those ideas in a class.

By analyzing changes in the frequency distributions of students’ ideas across the rubric levels at different time points in the term (e.g., pre-unit vs. post-unit), we could track both the number of students who gained more sophisticated ideas about flux as the term progressed and the quality of those ideas. If the frequency of students reasoning at higher levels increased from pre-unit to post-unit assessments, we could conclude that our instructional tools as a whole were supporting students’ development of sophisticated flux ideas. For example, on one neuromuscular ion flux assessment question in the Spring of 2017, we found that relatively more students were reasoning at the highest levels of our rubric (i.e., levels 4 and 5) on the post-unit test compared with the pre-unit test. This meant that more students were beginning to integrate sophisticated ideas about flux (i.e., they were balancing concentration and electrical gradients) in their reasoning about ion movement.

To help validate this finding, we drew on three additional data streams: 1) from in-class group recordings of students working with flux items, we noted that students increasingly incorporated ideas about gradients and resistance when constructing their explanations as the term progressed; 2) from plant assessment items in the latter part of the term, we began to see students using flux ideas unprompted; and 3) from interviews, we observed that students who had already taken the course used flux ideas in their reasoning.

Through these analyses, we also noticed an interesting pattern in the pre-unit test data for Spring 2017 when compared with the frequency distribution of students’ responses with a previous term (Autumn 2016). In Spring 2017, 42% of students reasoned at level 4 or 5 on the pre-unit test, indicating these students already had sophisticated ideas about ion flux before they took the pre-unit assessment. This was surprising, considering only 2% of students reasoned at these levels for this item on the Autumn 2016 pre-unit test.

Phase 4: Reflecting on the Instructional Tools and Their Implementation

The final phase of a design-based research cycle involves a retrospective analysis that addresses the epistemic commitments of this methodology: How was the theory underpinning the research advanced by the research endeavor (theoretical outcome)? Did the instructional tools support student learning about the learning problem (practical outcome)? What were the critical features of the design solution that supported student learning (design principles)? ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Barab and Squire, 2004 ).

Theoretical Outcome (Epistemic Commitment 1).

Reflecting on how a design-based research experiment advances theory is critical to our understanding of how students learn in educational settings ( Barab and Squire, 2004 ; Mohan et al. , 2009 ). In our work, we aimed to characterize how students’ conceptual frameworks around flux change as they work toward robust ideas. To do this, we drew on learning progression research as our theoretical framing ( NRC, 2007 ; Corcoran et al. , 2009 ; Duschl et al. , 2011 ; Scott et al. , 2019 ). Learning progression frameworks describe empirically derived patterns in student thinking that are ordered into levels representing cognitive shifts in the ways students conceive a topic as they work toward mastery ( Gunckel et al. , 2012 ). We used our ion flux scoring rubrics to create a preliminary five-level learning progression framework ( Table 1 ). The framework describes how students’ ideas about flux often start with teleological-driven accounts at the lowest level (i.e., level 1), shift to focusing on driving forces (e.g., concentration gradients, electrical gradients) in the middle levels, and arrive at complex ideas that integrate multiple interacting forces at the higher levels. We further validated these reasoning patterns with our student interviews. However, our flux conceptual framework was largely based on student responses to our ion flux assessment items. Therefore, to further validate our learning progression framework, we needed a greater diversity of flux assessment items that investigated student thinking more broadly (i.e., about bulk flow, water movement) across physiological systems.

The preliminary flux learning progression framework characterizing the patterns of reasoning students may exhibit as they work toward mastery of flux reasoning. The student exemplars are from the ion flux formative assessment question presented in . The “/” divides a student’s answers to the first and second parts of the question. Level 5 represents the most sophisticated ideas about flux phenomena.
Level	Level descriptions	Student exemplars
5	Principle-based reasoning with full consideration of interacting components	Change the membrane potential to −100mV/The in the cell will put for the positively charged potassium than the .
4	Emergent principle-based reasoning using individual components	Decrease the more positive/the concentration gradient and electrical gradient control the motion of charged particles.
3	Students use fragments of the principle to reason	Change concentration of outside K/If the , more K will rush into the cell.
2	Students provide storytelling explanations that are nonmechanistic	Close voltage-gated potassium channels/When the are closed then we will move back toward meaning that K+ ions will move into the cell causing the mV to go from −90 mV (K+ electrical potential) to −70 mV (RMP).
1	Students provide nonmechanistic (e.g., teleological) explanations	Transport proteins/ to cross membrane because it wouldn’t do it readily since it’s charged.

Practical Outcome (Epistemic Commitment 2).

In design-based research, learning theories must “do real work” by improving student learning in real-world settings ( DBR Collective, 2003 ). Therefore, design-based researchers must reflect on whether or not the data they collected show evidence that the instructional tools improved student learning ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ; Sharma and McShane, 2008 ). We determined whether our flux-based instructional approach aided student learning by analyzing the kinds of answers students provided to our assessment questions. Specifically, we considered students who reasoned at level 4 or above as demonstrating productive flux reasoning. Because almost half of students were reasoning at level 4 or 5 on the post-unit assessment after experiencing the instructional tools in the neurophysiology unit (in Spring 2017), we concluded that our tools supported student learning in physiology. Additionally, we noticed that students used language in their explanations that directly tied to the Flux Reasoning Tool ( Figure 2 ), which instructed them to use arrows to indicate the magnitude and direction of gradient-driving forces. For example, in a posttest response to our ion flux item ( Figure 4 ), one student wrote:

Ion movement is a function of concentration and electrical gradients . Which arrow is stronger determines the movement of K+. We can make the electrical arrow bigger and pointing in by making the membrane potential more negative than Ek [i.e., potassium’s equilibrium potential]. We can make the concentration arrow bigger and pointing in by making a very strong concentration gradient pointing in.

Given that almost half of students reasoned at level 4 or above, and that students used language from the Flux Reasoning Tool, we concluded that using fundamental concepts was a productive instructional approach for improving student learning in physiology and that our instructional tools aided student learning. However, some students in the 2016–2017 academic year continued to apply flux ideas more narrowly than intended (i.e., for ion and simple diffusion cases, but not water flux or bulk flow). This suggested that students had developed nascent flux conceptual frameworks after experiencing the instructional tools but could use more support to realize the broad applicability of this principle. Also, although our cross-sectional interview approach demonstrated how students’ ideas, overall, could change after experiencing the instructional tools, it did not provide information about how a student developed flux reasoning.

Reflecting on practical outcomes also means interpreting any learning gains in the context of the learning ecology. This reflection allowed us to identify whether there were particular aspects of the instructional tools that were better at supporting learning than others ( DBR Collective, 2003 ). Indeed, this was critical for our understanding why 42% of students scored at level 3 and above on the pre-unit ion assessment in the Spring of 2017, while only 2% of students scored level 3 and above in Autumn of 2016. When we reviewed notes of the Spring 2017 implementation scheme, we saw that the pretest was due at the end of the first day of class after students had been exposed to ion flux ideas in class and in a reading/video assignment about ion flow, which may be one reason for the students’ high performance on the pretest. Consequently, we could not tell whether students’ initial high performance was due to their learning from the activities in the first day of class or for other reasons we did not measure. It also indicated we needed to close pretests before the first day of class for a more accurate measure of students’ incoming ideas and the effectiveness of the instructional tools employed at the beginning of the unit.

Design Principles (Epistemic Commitment 3).

Although design-based research is enacted in local contexts (i.e., a particular classroom), its purpose is to inform learning ecologies that have broad applications to improve learning and teaching ( Edelson, 2002 ; Cobb et al. , 2003 ). Therefore, design-based research should produce design principles that describe characteristics of learning environments that researchers and instructors can use to develop instructional tools specific to their local contexts (e.g., Edelson, 2002 ; Subramaniam et al. , 2015 ). Consequently, the design principles must balance specificity with adaptability so they can be used broadly to inform instruction ( Collins et al. , 2004 ; Barab, 2014 ).

From our first cycle of design-based research, we developed the following design principles: 1) Key scientific concepts should provide an overarching framework for course organization. This way, the individual components that make up a course, like instructional units, activities, practice problems, and assessments, all reinforce the centrality of the key concept. 2) Instructional tools should explicitly articulate the principle of interest, with specific guidance on how that principle is applied in context. This stresses the applied nature of the principle and that it is more than a fact to be memorized. 3) Instructional tools need to show specific instances of how the principle is applied in multiple contexts to combat students’ narrow application of the principle to a limited number of contexts.

Design-Based Research Cycle 2, Phase 1: Redesign and Refine the Experiment

The last “epistemic commitment” Sandoval (2014) articulated was that design-based research be an iterative process with an eye toward continually refining the instructional tools, based on evidence of student learning, to produce more robust learning environments. By viewing educational inquiry as formative research, design-based researchers recognize the difficulty in accounting for all variables that could impact student learning, or the implementation of the instructional tools, a priori ( Collins et al. , 2004 ). Robust instructional designs are the products of trial and error, which are strengthened by a systematic analysis of how they perform in real-world settings.

To continue to advance our work investigating student thinking using the principle of flux, we began a second cycle of design-based research that continued to address the learning problem of helping students reason with fundamental scientific concepts. In this cycle, we largely focused on broadening the number of physiological systems that had accompanying formative assessment questions (i.e., beyond ion flux), collecting student reasoning from a more diverse population of students (e.g., upper division, allied heath, community college), and refining and validating the flux learning progression with both written and interview data in a student through time. We developed a suite of constructed-response flux assessment questions that spanned neuromuscular, cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and plant physiological contexts and asked students about several kinds of flux: ion movement, diffusion, water movement, and bulk flow (29 total questions; available at beyondmultiplechoice.org). This would provide us with rich qualitative data that we could use to refine the learning progression. We decided to administer written assessments and conduct interviews in a pretest/posttest manner at the beginning and end of each unit both as a way to increase our data about student reasoning and to provide students with additional practice using flux reasoning across contexts.

From this second round of designing instructional tools (i.e., broader range of assessment items), testing them in the classroom (i.e., administering the assessment items to diverse student populations), evaluating the tools (i.e., developing learning progression–aligned rubrics across phenomena from student data, tracking changes in the frequency distribution of students across levels through time), and reflecting on the tools’ success, we would develop a more thorough and robust characterization of how students use flux across systems that could better inform our creation of new instructional tools to support student learning.

HOW CAN DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH EXTEND AND ENRICH BER?

While design-based research has primarily been used in educational inquiry at the K–12 level (see Reiser et al. , 2001 ; Mohan et al. , 2009 ; Jin and Anderson, 2012 ), other science disciplines at undergraduate institutions have begun to employ this methodology to create robust instructional approaches (e.g., Szteinberg et al. , 2014 in chemistry; Hake, 2007 , and Sharma and McShane, 2008 , in physics; Kelly, 2014 , in engineering). Our own work, as well as that by Zagallo et al. (2016) , provides two examples of how design-based research could be implemented in BER. Below, we articulate some of the ways incorporating design-based research into BER could extend and enrich this field of educational inquiry.

Design-Based Research Connects Theory with Practice

One critique of BER is that it does not draw heavily enough on learning theories from other disciplines like cognitive psychology or the learning sciences to inform its research ( Coley and Tanner, 2012 ; Dolan, 2015 ; Peffer and Renken, 2016 ; Davidesco and Milne, 2019 ). For example, there has been considerable work in BER developing concept inventories as formative assessment tools that identify concepts students often struggle to learn (e.g., Marbach-Ad et al. , 2009 ; McFarland et al. , 2017 ; Summers et al. , 2018 ). However, much of this work is detached from a theoretical understanding of why students hold misconceptions in the first place, what the nature of their thinking is, and the learning mechanisms that would move students to a more productive understanding of domain ideas ( Alonzo, 2011 ). Using design-based research to understand the basis of students’ misconceptions would ground these practical learning problems in a theoretical understanding of the nature of student thinking (e.g., see Coley and Tanner, 2012 , 2015 ; Gouvea and Simon, 2018 ) and the kinds of instructional tools that would best support the learning process.

Design-Based Research Fosters Collaborations across Disciplines

Recently, there have been multiple calls across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education fields to increase collaborations between BER and other disciplines so as to increase the robustness of science education research at the collegiate level ( Coley and Tanner, 2012 ; NRC, 2012 ; Talanquer, 2014 ; Dolan, 2015 ; Peffer and Renken, 2016 ; Mestre et al. , 2018 ; Davidesco and Milne, 2019 ). Engaging in design-based research provides both a mechanism and a motivation for fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, as it requires the design team to have theoretical knowledge of how students learn, domain knowledge of practical learning problems, and instructional knowledge for how to implement instructional tools in the classroom ( Edelson, 2002 ; Hoadley, 2004 ; Wang and Hannafin, 2005 ; Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ). For example, in our current work, our research team consists of two discipline-based education learning scientists from an R1 institution, two physiology education researchers/instructors (one from an R1 institution the other from a community college), several physiology disciplinary experts/instructors, and a K–12 science education expert.

Design-based research collaborations have several distinct benefits for BER: first, learning or cognitive scientists could provide theoretical and methodological expertise that may be unfamiliar to biology education researchers with traditional science backgrounds ( Lo et al. , 2019 ). This would both improve the rigor of the research project and provide biology education researchers with the opportunity to explore ideas and methods from other disciplines. Second, collaborations between researchers and instructors could help increase the implementation of evidence-based teaching practices by instructors/faculty who are not education researchers and would benefit from support while shifting their instructional approaches ( Eddy et al. , 2015 ). This may be especially true for community college and primarily undergraduate institution faculty who often do not have access to the same kinds of resources that researchers and instructors at research-intensive institutions do ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ). Third, making instructors an integral part of a design-based research project ensures they are well versed in the theory and learning objectives underlying the instructional tools they are implementing in the classroom. This can improve the fidelity of implementation of the instructional tools, because the instructors understand the tools’ theoretical and practical purposes, which has been cited as one reason there have been mixed results on the impact of active learning across biology classes ( Andrews et al. , 2011 ; Borrego et al. , 2013 ; Lee et al. , 2018 ; Offerdahl et al. , 2018 ). It also gives instructors agency to make informed adjustments to the instructional tools during implementation that improve their practical applications while remaining true to the goals of the research ( Hoadley, 2004 ).

Design-Based Research Invites Using Mixed Methods to Analyze Data

The diverse nature of the data that are often collected in design-based research can require both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to produce a rich picture of how the instructional tools and their implementation influenced student learning ( Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ). Using mixed methods may be less familiar to biology education researchers who were primarily trained in quantitative methods as biologists ( Lo et al. , 2019 ). However, according to Warfa (2016 , p. 2), “Integration of research findings from quantitative and qualitative inquiries in the same study or across studies maximizes the affordances of each approach and can provide better understanding of biology teaching and learning than either approach alone.” Although the number of BER studies using mixed methods has increased over the past decade ( Lo et al. , 2019 ), engaging in design-based research could further this trend through its collaborative nature of bringing social scientists together with biology education researchers to share research methodologies from different fields. By leveraging qualitative and quantitative methods, design-based researchers unpack “mechanism and process” by characterizing the nature of student thinking rather than “simply reporting that differences did or did not occur” ( Barab, 2014 , p. 158), which is important for continuing to advance our understanding of student learning in BER ( Dolan, 2015 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ).

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH IN BER

As with any methodological approach, there can be challenges to implementing design-based research. Here, we highlight three that may be relevant to BER.

Collaborations Can Be Difficult to Maintain

While collaborations between researchers and instructors offer many affordances (as discussed earlier), the reality of connecting researchers across departments and institutions can be challenging. For example, Peffer and Renken (2016) noted that different traditions of scholarship can present barriers to collaboration where there is not mutual respect for the methods and ideas that are part and parcel to each discipline. Additionally, Schinske et al. (2017) identified several constraints that community college faculty face for engaging in BER, such as limited time or support (e.g., infrastructural, administrative, and peer support), which could also impact their ability to form the kinds of collaborations inherent in design-based research. Moreover, the iterative nature of design-based research requires these collaborations to persist for an extended period of time. Attending to these challenges is an important part of forming the design team and identifying the different roles researchers and instructors will play in the research.

Design-Based Research Experiments Are Resource Intensive

The focus of design-based research on studying learning ecologies to uncover mechanisms of learning requires that researchers collect multiple data streams through time, which often necessitates significant temporal and financial resources ( Collins et al., 2004 ; O’Donnell, 2004 ). Consequently, researchers must weigh both practical as well as methodological considerations when formulating their experimental design. For example, investigating learning mechanisms requires that researchers collect data at a frequency that will capture changes in student thinking ( Siegler, 2006 ). However, researchers may be constrained in the number of data-collection events they can anticipate depending on: the instructor’s ability to facilitate in-class collection events or solicit student participation in extracurricular activities (e.g., interviews); the cost of technological devices to record student conversations; the time and logistical considerations needed to schedule and conduct student interviews; the financial resources available to compensate student participants; the financial and temporal costs associated with analyzing large amounts of data.

Identifying learning mechanisms also requires in-depth analyses of qualitative data as students experience various instructional tools (e.g., microgenetic methods; Flynn et al. , 2006 ; Siegler, 2006 ). The high intensity of these in-depth analyses often limits the number of students who can be evaluated in this way, which must be balanced with the kinds of generalizations researchers wish to make about the effectiveness of the instructional tools ( O’Donnell, 2004 ). Because of the large variety of data streams that could be collected in a design-based research experiment—and the resources required to collect and analyze them—it is critical that the research team identify a priori how specific data streams, and the methods of their analysis, will provide the evidence necessary to address the theoretical and practical objectives of the research (see the following section on experimental rigor; Sandoval, 2014 ). These are critical management decisions because of the need for a transparent, systematic analysis of the data that others can scrutinize to evaluate the validity of the claims being made ( Cobb et al. , 2003 ).

Concerns with Experimental Rigor

The nature of design-based research, with its use of narrative to characterize versus control experimental environments, has drawn concerns about the rigor of this methodological approach. Some have challenged its ability to produce evidence-based warrants to support its claims of learning that can be replicated and critiqued by others ( Shavelson et al. , 2003 ; Hoadley, 2004 ). This is a valid concern that design-based researchers, and indeed all education researchers, must address to ensure their research meets established standards for education research ( NRC, 2002 ).

One way design-based researchers address this concern is by “specifying theoretically salient features of a learning environment design and mapping out how they are predicted to work together to produce desired outcomes” ( Sandoval, 2014 , p. 19). Through this process, researchers explicitly show before they begin the work how their theory of learning is embodied in the instructional tools to be tested, the specific data the tools will produce for analysis, and what outcomes will be taken as evidence for success. Moreover, by allowing instructional tools to be modified during the testing phase as needed, design-based researchers acknowledge that it is impossible to anticipate all aspects of the classroom environment that might impact the implementation of instructional tools, “as dozens (if not millions) of factors interact to produce the measureable outcomes related to learning” ( Hoadley, 2004 , p. 204; DBR Collective, 2003 ). Consequently, modifying instructional tools midstream to account for these unanticipated factors can ensure they retain their methodological alignment with the underlying theory and predicted learning outcomes so that inferences drawn from the design experiment accurately reflect what was being tested ( Edelson, 2002 ; Hoadley, 2004 ). Indeed, Barab (2014) states, “the messiness of real-world practice must be recognized, understood, and integrated as part of the theoretical claims if the claims are to have real-world explanatory value” (p. 153).

CONCLUSIONS

providing a methodology that integrates theories of learning with practical experiences in classrooms,

using a range of analytical approaches that allow for researchers to uncover the underlying mechanisms of student thinking and learning,

fostering interdisciplinary collaborations among researchers and instructors, and

characterizing learning ecologies that account for the complexity involved in student learning

By employing this methodology from the learning sciences, biology education researchers can enrich our current understanding of what is required to help biology students achieve their personal and professional aims during their college experience. It can also stimulate new ideas for biology education that can be discussed and debated in our research community as we continue to explore and refine how best to serve the students who pass through our classroom doors.

1 “Epistemic commitment” is defined as engaging in certain practices that generate knowledge in an agreed-upon way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the UW Biology Education Research Group’s (BERG) feedback on drafts of this essay as well as Dr. L. Jescovich for last-minute analyses. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation award (NSF DUE 1661263/1660643). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. All procedures were conducted in accordance with approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Washington (52146) and the New England Independent Review Board (120160152).

Alonzo, A. C. ( 2011 ). Learning progressions that support formative assessment practices . Measurement , 9 (2/3), 124–129. Google Scholar
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. ( 2012 ). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher , 41 (1), 16–25. Google Scholar
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. ( 2011 ). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 (4), 394–405. Link , Google Scholar
Badenhorst, E., Hartman, N., & Mamede, S. ( 2016 ). How biomedical misconceptions may arise and affect medical students’ learning: A review of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence . Health Professions Education , 2 (1), 10–17. Google Scholar
Barab, S. ( 2014 ). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change . In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151–170). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.011 Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Squire, K. ( 2004 ). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 13 (1), 1–14. Google Scholar
Bell, P. ( 2004 ). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education . Educational Psychologist , 39 (4), 243–253. Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Froyd, J. E. ( 2013 ). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses . Journal of Engineering Education , 102 (3), 394–425. 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. Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. ( 2012 ). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes . Cognitive Science , 36 (1), 1–61. Medline , Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. ( 2003 ). Design experiments in educational research . Educational Researcher , 32 (1), 9–13. Google Scholar
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. ( 2012 ). Common origins of diverse misconceptions: Cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 (3), 209–215. Link , Google Scholar
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. ( 2015 ). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094 Medline , Google Scholar
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. ( 2004 ). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 13 (1), 15–42. Google Scholar
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. D. ( 2009 ). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (CPRE Research Report No. RR-63) . Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Google Scholar
Davidesco, I., & Milne, C. ( 2019 ). Implementing cognitive science and discipline-based education research in the undergraduate science classroom . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (3), es4. Link , Google Scholar
Design-Based Research Collective . ( 2003 ). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry . Educational Researcher , 32 (1), 5–8. Google Scholar
Dolan, E. L. ( 2015 ). Biology education research 2.0 . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 (4), ed1. Link , Google Scholar
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. ( 2011 ). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis . Studies in Science Education , 47 (2), 123–182. Google Scholar
Eddy, S. L., Converse, M., & Wenderoth, M. P. ( 2015 ). PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 (2), ar23. Link , 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. Google Scholar
Flynn, E., Pine, K., & Lewis, C. ( 2006 ). The microgenetic method—Time for change? The Psychologist , 19 (3), 152–155. Google Scholar
Gouvea, J. S., & Simon, M. R. ( 2018 ). Challenging cognitive construals: A dynamic alternative to stable misconceptions . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (2), ar34. Link , Google Scholar
Gunckel, K. L., Mohan, L., Covitt, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. ( 2012 ). Addressing challenges in developing learning progressions for environmental science literacy . In Alonzo, A. C.Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 39–75). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-824-7_4 Google Scholar
Hake, R. R. ( 2007 ). Design-based research in physics education research: A review . In Kelly, A. E.Lesh, R. A.Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in mathematics, science, and technology education (p. 24). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Hoadley, C. M. ( 2004 ). Methodological alignment in design-based research . Educational Psychologist , 39 (4), 203–212. Google Scholar
Jackson, M., Tran, A., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. ( 2018 ). Peer vs. self-grading of practice exams: Which is better? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (3), es44. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0052 Link , Google Scholar
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. ( 2012 ). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 (9), 1149–1180. Google Scholar
Joseph, D. ( 2004 ). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real-world context . Educational Psychologist , 39 (4), 235–242. Google Scholar
Kelly, A. E. ( 2014 ). Design-based research in engineering education . In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 497–518). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.032 Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Toven-Lindsey, B., Shapiro, C., Soh, M., Mazrouee, S., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Sanders, E. R. ( 2018 ). Error-discovery learning boosts student engagement and performance, while reducing student attrition in a bioinformatics course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (3), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0061 Link , Google Scholar
Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., & Sato, B. K. ( 2019 ). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — life sciences education and at the society for the advancement of biology education research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (1), ar9. Link , Google Scholar
Marbach-Ad, G., Briken, V., El-Sayed, N. M., Frauwirth, K., Fredericksen, B., Hutcheson, S., … & Smith, A. C. ( 2009 ). Assessing student understanding of host pathogen interactions using a concept inventory . Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 10 (1), 43–50. Medline , Google Scholar
McFarland, J. L., Price, R. M., Wenderoth, M. P., Martinková, P., Cliff, W., Michael, J. , … & Wright, A. ( 2017 ). Development and validation of the homeostasis concept inventory . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (2), ar35. Link , Google Scholar
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. ( 2013 ). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher , 42 (2), 97–100. Google Scholar
Mestre, J. P., Cheville, A., & Herman, G. L. ( 2018 ). Promoting DBER-cognitive psychology collaborations in STEM education . Journal of Engineering Education , 107 (1), 5–10. Google Scholar
Michael, J. A. ( 2007 ). What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey . AJP: Advances in Physiology Education , 31 (1), 34–40. Medline , Google Scholar
Michael, J. A., Modell, H., McFarland, J., & Cliff, W. ( 2009 ). The “core principles” of physiology: What should students understand? Advances in Physiology Education , 33 (1), 10–16. Medline , Google Scholar
Middleton, J., Gorard, S., Taylor, C., & Bannan-Ritland, B. ( 2008 ). The “compleat” design experiment: From soup to nuts . In Kelly, A. E.Lesh, R. A.Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 21–46). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
Modell, H. I. ( 2000 ). How to help students understand physiology? Emphasize general models . Advances in Physiology Education , 23 (1), S101–S107. Medline , Google Scholar
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. ( 2009 ). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 46 (6), 675–698. Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . ( 2018 ). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved June 24, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.17226/24783 Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) . ( 2002 ). Scientific research in education . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.17226/10236 Google Scholar
NRC . ( 2007 ). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8 . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from www.nap.edu/catalog/11625/taking-science-to-school-learning-and-teaching-science-in-grades . https://doi.org/10.17226/11625 Google Scholar
NRC . ( 2012 ). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/catalog/13362/discipline-based-education-research-understanding-and-improving-learning-in-undergraduate . https://doi.org/10.17226/13362 Google Scholar
NRC . ( 2018 ). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/read/24783/chapter/7 . https://doi.org/10.17226/24783 Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. ( 2004 ). A commentary on design research . Educational Psychologist , 39 (4), 255–260. Google Scholar
Offerdahl, E. G., McConnell, M., & Boyer, J. ( 2018 ). Can I have your recipe? Using a fidelity of implementation (FOI) framework to identify the key ingredients of formative assessment for learning . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (4), es16. Link , Google Scholar
Peffer, M., & Renken, M. ( 2016 ). Practical strategies for collaboration across discipline-based education research and the learning sciences . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), es11. Link , Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Smith, B. K., Tabak, I., Steinmuller, F., Sandoval, W. A., & Leone, A. J. ( 2001 ). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms . In Carver, S. M.Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. ( 2014 ). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research . Journal of the Learning Sciences , 23 (1), 18–36. Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. ( 2004 ). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction . Educational Psychologist , 39 (4), 199–201. Google Scholar
Schinske, J. N., Balke, V. L., Bangera, M. G., Bonney, K. M., Brownell, S. E., Carter, R. S. , … & Corwin, L. A. ( 2017 ). Broadening participation in biology education research: Engaging community college students and faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (2), mr1. Link , Google Scholar
Scott, E., Anderson, C. W., Mashood, K. K., Matz, R. L., Underwood, S. M., & Sawtelle, V. ( 2018 ). Developing an analytical framework to characterize student reasoning about complex processes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (3), ar49. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-10-0225 Link , Google Scholar
Scott, E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. ( 2019 ). Learning progressions: An empirically grounded, learner-centered framework to guide biology instruction . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (4), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0059 Link , Google Scholar
Sharma, M. D., & McShane, K. ( 2008 ). A methodological framework for understanding and describing discipline-based scholarship of teaching in higher education through design-based research . Higher Education Research & Development , 27 (3), 257–270. 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. Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. ( 2006 ). Microgenetic analyses of learning . In Damon, W.Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0211 Google Scholar
Stringer, E. T. ( 2013 ). Action research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Google Scholar
Subramaniam, M., Jean, B. S., Taylor, N. G., Kodama, C., Follman, R., & Casciotti, D. ( 2015 ). Bit by bit: Using design-based research to improve the health literacy of adolescents . JMIR Research Protocols , 4 (2), e62. Medline , Google Scholar
Summers, M. M., Couch, B. A., Knight, J. K., Brownell, S. E., Crowe, A. J., Semsar, K. , … & Batzli, J. ( 2018 ). EcoEvo-MAPS: An ecology and evolution assessment for introductory through advanced undergraduates . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (2), ar18. Link , Google Scholar
Szteinberg, G., Balicki, S., Banks, G., Clinchot, M., Cullipher, S., Huie, R. , … & Sevian, H. ( 2014 ). Collaborative professional development in chemistry education research: Bridging the gap between research and practice . Journal of Chemical Education , 91 (9), 1401–1408. Google Scholar
Talanquer, V. ( 2014 ). DBER and STEM education reform: Are we up to the challenge? Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 51 (6), 809–819. 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. Google Scholar
Wang, J.-R. ( 2004 ). Development and validation of a Two-tier instrument to examine understanding of internal transport in plants and the human circulatory system . International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 2 (2), 131–157. Google Scholar
Warfa, A.-R. M. ( 2016 ). Mixed-methods design in biology education research: Approach and uses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), rm5. Link , Google Scholar
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. ( 2012 ). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science . Science Education , 96 (5), 878–903. Google Scholar
Zagallo, P., Meddleton, S., & Bolger, M. S. ( 2016 ). Teaching real data interpretation with models (TRIM): Analysis of student dialogue in a large-enrollment cell and developmental biology course . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (2), ar17. Link , Google Scholar
Codéveloppement d’un programme d’autogestion de la douleur chronique en ligne: un projet de recherche basé sur la conception et axé sur l’engagement des patients 12 March 2024 | Canadian Journal of Pain, Vol. 8, No. 1
Behavioral assessment of soft skill development in a highly structured pre-health biology course for undergraduates 29 Aug 2024 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 25, No. 2
Developing and Validating the Preschool Nutrition Education Practices Survey 1 Aug 2024 | Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 56, No. 8
Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking 30 July 2024 | Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 87
Innovative strategies to strengthen teaching-researching skills in chemistry and biology education: a systematic literature review 10 July 2024 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 9
Enhancing undergraduates’ engagement in a learning community by including their voices in the technological and instructional design 1 Jun 2024 | Computers & Education, Vol. 214
Practice-Based Teacher Education Benefits Graduate Trainees and Their Students Through Inclusive and Active Teaching Methods 16 October 2023 | Journal for STEM Education Research, Vol. 7, No. 1
Designing and Evaluating Generative AI-Based Voice-Interaction Agents for Improving L2 Learners’ Oral Communication Competence 2 July 2024
A Research-Led Contribution of Engineering Education for a Sustainable Future 1 June 2024
Development of Inclusive Tools Through Digital Fabrication for Chemistry Learning in Students with and Without Visual Impairment 5 August 2024
Leveraging learning experience design: digital media approaches to influence motivational traits that support student learning behaviors in undergraduate online courses 11 October 2022 | Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 3
Investigating an Assessment Design that Prevents Students from Using ChatGPT as the Sole Basis to Pass Assessment at the Tertiary Level 30 November 2023 | E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
Spatial Variations in Aquatic Insect Community Structure in the Winam Gulf of Lake Victoria, Kenya 8 Sep 2023 | International Journal of Ecology, Vol. 2023
The Perceived Effectiveness of Various Forms of Feedback on the Acquisition of Technical Skills by Advanced Learners in Simulation-Based Health Professions Education 28 Aug 2023 | Cureus, Vol. 44
Occupational therapists' acceptance of 3D printing 22 August 2023 | South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 53, No. 2
An app by students for students – the DPaCK-model for a digital collaborative teamwork project to identify butterflies 4 August 2023 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8
Applying DBR to design protocols for synchronous online Chinese learning: An activity theoretic perspective 1 Aug 2023 | System, Vol. 116
Defining the Nature of Augmented Feedback for Learning Intraosseous Access Skills in Simulation-Based Health Professions Education 14 Jul 2023 | Cureus, Vol. 86
Practice-based 21st-century teacher education: Design principles for adaptive expertise 1 Jul 2023 | Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 128
Undergraduate students’ neurophysiological reasoning: what we learn from the attractive distractors students select 1 Jun 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 2
Oaks to arteries: the Physiology Core Concept of flow down gradients supports transfer of student reasoning 1 Jun 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 2
Audrey Chen ,
Kimberley A. Phillips ,
Jennifer E. Schaefer , and
Patrick M. Sonner
Kyle Frantz,, Monitoring Editor
Optimizing the Learner’s Role in Feedback: Development of a Feedback-Preparedness Online Application for Medical Students in the Clinical Setting 8 May 2023 | Cureus, Vol. 42
History, Status, and Development of AI-Based Learning Science 8 April 2023 | SN Computer Science, Vol. 4, No. 3
An Analytical Dashboard of Collaborative Activities for the Knowledge Building 4 March 2023 | Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 29
The Application of a Design-Based Research Framework for Simulation-Based Education 22 Nov 2022 | Cureus, Vol. 22
Erin Stanfield ,
Corin D. Slown ,
Quentin Sedlacek , and
Suzanne E. Worcester
James Hewlett, Monitoring Editor
2022 | , Vol. 511
The effect of the e-mentoring-based education program on professional development of preschool teachers 3 July 2021 | Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 27, No. 1
2022 | Education Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 8
Training Digital Competences of Educators in Continuing Education: A Three-Level Approach 27 October 2022
Design-based research as a framework for developing and deploying augmented reality applications and scenarios for intercultural exchange 13 December 2021
Repetition Is Important to Students and Their Understanding during Laboratory Courses That Include Research 10 Sep 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 2
Another look at the core concepts of physiology: revisions and resources 1 Dec 2020 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 44, No. 4

Submitted: 18 November 2019 Revised: 3 March 2020 Accepted: 25 March 2020

© 2020 E. E. Scott et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2020 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library Management System Based on SSM and MySQL Technology

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, index terms.

Applied computing

Computers in other domains

Digital libraries and archives

Human-centered computing

Visualization

Information systems

Data management systems

Query languages

Information systems applications

Decision support systems

Data analytics

Theory of computation

Theory and algorithms for application domains

Recommendations

Library leaders on digital libraries and the future of the research library: a panel discussion.

This panel presents perspectives from a group of research library leaders on the evolving relationships between the body of systems, services and technologies associated with digital libraries and the institution of the research library. Four panelists ...

VR Application for Technology Education in a Public Library

In this video paper we report on our experiences of deploying a VR point at a public library for the purpose of educating library patrons on VR technology. The primary application offered at the VR point is called Virtual Library, a VR application ...

Creating an educational digital library: GROW a national civil engineering education resource library

The GROW (Geotechnical, Rock and Water Engineering) project (http://www.grow.arizona.edu) is the first iteration of a National Civil Engineering Education Resource Library (NCERL). This educational digital library uses precise coding and metadata to ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

Database application data 3
Library management system 2
Village school 5
database design 1
Research-article
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Sichuan Education Development Research Center Project Exploration of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Model for Local Teachers Majors

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

0 Total Citations
0 Total Downloads
Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View Options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
Download citation
Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

IMAGES

Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications
The four phases of Design-Based Research adapted from McKenney and
Design-Based Research: A Methodology to Extend and Enrich Biology
Design Research in Education : A Practical Guide for Early Career
Introduction to Design Education: Theory, Research, and Practical Appl
Figure2 . Design-based research approach phases (Reeves, 2006)

VIDEO

Decision-making in Design-based Research
Design based research
Educational Design-Based Research (DBR) for Doctoral Studies by Mahmoud Abdallah
concepts in research design
LTEC 782: Design-Based Research in Education (Session 03)
Examining a Research-to-Practice Partnership through Design-Based Research

COMMENTS

Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications
Effective research in educational settings requires collaboration between researchers and school-based practitioners to codesign instruction and assessment, analyze findings to inform subsequent iterations, and make thoughtful revisions. This innovative reference and course text examines the theory and practice of design-based research (DBR), an important methodology for conducting studies in ...
Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications
Effective research in educational settings requires collaboration between researchers and school-based practitioners to codesign instruction and assessment, analyze findings to inform subsequent iterations, and make thoughtful revisions. This innovative reference and course text examines the theory and practice of design-based research (DBR), an important methodology for conducting studies in ...
Design-Based Research in Education : Theory and Applications
Machine generated contents note: I. Understanding Design-Based Research -- 1. Design-Based Research in Educational Settings: Motivations, Crosscutting Features, and Considerations for Design, Melissa Campanella & William R. Penuel -- 2. Addressing Publication Challenges in Design-Based Research, Margret Hjalmarson, Allison Ward Parsons, Seth A. Parsons, & Amy C. Hutchison -- II.
PDF Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry
lead to the development of "usable knowledge" (Lagemann, 2002). Design-based research (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992) is an emerging paradigm for the study of learning in context through th. systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools. We argue that design-based research can help create and extend knowledge about dev.
Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry
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 Research in Education: Theory and Applications
5. Classroom Design-Based Research: Designing for Proportional Reasoning in Mathematics Education, Michelle Stephan 6. Curriculum Development of Reading and Writing in the Middle Grades, Zoi A. Philippakos & Charles A. MacArthur III. Design-Based Research and Specific Applications 7.
Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications
Buy Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications 1 by Philippakos, Zoi A., Howell, Emily, Pellegrino, Anthony (ISBN: 9781462547371) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
Design-Based Research
(ad b) Theory-Based. Design research is theory-based. This is a basis in general for educational research. Doing research is accompanied by using theory and scientific knowledge. Theory in design research processes is not an aspect of the reproducibility of theoretical or empirical insights (Reinmann & Sesink, 2014). Theory serves as a tool ...
Full article: Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to
Conclusion. Design-based research methods are a thirty-year old tradition from the learning sciences that have been taken up in many domains as a way to study designed interventions that challenge the traditional relationship between research and design, as is the case with online learning.
Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research
Design-based research (DBR) evolved near the beginning of the 21st century and was heralded as a practical research methodology that could effectively bridge the chasm between research and practice in formal education.
PDF Sample Chapter: Design-Based Research in Education
Most educational research describes or evaluates education as it currently is. Some educational research analyzes education as it was. Design research, however, is about education as it could be or even as it should be. —Bakker (2018, p. 3) This is a chapter excerpt from Guilford Publications. Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and ...
PDF Design-Based Research Process: Problems, Phases, and Applications
Although design has existed since the beginning of human history, its rise as an educational research methodology is relatively recent. Descriptions of design-based research (DBR) in education include: Brown (1992), special issues of Educational Researcher (Kelly 2003), and the International Journal of Learning Sciences (Barab & Squire, 2004),
Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications
The Digital and eTextbook ISBNs for Design-Based Research in Education are 9781462547395, 1462547397 and the print ISBNs are 9781462547371, 1462547370. Save up to 80% versus print by going digital with VitalSource. Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications is written by Philippakos and published by The Guilford Press.
Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications
Kindle $45.00. Rate this book. Effective research in educational settings requires collaboration between researchers and school-based practitioners to codesign instruction and assessment, analyze findings to inform subsequent iterations, and make thoughtful revisions. This innovative reference and course text examines the theory and practice of ...
Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications
Buy Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications 1 by Philippakos, Zoi A., Howell, Emily, Pellegrino, Anthony (ISBN: 9781462547388) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
(PDF) Design-Based Research in the Educational Field: A Systematic
The design-based research methodology has been gaining signiﬁcance, in recent years, in. the ﬁeld of educational research. Several authors have pointed out the potential of this methodology ...
(PDF) Design-Based Research
Number of articles using or discussing design-based research. Data from the 47 articles selected (5 articles each year from 2003 to 2011 and 2 articles from 2002) were entered into a spreadsheet ...
Design-Based Research: A Methodology to Extend and Enrich Biology
Recent calls in biology education research (BER) have recommended that researchers leverage learning theories and methodologies from other disciplines to investigate the mechanisms by which students to develop sophisticated ideas. We suggest design-based research from the learning sciences is a compelling methodology for achieving this aim. Design-based research investigates the "learning ...
Design-Based Research: Definition, Characteristics, Application and
Design-based research is often described as interventionist or pragmatic. in its literature, and like other scientific research, involves identifying, evaluating, applying change and modifying, or ...
Design Based Research in Education Theory and Applications ...
Design Based Research in Education Theory and Applications Philippakos - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. ...
PDF Design-Based Research (DBR) in educational enquiry and
a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on. collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and. leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.
Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library
Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library Management System Based on SSM and MySQL Technology. Authors: ... Wen X, Jianhua G. 2012. Research of Web Application Framework Based on Spring MVC and MyBatis. J. Microcomputer Applications, 28, 7(December 2012), 1-4. ... Theory of computation.

Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications

Description

Table of Contents

Critics' Reviews

About VitalSource eBooks

Multiple eBook Copies

Book Preview

Design-Based Research – Grounding, Understanding and Empirical Illustration in the Context of Vocational Education

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Design Research Model: Establishing a Link Between Design Education, Practice and Theory

Impact of Design Research on Practice: The IISc Experience

The Role of Teachers in Design Research in Education

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Design-Based Research in Education Theory and Applications

Print ISBN 9781462547371, 1462547370

Select your cookie preferences

Sorry, there was a problem.

Image Unavailable

Follow the author

Design-Based Research in Education: Theory and Applications Hardcover – 30 Sept. 2021

Product description

About the Author

Product details

About the author

Customer reviews

No customer reviews

Change Password

Password Changed Successfully

Request Username

Design-Based Research: A Methodology to Extend and Enrich Biology Education Research

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH?

HOW IS DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH DIFFERENT FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH?

DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH IN ACTION: AN EXAMPLE FROM UNDERGRADUATE PHYSIOLOGY

Identifying the Learning Problem

Design-Based Research Cycle 1, Phase 1: Designing Instructional Tools

Phase 2: Testing the Instructional Tools

Phase 3: Evaluating the Instructional Tools

Phase 4: Reflecting on the Instructional Tools and Their Implementation

Theoretical Outcome (Epistemic Commitment 1).

Practical Outcome (Epistemic Commitment 2).

Design Principles (Epistemic Commitment 3).

Design-Based Research Cycle 2, Phase 1: Redesign and Refine the Experiment

HOW CAN DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH EXTEND AND ENRICH BER?

Design-Based Research Connects Theory with Practice

Design-Based Research Fosters Collaborations across Disciplines

Design-Based Research Invites Using Mixed Methods to Analyze Data

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH IN BER

Collaborations Can Be Difficult to Maintain

Design-Based Research Experiments Are Resource Intensive

Concerns with Experimental Rigor

CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library Management System Based on SSM and MySQL Technology

New Citation Alert!

Information & Contributors

Recommendations

VR Application for Technology Education in a Public Library

Creating an educational digital library: GROW a national civil engineering education resource library

Information

Publication History

Funding Sources

Contributors

View Options

Full Access

HTML Format

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS