Design-based research as a suitable methodology

Design-based research is a relevant methodology for educational policy and practice research (Plomp, 2013) and suitable to study the effectiveness of learning interventions in real classroom contexts (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). Due to its applicability in technology-based learning environments its results are promising in relation to enhancing learning (Obrenović, 2011; Soong, 2010). This methodology is an intervention-based methodology. However, Soong (2010) argues that in addition to being intervention-based, DBR also takes care of two missing ingredients of the change process occurring in any DBR study. These two ingredients are the grounding of change in real classrooms contexts and active participation of teachers to transform the process of education through DBR. The present study was carried out to investigate the effectiveness of a computer-based learning intervention on conceptual understanding and motivation towards science learning in real classroom settings. The DBR research process involved the design, development, enactment (pilot, pre and post), evaluation, re-design and re-evaluation of CCCM to enhance the learning achievement and motivation towards science learning of Indian secondary school students.

The DBR process described in section 3.3.2 is similar to the process of inquiry as suggested by John Dewey (figure 3.3). Further, the iterative DBR research cycle is very similar to the action ↔ outcome ↔ reflection cycle which is the core of any pragmatist research (Morgan, 2014a, 2014b). From a pragmatist stance, human experiences are the core of the knowledge and these experiences always occur in a particular social context (Morgan, 2014a) and rarely occur in isolation. Dewey’s general process of inquiry and the Five-Step Model of Inquiry (also called the Doubly Reflective model) are presented in figure 3.3 below and provide similar approaches (tools, methods) to solve practical, complex and contextual educational problems to that of a DBR approach. The five steps of inquiry, according to Dewey include encountering a problem, reflecting on the nature

of the problem, identifying possible solutions, thinking about the effects of the possible solution and finally taking an action to solve the problem.

Figure 3.3 Dewey's Five-Step Model of Inquiry; adapted from Morgan (2014a)

Edelson (2002) presents three main reasons why educational researchers should engage in design-based research. The first reason Edelson outlines is due to its productive orientation to theory development because of its practical and goal-directed nature. The second reason is the utility of its results. The author claims that “education is a design endeavour” (p. 119) at its heart because in the process of education, at every level, almost each of the stakeholder, designs activities and products to improve the educational outcomes. Therefore, these design research products can directly respond to improve the system and existing practices. The third argument presented is due to the direct involvement of the researchers and almost all stakeholders in the process of education improvement. In this way design researchers can carry out and try truly innovative designs based on contemporary research on learning and teaching and can assess their effectiveness (Plomp, 2013). If successful, these designs can improve the

Problem Reflection on the nature of the problem Suggested solution Action Reflection on the effects of the solution gges Actio

The five steps

#1: Encountering a situation outside current experience with no appropriate action #2: Using asking beliefs to think about why the situation is problematic

#3: Recognizing possible actions that would address the problem

#4: Using existing beliefs to think about likely outcomes of action #5: Following through on suggested solutions to address the problem (A) A pragmatic perspective on On-going experience

teaching-learning process. In a nutshell, for the process of innovation and educational reform to happen, DBR appears to be an appropriate methodology to engage in.

Therefore, keeping in mind the research aims and nature of the current study, usefulness of the DBR methodology and some examples from the literature (e.g. Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Soong, 2010), DBR is selected for the enactment of the present study. Moreover, use of the DBR methodology in real classroom environments can promote innovations (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Edelson, 2002) by offering innovative solutions and result in the development of local theories of learning (Jan, Chee, & Tan, 2010, June; McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Plomp, 2013).

The main goal of DBR is not to test educational theories (like in experimental research) but to develop and refine theories for specific contexts (Neuman & Dwyer, 2011) and to design and evaluate an intervention based on a theory. Barab and Squire (2004) also compare DBR with psychological experimentation and report that the main difference between them is that experimental research provides the proof for whether something works while DBR provides insight into how and why something works. Bakker and van Eerde (2015) provide some points of commonalities as well as differences between DBR and action research. The common characteristics they report are that both usually are interventionist, involve cyclic and reflective processes, and try to bridge the theory and practice gap. The major difference that Bakker and van Eerde (2015) outline is that in case of DBR the main focus is on instructional theory and design is a compulsory part of the research process. In contrast, in action research, the main focus is on action and improvement of the situation and design may be possible in the research. A researcher can be both a participant and an observer in DBR whereas in action research the researcher can only be a participant (T. Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). For more information on the differences between DBR and other methodologies the reader may refer to appendix O.