You are here:

The State of the Art of Design-Based Research
PROCEEDINGS

, , University of Wollongong, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-57-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Ann Brown (1992) and Allan Collins (1992) introduced the term design experiment in 1992 as an innovative approach to educational research. Today, commonly termed design-based research (DBR), the approach itself is still very much being designed. There is a general consensus that DBR standards need to be set by addressing such questions as: What kinds of knowledge should DBR be expected generate? What theoretical requirements should be imposed on DBR? and What types of research can be considered DBR? Given the drive for empirical educational research and escalating interest in DBR, it is hoped that continued expert commentary will lead to a clear definition of DBR. This paper will examine the state of the art of design-based research, more than a decade on, and review current developments in the evolving standards of the approach.

Citation

Peterson, R. & Herrington, J. (2005). The State of the Art of Design-Based Research. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2005--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2302-2307). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
  2. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243-253.
  3. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
  4. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31-40.
  5. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon& T.O'Shea (Eds.), New Directions in Educational Technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  6. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research (pp. 289-298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  8. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105-114.
  9. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  10. DiSessa, A.A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
  11. Gorarda, S., Roberts, K., & Taylor, C. (2004). What kind of creature is a design experiment? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 577-590.
  12. Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203-212.
  13. Hsi, S. (1998). The multimedia forum kiosk: Using design experiments to understand electronic scientific discussions. Paper presented at the American Education Researcher Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
  14. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
  15. Reeves, T.C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.
  16. Reeves, T.C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. Invited Peter Dean Lecture presented for the Division of Learning and Performance Environments at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) National Convention, Anaheim, CA.
  17. Reeves, T.C. (1999). A research agenda for interactive learning in the new millennium. In B. Collis& R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 99 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 15-20).
  18. Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-116.
  19. Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., & Nelson, W.A. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 1099-1130). Mahwah, N.J.:
  20. Sandoval, W.A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199-201.
  21. 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.
  22. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K.E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
  23. Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. Van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R.M. Branch, K.L. Gustafson& T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1-14). The

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.