Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T17:24:38.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Evolution of Design Studies as Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Jere Confrey
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Jere Confrey
Affiliation:
Washington University
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

In the NRC report, Scientific Research in Education (Shavelson & Towne, 2002), three broad types of research were discussed: trends, causal effects, and mechanism. Mechanism was described as research that answers the question, “how or why is it happening”; the authors described “design experiments” as an “analytic approach for examining mechanism that begins with theoretical ideas that are tested through the design, implementation, and systematic study of educational tools (curriculum, teaching methods, computer applets) that embody the initial conjectured mechanism” (p. 120). The Committee identified two products of such work as “theory-driven process of designing” and “data-driven process of refining [instructional strategies]” (p. 121). Both of these products can be viewed as related to a class of research known as design studies, the focus of this chapter.

Researchers across the country have recognized the need to strengthen the “instructional core” (Elmore, 1996) and to identify effective “instructional regimes” (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball 2003) as critical to the improvement of education. Likewise, Lagemann (2002) focused on the need for more research that produces useable classroom guidance. This review synthesizes the current progress of the methodology and identifies areas for future development.

Design studies are defined as “entailing both ‘engineering’ particular forms of learning and systematically studying those forms of learning with the context defined by the means of supporting them. This designed context is subject to test and revision. Successive iterations that result play a role similar to systematic variation in experiment” (Cobb et al., 2003, p. 9).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 135 - 152
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, E. (1995). Construction and transference of meaning through form. In L. P. a. G. Steffe, J. (Ed.), Constructivism in education (pp. 341–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In Kelly, A. E. & , L. R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2002). Modeling, symbolizing, and tool use in statistical data analysis. In Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Lehrer, R., Oers, B. v. & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 171–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon, E. & Shea, T. (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confrey, J. (1988, October). Multiplication and splitting: Their role in understanding exponential functions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. DeKalb, IL.
Confrey, J., Castro-Filho, J., & Wilhelm, J. (2000). Implementation research as a means to link systemic reform and applied psychology in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In Kelly, A. E. & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231–265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Confrey, J. (Producer/Writer), Lachance, A. (Producer/Writer), & Hotchkiss, G. (Producer/Writer). (1996). In the voices of children. [Videotape]
Confrey, J., & Makar, K. M. (2005). Critiquing and improving the use of data from high-stakes tests with the aid of dynamic statistics software. In Dede, C., Honan,, J. P. & Peteres, L. C. (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 198–226). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Confrey, J., & Stohl, V. (Eds.). (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of k-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
DBRC. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1981). The philosophy of John Dewey: Volume I – the structure of the experience, Volume II – the lived experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Students' criteria for representational adequacy. In Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., Oers,, B. v. & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, E. (1996). The having of wonderful ideas. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Elkana, Y. (1974). The discovery of the conservation of energy. London: HutchinsonEducational, Ltd.Google Scholar
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yoacam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again (Sampson, S., Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1995). Developing realistic mathematics instruction. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think: Middle school mathematics through applications project. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (2003, November). Positioning, problematizing, and reconciling: Aspects of productive cognition and learning in a situative perspective. Paper presented at a conference, “Theorizing learning practice,” University of Illinois, Champagne-Urbana.
Hawkins, D. (2002). The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Algora Publishing.Google Scholar
Kantowski, M. G., Steffe, L. P., Lee, K. S., & Hatfield, L. H. (1978). The soviet “teaching experiment”: Its role and usage in American research. Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Mezirow, J. & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35–69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lagemann, E. C. (2002). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999). For and against method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., Oers,, B. v. & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 59–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesh, R. (1999). The development of representational abilities in middle school mathematics: The development of student's representations during model eliciting activities. In Sigel, I. E. (Ed.), The development of mental representation (pp. 323–349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lesh, R. A., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In Kelly, A. E. & , L. R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Merrill, D. M. (2001). Toward a theoretical tool for instructional design. Instructional Science, 29(4–5), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In Schoenfeld, A. (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocates.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1976). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co.Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C. (2000, April). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other developmental research strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Scarano, G., & Confrey, J. (1996, April). Results from a three-year longitudinal teaching experiment designed to investigate splitting, ratio and proportion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, M. A. (2000). Research on the development of mathematics teachers: The teacher development experiment. In Kelly, A. E. & , L. R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 335–359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sloane, F. C., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. W. (1979). The constructivist teaching experiment in mathematics education research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Glasersfeld, E. (1982). An interpretation of piaget's constructivism. Revue Internationale de philosophie, 36, 612–635.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×