Abstract
This chapter arose from the need to introduce researchers, including Master and PhD students, to design-based research (DBR). In Sect. 16.1 we address key features of DBR and differences from other research approaches. We also describe the meaning of validity and reliability in DBR and discuss how they can be improved. Section 16.2 illustrates DBR with an example from statistics education.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Akkerman, S. F., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2008). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42, 257–274.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41, 16–25.
Artigue, M. (1988). Ingénierie didactique [Didactical engineering]. In M. Artigue, G. Brousseau, J. Brun, Y. Chevallard, F. Conne, & G. Vergnaud (Eds.), Didactique des mathematiques [Didactics of mathematics]. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teachers learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533–548.
Bakker, A. (2004a). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. Utrecht: CD-Bèta Press.
Bakker, A. (2004b). Reasoning about shape as a pattern in variability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 3(2), 64–83. Online http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/serj/SERJ3(2)_Bakker.pdf
Bakker, A. (2007). Diagrammatic reasoning and hypostatic abstraction in statistics education. Semiotica, 164, 9–29.
Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13, 5–26.
Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2004). Learning to reason about distribution. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 147–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2006). An historical phenomenology of mean and median. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 149–168.
Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A semiotic analysis of students’ learning about statistical distribution. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 333–358.
Ben-Zvi, D., Aridor, K., Makar, K., & Bakker, A. (2012). Students’ emergent articulations of uncertainty while making informal statistical inferences. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 913–925.
Biehler, R., Ben-Zvi, D., Bakker, A., & Makar, K. (2013). Technology for enhancing statistical reasoning at the school level. In M. A. Clement, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & A. Y. L. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook on mathematics education (pp. 643–689). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_21.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1976). Assessing inter-rater reliability for rating scales: Resolving some basic issues. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 452–456.
Cobb, P., & Whitenack, J. W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom videorecordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 213–228.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2–33.1.
Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K.P.E., Bowers, J., & McClain, K. (1997). Statistical Minitools. Designed for Vanderbilt University, TN, USA. Programmed and revised (2001) at the Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003a). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2003b). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 1–78.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer.
Cook, T. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175–199.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Jong, R., & Wijers, M. (1993). Ontwikkelingsonderzoek: Theorie en praktijk [Developmental research: Theory and practice]. Utrecht: NVORWO.
Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Dierdorp, A., Bakker, A., Eijkelhof, H. M. C., & Van Maanen, J. A. (2011). Authentic practices as contexts for learning to draw inferences beyond correlated data. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13, 132–151.
diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 77–103.
Drijvers, P. H. M. (2003). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment: Design research on the understanding of the concept of parameter. Utrecht: CD-Beta Press.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105–121.
Educational Researcher. (2003). Special issue on design-based research collective, 32(1–2).
Educational Psychologist. (2004). Special issue design-based research methods for studying learning in context, 39(4).
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.
Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work. Constructing number sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1988). Ontwikkelingsonderzoek [Developmental research]. In K. Gravemeijer & K. Koster (Eds.), Onderzoek, ontwikkeling en ontwikkelingsonderzoek [Research, development and developmental research]. Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands: OW&OC.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frick, R. W. (1998). Interpreting statistical testing: Process and propensity, not population and random sampling. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(3), 527–535.
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education., 32(2), 124–158.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffree, F. (1979). Leren onderwijzen met Wiskobas. Onderwijsontwikkelingsonderzoek ‘Wiskunde en Didaktiek’ op de pedagogische akademie [Learning to teach Wiskobas. Educational development research]. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471.
Gravemeijer, K. P. E., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. P. E. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.
Gravemeijer, K. P. E., & Koster, K. (Eds.). (1988). Onderzoek, ontwikkeling en ontwikkelingsonderzoek [Research, development, and developmental research]. Utrecht: OW&OC.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2002). Peirce’s “diagrammatic reasoning” as a solution of the learning paradox. In G. Debrock (Ed.), Process pragmatism: Essays on a quiet philosophical revolution (pp. 147–174). Amsterdam: Rodopi Press.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving mathematics at work: The need for techno-mathematical literacies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Journal of the Learning Sciences (2004). Special issue on design-based research, 13(1), guest-edited by S. Barab and K. Squire.
Kanselaar, G. (1993). Ontwikkelingsonderzoek bezien vanuit de rol van de advocaat van de duivel [Design research: Taking the position of the devil’s advocate]. In R. de Jong & M. Wijers (Red.) (Eds.), Ontwikkelingsonderzoek, theorie en praktijk. Utrecht: NVORWO.
Konold, C., & Higgins, T. L. (2003). Reasoning about data. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 193–215). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning (2004). Special issue on learning trajectories in mathematics education, guest-edited by D. H. Clements and J. Sarama, 6(2).
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2001). Accounting for contingency in design experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Seattle.
Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Lijnse, P. L. (1995). “Developmental Research” as a way to an empirically based “didactical structure” of science. Science Education, 29(2), 189–199.
Lijnse, P. L., & Klaassen, K. (2004). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching-learning sequences? International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 537–554.
Maso, I., & Smaling, A. (1998). Kwalitatief onderzoek: praktijk en theorie [Qualitative research: Practice and theory]. Amsterdam: Boom.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting students’ ability to reason about data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 103–129.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 91–120.
Olsen, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 24–26.
Oost, H., & Markenhof, A. (2010). Een onderzoek voorbereiden [Preparing research]. Amersfoort: Thieme Meulenhoff.
Opie, C. (2004). Doing educational research. London: Sage.
Paas, F. (2005). Design experiments: Neither a design nor an experiment. In C. P. Constantinou, D. Demetriou, A. Evagorou, M. Evagorou, A. Kofteros, M. Michael, C. Nicolaou, D. Papademetriou, & N. Papadouris (Eds.), Integrating multiple perspectives on effective learning environments. Proceedings of 11th biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 901–902). Nicosia: University of Cyprus.
Peirce, C. S. (1976). The new elements of mathematics (C. Eisele, Ed.). The Hague: Mouton.
Peirce, C. S. (CP). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce 1931–1958. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Plomp, T. (2007). Educational design research: An introduction. In N. Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–35). Enschede: SLO.
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2007). An introduction to educational design research. Enschede: SLO.
Romberg, T. A. (1973). Development research. Overview of how development-based research works in practice. Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-dased research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1992). The gains and the pitfalls of reification — The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 191–228.
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivistic perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15–21.
Smit, J., & Van Eerde, H. A. A. (2011). A teacher’s learning process in dual design research: Learning to scaffold language in a multilingual mathematics classroom. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 889–900.
Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiments methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Tall, D., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 223–241.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction. The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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). Boston: Kluwer.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Assessment and realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: CD-Bèta Press.
Van Nes, F., & Doorman, L. M. (2010). The interaction between multimedia data analysis and theory development in design research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 6–30.
Wittmann, E. C. (1992). Didaktik der Mathematik als Ingenieurwissenschaft. [Didactics of mathematics as an engineering science.]. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 3, 119–121.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Acknowledgments
The research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research under grant number 575-36-003B. The writing of this chapter was made possible with a grant from the Educational and Learning Sciences Utrecht awarded to Arthur Bakker. Section 2.6 is based on Bakker (2004b). We thank our Master students in our Research Methodology courses for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs’s and reviewers’ careful reading has also helped us tremendously. We also acknowledge PhD students Adri Dierdorp, Al Jupri, and Victor Antwi, and our colleague Frans van Galen for their helpful comments, and Nathalie Kuijpers and Norma Presmeg for correcting this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Structure of a DBR Project with Illustrations
Appendix: Structure of a DBR Project with Illustrations
In line with Oost and Markenhof (2010), we formulate the following general criteria for any research project:
-
1.
The research should be anchored in the literature.
-
2.
The research aim should be relevant, both in theoretical and practical terms.
-
3.
The formulation of aim and questions should be precise, i.e. using concepts and definitions in the correct way.
-
4.
The method used should be functional in answering the research question(s).
-
5.
The overall structure of the research project should be consistent, i.e. title, aim, theory, question, method and results should form a coherent chain of reasoning.
In this appendix we present a structure of general points of attention during DBR and specifications for our statistics education example, including references to relevant sections in the chapter. In this structure these criteria are bolded. This structure could function as the blueprint of a book or article on a DBR project.
General points | Examples | |
---|---|---|
Introduction: | 1. Choose a topic | 1. Statistics education at the middle school level |
2. Identify common problems | 2. Statistics as a set of unrelated concepts and techniques | |
3. Identify knowledge gap and relevance | 3. How middle school students can be supported to develop a concept of distribution and related statistical concepts | |
4. Choose mathematical learning goals | 4. Understanding of distribution (2.1) | |
Literature review forms the basis for formulating the research aim (the research has to be anchored and relevant) | ||
Research aim: | It has to be clear whether an aim is descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, advisory etc. (1.2.2) | Contribute to an empirically and theoretically grounded instruction theory for statistics education at the middle school level (advisory aim) (2.1) |
Research aim has to be narrowed down to a research question and possibly subquestions with the help of different theories | ||
Literature review (theoretical background): | Orienting frameworks | Semiotics (2.3) |
Frameworks for action | Theories on learning with computer tools | |
Domain-specific learning theories (1.2.8) | Realistic Mathematics Education (2.4) | |
With the help of theoretical constructs the research question(s) can be formulated (the formulation has to be precise) | ||
Research question: | Zoom in what knowledge is required to achieve the research aim | How can students with little statistical background develop a notion of distribution? |
It should be underpinned why this research question requires DBR (the method should be functional) | ||
Research approach: | The lack of the type of learning aimed for is a common reason to carry out DBR: It has to be enacted so it can be studied | Dutch statistics education was atomistic: Textbooks addressed mean, median, mode, and different graphical representations one by one. Software was hardly used. Hence the type of learning aimed for had to be enacted. |
Using a research method involves several research instruments and techniques | ||
Research instruments and techniques | Research instrument that connects different theories and concrete experiences in the form of testable hypotheses. | Series of hypothetical learning trajectories (HLTs) |
1. Identify students’ prior knowledge | 1. Prior interviews and pretest | |
2. Professional development of teacher | 2. Preparatory meetings with teacher | |
3. Interview schemes and planning | 3. Mini-interviews, observation scheme | |
4. Intermediate feedback and reflection with teacher | 4. Debrief sessions with teacher | |
5. Determine learning yield (1.4.2) | 5. Posttest | |
Design | Design guidelines | Guided reinvention; Historical and didactical phenomenology (2.4) |
Data analysis | Hypotheses have to be tested by comparison of hypothetical and observed learning. Additional analyses may be necessary (1.4.3) | Comparison of hypothetical and observed learning |
Constant comparative method of generating conjectures and testing them on the remaining data sources (2.6) | ||
Results | Insights into patterns in learning and means of supporting such learning | Series of HLTs as progressive diagrammatic reasoning about growing samples (2.6) |
Discussion | Theoretical and practical yield | Concrete example of an historical and didactical phenomenology in statistics education |
Application of semiotics in an educational domain | ||
Insights into computer use in the mathematics classroom | ||
Series of learning activities | ||
Improved computer tools | ||
The aim, theory, question, method and results should be aligned (the research has to be consistent) |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bakker, A., van Eerde, D. (2015). An Introduction to Design-Based Research with an Example From Statistics Education. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Knipping, C., Presmeg, N. (eds) Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9180-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9181-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)