Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Learning Theory by Three Designs
Findings and Conclusions
Design Problem and Rationale
Findings and Ontological Innovation
Design Problem
Design Rationale
Design Solution
References
All Topics
Education
Research and Theory

Reinventing learning: a design-research odyssey

Profile image of Dor AbrahamsonDor Abrahamson

Abstract

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

Related papers

The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework
Brenda Bannan

Educational Researcher, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
Advances in Design-Based Research in the Learning Sciences
Vanessa Svihla

Design-based research is a core methodology of the Learning Sciences. Historically rooted as a movement away from the methods of experimental psychology, it is a means to develop “humble” theory that takes into account numerous contextual effects for understanding how and why a design supported learning. DBR involves iterative refinement of both designs for learning and theory; this process is illustrated with retrospective analysis of six DBR cycles. Calls for educational research to parallel medical research has led learning scientists to strive for more specific standards about what constitutes DBR and what makes it desirable, especially regarding robustness and rigor. A recent trend in DBR involves efforts to extend the reach through scalability. These developments potentially endanger the designerly nature of DBR by orienting focus toward generalizability, meaning researchers must be vigilant in their pursuit of understanding how and why learning occurs in complex contexts

View PDFchevron_right
The complexity of educational design research
Ilya Zitter

Quality & Quantity, 2013

To enhance the relevancy of educational research findings, a research approach known as design research has gained influence. This approach is described as complex, but no satisfying explanation of this complexity has been provided. In this paper we question why design research is complex by nature. Following a longitudinal case conducted by the third author, we argue that design research in educational sciences (EDR) necessitates balancing three different motives and accordingly, three epistemic practices: (1) educational research, (2) educational design, and (3) educational change. An analysis of challenges in the case study shows the difficulty for the EDR researcher to understand and disentangle underlying motives during the research process, but also the difficulty of dealing with different, easily conflicting research positions, resources, quality rules, time frames, audiences, and products. The identification and description of three epistemic practices offers a framework with which difficulties of EDR can be understood and anticipated.

View PDFchevron_right
The Practice of Design-Based Research: Uncovering the Interplay Between Design, Research, and the Real-World Context
Diana Joseph

Educational Psychologist, 2004

Recent interest in design-based research as a research and development methodology in education has begun to clarify the goals and commitments involved in this practice. So far, we have limited views into how the work of design and the work of research impact each other in the course of design-based investigations. In this article, I use the experience of the passion curriculum project, in which 1 person acted as researcher and as educational practitioner to provide a close trace of the interconnections between research and design in this work. I highlight 3 key functions in design-based research: how design considerations provide a focus for developing research questions; how design moves forward on several fronts simultaneously, with some design solutions informed by research investigations and theory and others developed through engineering of locally functional solutions; and how emergent theories inform both the design of interventions and the development of lenses for investigation. Examples from the passion curriculum project expose the operation of these functions in this particular context. Design-based research approaches research in education by using intervention to provide insight into learning in real-world contexts. As a relatively new approach to research, the boundaries of what constitutes design-based research are appropriately under discussion and negotiation in forums such as American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Educational Researcher (e.g., Kelly, 2003), and the Journal of the Learning Sciences (e.g., Barab, 2004). These kinds of articles begin to reveal a picture of what design-based research is and what can be learned from it. Although many elements of design-based research are still being negotiated, the current discussions begin to build a consensus about design-based research at a high level. The techniques of design-based research have not been well established, however. We have not yet fully articulated the ways that design and research goals intertwine with the goals of real-world practice in this kind of work. By engaging in such articulation, we can provide more guidance and more specificity for design-based research as a methodology. Some authors are beginning to describe how design-based research works on a day-today level in their specific work (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003). In the same spirit, this article exposes the ways that design, research, and context interacted in one design-based research trajectory: the passion curriculum project. DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH Shavelson, Phillips, Towne, and Feuer (2003) described design research as follows: Such research, based strongly on prior research and theory and carried out in educational settings, seeks to trace the evolution of learning in complex, messy classrooms and schools, test and build theories of teaching and learning, and produce instructional tools that survive the challenges of everyday practice. (p. 25) This definition implies three important, deeply intertwined goals for design-based research projects-research, design, and pedagogical practice. As researchers, we want to learn about some aspect of learning by designing an intervention that, through subsequent iterations, gets better and better at activating and supporting that aspect of learning. As designers, we want to use research on the use of the designed intervention, as well as prior research knowledge, to improve the

View PDFchevron_right
Learning: Research and Practice The logic of design research
Maribel González Allende

Since the first descriptions of design research (DR), there have been calls to better define it to increase its rigour. Yet five uncertainties remain: (1) the processes for conducting DR, (2) how DR differs from other forms of research, (3) how DR differs from design, (4) the products of DR, and why DR can answer certain research questions more effectively than other methodologies. To resolve these uncertainties, we define educational design research as a meta-methodology conducted by education researchers to create practical interventions and theoretical design models through a design process of focusing, understanding, defining, conceiving, building, testing, and presenting, that recursively nests other research processes to iteratively search for empirical solutions to practical problems of human learning. By better articulating the logic of DR, researchers can more effectively craft, communicate, replicate, and teach DR as a useful and defensible research methodology. ARTICLE HISTORY KEYWORDS Design-based research; design research; methodology; theory; design practice

View PDFchevron_right
Education as Design for Learning: A Model for Integrating Education Inquiry across Research Traditions
Richard Halverson

The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry

Recently we were asked to coteach a seminar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as part of the School of Education's Doctoral Research Program (DRP). The purpose of the DRP is to provide an interdisciplinary experience for students from across the School of Education including historians, policy analysts, curriculum designers, learning scientists, and critical theorists. The idea behind it was to create a common background for motivated students to be able to understand the breadth of education as a field of study and to broaden their horizons beyond their disciplinary training and their advisor's program of research. Toward that end, the course is taught by two faculty members from different departments in the school in order to represent diverse perspectives and to create opportunities for broad-ranging pedagogical discussions. Past DRP curricula highlighted the structural similarities of education research

View PDFchevron_right
Designs for Learning: A Research Approach
Anna Åkerfeldt

International Journal of Educational Methodology

In this article, we present some core ideas underpinning research that takes a Designs for Learning (DFL) approach guided by theoretical considerations and choices, as well as by practitioners’ challenges and inquiries. These choices shape, and are shaped by, DFL’s research goals and motives, theoretical orientation, research objectives, questions, and practitioners’ participation and ethical considerations. Further, we present and discuss how DFL as a research approach compares to other design-oriented research strategies. Even if a DFL research approach shares several similarities with other approaches of inquiry, we argue that it remains primarily oriented towards knowledge areas that relate to understanding and developing learning and teaching – both in formal education and in informal settings such as museums.

View PDFchevron_right
Learning design research in action
Leanne Cameron

2016

The new field of Learning Design is gaining traction in higher education, aiming to address a number of challenges in technology enhanced learning and teaching. This symposium seeks to build on the national Learning Design Research strengths and help highlight Australian Learning Design theory and practice expertise. It also aims to further consolidate the Australian and international Learning Design community. The content of this submission directly addresses the following topics: An introduction of the Learning Design Framework, Generic Templates, Teacher Design Thinking in Higher Education, Connecting Connectivism and Learning Design, and Translating Learning Outcomes into Learning Designs. The symposium will be divided into five topic-based presentations. The topic discussions will be led by members of the Australian Learning Design network. Discussion will be open and audience interaction will be encouraged.

View PDFchevron_right
Using design principles to improve pedagogical practice and promote student engagement
Thomas C Reeves

Design principles are fundamental to the conduct of educational design research (or design-based research) studies, a research approach that is becoming more widely used in educational technology research and pedagogy. In this paper, we argue that design principles can be used to guide the design and development of learning environments in higher education that are based on sound practical and theoretical principles, and that can promote student engagement through innovative learning tasks.

View PDFchevron_right
The art and science of learning design: Editoral
Yishay Mor

2013

View PDFchevron_right

References (91)

  1. Abrahamson, D. (2009). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning-the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 175-224.
  2. Abrahamson, D. (2012a). Seeing chance: perceptual reasoning as an epistemic resource for grounding compound event spaces. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(7), 869-881
  3. Abrahamson, D. (2012b). Rethinking intensive quantities via guided mediated abduction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 626-649.
  4. Abrahamson, D. (2012c). Discovery reconceived: product before process. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(1), 8-15.
  5. Abrahamson, D. (in press). Building educational activities for understanding: an elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.002
  6. Abrahamson, D., Chase, K., Kumar, V., & Jain, R. (2014). Leveling transparency via situated, intermediary learning objectives. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Proceedings of "Learning and Becoming in Practice", the 11 th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 1, pp. 23- 30). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  7. Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A. G., & Bumbacher, E. (2012). Fostering hooks and shifts: tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 17(1-2), 61-86. doi: 10.1007/s10758-012-9192-7
  8. Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: values added for grounding proportion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(1), 79-93.
  9. Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2014, June). Learning is moving in new ways: an ecological dynamics view on learning across the disciplines. Paper presented at the "Embodied cognition in education" symposium (A. Bakker, M. F. van der Schaaf, S. Shayan, & P. Leseman, Chairs), Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 23, 2014.
  10. Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (in press). Bringing forth mathematical concepts: signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted action. In D. Reid, L. Brown, A. Coles, & M.-D. Lozano (Eds.), Enactivist methodology in mathematics education research [Special issue]. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0620-0
  11. Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: a dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 16(1), 55-85.
  12. Allen, J. W. P., & Bickhard, M. H. (2013). Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist-empiricist debate. Cognitive Development, 28(2), 96-133
  13. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241.
  14. Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. In D. Schön, B. Sanyal & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low Income communities (pp. 235-262). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. Lesh & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition (pp. 720- 749). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  16. Barwell, R. (2009). Researchers' descriptions and the construction of mathematical thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 255-269.
  17. Bereiter, C. (1985). Towards the solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 210-226.
  18. Bernstein, N. A. (1996). Dexterity and its development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H.-J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73-105). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
  20. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield, Trans.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  21. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
  22. Chase, K., & Abrahamson, D. (2013). Rethinking transparency: constructing meaning in a physical and digital design for algebra. In J. P. Hourcade, E. A. Miller & A. Egeland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12 th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC 2013) (Vol. "Short Papers", pp. 475-478). New York: The New School & Sesame Workshop.
  23. Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd edition) (pp. 49-70). New York: Routledge Press (Taylor Francis Group).
  24. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278.
  25. Clancey, W. J. (2008). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 11-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: a first step in reconsidering Vygotsky's theory of development in relation to formal education. Mind, Culture & Activity, 16, 191-195.
  27. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250-256.
  28. Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education-Technical Report No. 1. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education.
  29. Confrey, J. (2005). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135-151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Davis, G. E. (Ed.). (2003). Fractions, ratio, and proportional reasoning [Special issue]. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(2&3).
  31. de Hevia, M. D., Izard, V., Coubart, A., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2014). Representations of space, time, and number in neonates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(13), 4809-4813.
  32. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2014). The origins of probabilistic inference in human infants. Cognition, 130(3), 335-347.
  33. Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware: a pragmatics of experiencing. New York: John Benjamins Publishing.
  34. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. NY: Collier MacMillan.
  35. Dickinson, P., & Eade, R. (2004). Using the number line to investigate solving linear equations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(2), 41-47.
  36. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
  37. Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of world making. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 361-383.
  38. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  39. Froebel, F. (2005). The education of man (W. N. Hailmann, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885).
  40. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  41. Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529-562.
  42. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 603-633.
  43. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
  44. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  45. Jaworski, B. (2012). Mathematics teaching development as a human practice: identifying and drawing the threads. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(5), 613-625. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0437-7
  46. Job, P., & Schneider, M. (2014). Empirical positivism, an epistemological obstacle in the learning of calculus. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(4), 635-646.
  47. Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: responding to classroom realities. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 909-955). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  48. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
  49. Kamii, C. K., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1-4. In L. J. Morrow & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics, 1998 yearbook (pp. 130-140). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  50. Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science. 38(5), 1008- 1022.
  51. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707-762). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  52. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), Article #3 (30 pages).
  53. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452.
  55. Lobato, J., Walters, C. D., Diamond, J. M., Gruver, J., & Hohensee, C. (2015). Capitalizing on failures in design-based research. ZDM, 47(6).
  56. Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: how external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 140-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x Mauks-Koepke, K. P., Buchanan, K., Relaford-Doyle, J., Souchkova, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2009). The double-edged sword of constructivist design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April 13 -17.
  57. Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
  58. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception, and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics (C. Smith, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  59. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125-148.
  60. Negrete, A. G., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2013). Facilitating discovery learning in the tablet era: rethinking activity sequences vis-à-vis digital practices. In M. Martinez & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), "Broadening Perspectives on Mathematics Thinking and Learning"-Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA 35) (Vol. 10: "Technology" pp. 1205). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
  61. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-361). Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  62. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. NY: Basic Books.
  64. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  65. Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.
  66. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: an essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  67. Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165-190.
  68. Radford, L. (2014). Towards an embodied, cultural, and material conception of mathematics cognition. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(3), 349-361
  69. Schiphorst, T. (2011). Self-evidence: applying somatic connoisseurship to experience design. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg & D. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of The Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction: "Human Factors in Computing Systems" (CHI 2011), Vancouver, May 7-12, 2011 (Vol. "Session: Sex & Bodies", pp. 145-160). New York: ACM Press.
  70. Schön, D. A. (1981). Intuitive thinking? A metaphor underlying some ideas of educational reform (Working Paper 8). Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Division for Study and Research in Education, M.I.T.
  71. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
  72. Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2&3), 319-357.
  73. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
  74. Spackman, J. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2013). Embodied cognition, representationalism, and mechanism: a review and analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44(1), 46-79.
  75. Streefland, L. (1993). The design of a mathematics course: a theoretical reflection. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25(1), 109-135.
  76. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning Trajectory Based Instruction. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147-156.
  77. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  78. Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23-30.
  79. Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the absence of meaning…. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 57-94). New York: Springer.
  80. Tracey, M., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. (in press). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-014- 9334-9
  81. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 161-192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  82. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
  83. White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 1-26.
  84. Vagle, M. D. (2010). Re-framing Schön's call for a phenomenology of practice: a post- intentional approach. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 393-407.
  85. van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26(4), 359-377.
  86. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
  87. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101.
  88. von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3- 18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  89. Vygotsky, L. (1926/1997). Educational psychology (R. H. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
  90. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458- 477.
  91. Yanchar, S. C. (2011). Participational agency. Review of General Psychology, 15(3), 277- 287.

Related papers

On the Theoretical Breadth of Design-Based Research in Education
Philip Bell

Educational Psychologist, 2004

Over the past decade design experimentation has become an increasingly accepted mode of research appropriate for the theoretical and empirical study of learning amidst complex educational interventions as they are enacted in everyday settings. There is still a significant lack of clarity surrounding methodological and epistemological features of this body of work. In fact, there is a broad variety of theory being developed in this mode of research. In contrast to recent efforts to seek a singular definition for design experimentation, I argue that methodological and epistemological issues are significantly more tractable if considered from the perspective of manifold families of theoretically-framed design-based research. After characterizing a range of such families, I suggest that as we deliberate on the nature of design-based research greater attention be given to the pluralistic nature of learning theory, the relationship between theory and method, and working across theoretical and methodological boundaries through the use of mixed methods. Finally, I suggest that design-based research-with its focus on promoting, sustaining, and understanding innovation in the world-should be considered a form of scholarly inquiry that sits alongside the panoply of canonical forms ranging from the experimental, historical, philosophical, sociological, legal, and the interpretive.

View PDFchevron_right
Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry
Christopher Hoadley

Educational Researcher, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
Design research in education. A practical guide for early career researchers
Richard Lehrer

Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Design-based research and the learning designer
Deidre Seeto

Who's learning, 2006

The role of the learning designer has expanded from the commonly known activities of an instructional designer to incorporate a range of new roles, largely prompted by new technologies. In this paper, we articulate an approach that further extends the role of the ...

View PDFchevron_right
Review of Design Research in Education: A Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers
Rupert Wegerif

EDeR. Educational Design Research, 2019

The emergence of educational design research as a methodological framework has been driven by a range of factors. These include the need to close the gap between educational theory and practice in addition to demand for rigorous and systematic ways of developing practically relevant educational materials, activities and environments. The term 'design research' is used for a family of approaches that feature design as an integral part of the research process. Importantly, the intention of such design is not only to solve 'real-world' educational problems or to help learners to achieve particular goals, but to advance scientific knowledge. Educational design research gives us insights into the features of successful education and reveals the causal processes that lead to learning. In design research, therefore, design and research are complimentary and intertwined: the design is research-based and the research is design-based (Bakker, 2019, p. 4).

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Teaching and Learning
  • Educational Technology
  • Dynamical Systems
  • Reflective Practice
  • Design-based research
  • Educational Theory
  • Probability
  • Educational Theory and Practice
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved