Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Developing the Methodology
DBR is a holistic interventionist approach (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) intended to produce research that has a direct impact on education policy, practice and research. Informed by a design-epistemology (see section 1.4.2), DBR appropriates the affordances of design to iteratively imagine, create, enact and test interventions or solutions (Reeves, McKenney and Herrington, 2011) that address current educational challenges (van den Akker, 2010) and advance understanding of teaching, learning and education systems. DBR is based on certain assumptions regarding knowledge, solutions or interventions, and research.
DBR typically address wicked problems from a solution-focused approach. A solution- focused approach assumes that the problem can only be fully understood in relation to “an ideal target solution” (Sloane, 2006, p. 34) in order to bring novel ideas, purposes or
80
solutions into the design space. In this respect DBR corresponds to the core values of the creative process and in particular that of originality and effectiveness (Kim, 2011a; Runco and Jaeger, 2012). A focus on an ‘ideal’ solution that is devoid of existing constraints,
challenges and threats, powerfully infuses purpose and the development of approximations of near-term solutions towards long-term development and evolution (Sloane, 2006, p. 30).
Furthermore, DBR, informed by a design epistemology, understands knowledge as
incomplete, exploratory or speculative (Sloane, 2006). It is therefore assumed that it is all but impossible to account for all enabling or constraining factors in an educational context (van den Akker et al., 2006) and that factors that may or may not predict outcomes, or prove relevant, is characteristically incomplete (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Consequently, interventions or solutions are holistically designed to address practitioners’ existing problems, concerns and priorities, while cognisant of the structures and
requirements of the field. Solutions or interventions to explicitly or implicitly improve, enhance or benefit the learning process (Kirkwood and Price, 2014), may include teaching products, materials, resources or programmes, or novel procedures, scenarios and inventive processes (van den Akker, 1999; Kirkwood and Price, 2014).
Solutions or interventions are also understood as contextualised (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) and embedded within larger systems (Sloane, 2006). Thus each research situation is assumed unique, and even though a similar research problem may be addressed in different contexts, DBR acknowledges the need to develop an individualised and
contextualised approach to address the specific contexts, needs and problems therein (Sloane, 2006). This approach corresponds to Avgerou’s (2010) socially embedded,
progressive transformational perspective, and Bourdieu’s (1984, 1990) construct of field. In view of the dynamic nature of individual and collective habitus, the fluidity of and
interrelations between fields situated within greater fields of influence, theories (Bourdieu, 1990; Thomson, 2008), interventions or solutions are therefore not assumed universally applicable (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). In a similar vein, Pedgley (2007) argues, since no two contexts are similar, and since the designer-researcher draws on their uniquely
81
personal, intuitive orchestration of the design process, it is assumed that a design-based research project is near impossible to replicate.
Addressing these various assumptions on which the DBR approach is premised, the DBR community created framing practices and core concepts to describe reasoning, choices and decisions in design (Dorst, 2011) through the use of design principles (Edelson, 2002; van den Akker et al., 2006) to guide the development of solutions and intervention. DBR can be distinguished from other approaches to educational research in the way that it appropriates epistemologies of design theory and the design process as “a learning process” (Edelson, 2006, p. 157) and activity base for developing contextual and embedded solutions that have a real-world impact (van den Akker, 1999; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Reeves and Reeves, 2015). It also differs from traditional research approaches by assigning different interchangeable roles to the researcher, who designs, participates, observes and evaluates iterative enactments of solutions or interventions, and analyses findings to refine or elaborate design principles. Characteristically, designs are not created in a laboratory, but embedded in natural test-bed contexts (Cobb et al., 2003) and developed through
collaboration between the researcher(s), practitioners and experts (Herrington et al., 2007). The collaboration between the researcher(s), experts and practitioners, clarifies the
problem and sharpens the research focus, while characterising and/or identifying potential solutions (van den Akker, 1999). Existing research conducted in similar contexts, further defines the research problem and informs possible solutions (Herrington et al., 2007), potentially defining the design context or situating the intervention within existing practice (Gravemeijer and Cobb, 2006) and theory. The collaborative relationship between
participants, experts, existing research and the researcher increases the relevance of the educational research and its potential to impact policy and practice (van den Akker et al., 2006).
Design-based research is also characteristically iterative and enacts iterative cycles of testing, implementation and refinement (Cobb et al., 2003; Reeves, 2006; Herrington et al., 2007). The iterative cyclical process commences with the definition and clarification of the design problem being addressed and an articulation of the goals, constraints and resources
82
available for the project (Edelson, 2002, 2006). Iterative cycles of “’successive
approximation’ or ‘evolutionary prototyping’ of the ‘ideal’ intervention” (van den Akker, 1999, pp. 8–9) follows in which researchers and practitioners co-construct, evaluate and refine workable interventions.
Initial prototype designs start as thought experiments (Gravemeijer and Cobb, 2006, p. 55) and are generally speculative, exploratory and imaginative (Cobb et al., 2003; van den Akker et al., 2006; Herrington et al., 2007). Thought experiments envision “how proposed
instructional activities might be realized” (Gravemeijer and Cobb, 2006, p. 55) when participants or students enact or use these, imagining potential interactions and learning that may take place. Preliminary designs, goals and conjectures grow from thought
experiments, leading to the creation of prototype interventions that are often generalising and crudely structured, and which need to be further elaborated and improved
(Gravemeijer and Cobb, 2006). Prototype interventions draw on existing design principles, the identification of the teaching and learning problem (Reeves, 2006) in the context in which it occurs, and the priorities and agendas of the participants.
During the initial prototyping stage, following a solution-focus, all potential constraints, challenges and threats are put aside to generate as many possible solutions even if these seem unattainable. The aim is to eliminate non-essential elements of the problem situation and allow for the “creative emergence of larger purposes and expanded thinking” (Sloane, 2006, p. 30). The generation of novel ideas and behaviours is a highly creative process since it requires originality, fluency and flexibility (Torrance, 1972a, 1993, Kim, 2006, 2011b), as well as divergent thinking processes (Guilford, 1966). Once a range of possible solutions are generated, these are analysed and compared, leading to the identification of the most appropriate solutions to address the research problem. This requires convergent thinking (Guilford, 1966) and is associated with the innovation of practical steps to solve the
problem. Potential solutions are then iteratively tested, evaluated, redesigned and retested within the target area until a sufficient solution is achieved (Burkhardt, 2006).
83
Initial prototype interventions are referred to as global interventions that are vaguely defined, developed and not yet elaborated. In subsequent iterations, interventions proceed
through cycles of thought-experiments and enactments, analysis and refinement, each iteration serving to refine and/or elaborate sections of the intervention. As the cycle continues, different aspects of the intervention reach a state of refinement or become “completely elaborated” (van den Akker et al., 2006, p. 126). Although interventions are not assumed to be complete, an intervention can reach a point where it is completely
elaborated within a learning space, for instance reaching a point where it is a sustained and seamlessly included in class activities. The iteration cycle and refinement process is
illustrated in Figure 3
.
The iteration cycle (see Figure 3
)
combines Gravemeijer and Cobb’s (2006) notion of thought experiments in the enactment of instructional experiments, with McKenney,Nieveen and van den Akker’s (2006) global, partial and completely elaborated solutions (van den Akker et al., 2006). It also resembles Reeves’ (2006) design research process and Euler’s (2017) didactic frame to develop design principles. Although the iteration cycle illustrates three iterations, this is not indicative of a limitation on the number of iterations, but indicates the refinement from global to partial and/or completely elaborated interventions and design principles.
84
Thought experiments are enacted in learning environments as instructional experiments. The enactment, both as process and the means of enactment, is documented and recorded in order for the researcher-designer(s) to analyse the process, participation and interaction, and the learning that takes place (Sloane, 2006) – comparable to mapping and backward- mapping of the ePlay MakerSpace process (see section 2.3.4). The research context and design space, and the roles of participants within the thought experiment and enactment, are reflected on and refined through the course of the work to clarify and define design elements and activities (Cobb et al., 2003; van den Akker et al., 2006; Herrington et al., 2007). Each iteration sharpens key elements: the problem analysis, design procedure and design solution, and provides contextualised insights (van den Akker et al., 2006) into refinements and elaborations of each design.
Throughout the integration cycle, decisions are made with regard to the problem, the design procedure and the solution under consideration (Edelson, 2002, 2006). The designer- researcher repeatedly moves between decisions regarding anticipatory thought
experiments and envisioning how a design may be realized, to choices of how this may be enacted, all the while analysing and reflecting on the process of participation and
enactment. Each micro-cycle characteristically includes decisions regarding the design, evaluation and analysis that serve to refine current and future designs of the intervention. Decisions may be based on theoretical underpinnings, and/or the intuition or experience of the designer-researcher or practitioners. The overall impact of these decisions may be reflected in the final product as the outcome of the design, however many critical decisions may remain implicit to the design process. Since such decisions may critically inform the course of the design procedure of subsequent designs, the nature of the design context and/or goals (Edelson, 2002, 2006), it is essential to document and reflect on these decisions.
Attempts to capture the design process as it unfolds is challenging. Pedgley (2007) argues that design decisions often occur in the mind as an outflow of intuitive thought processes, which are difficult to articulate. One way to do this is to elicit an account of the design process after it is completed, however Pedgley (2007) warns that designers reporting on the
85
design process, tend to inadvertently rationalise the reportage, being eager to portray their efforts in the best possible light. Another means to capture the choices and decisions made in the design process is to use reflective practice (Pedgley, 2007). Through reflective practice the designer uses reflection to reflect in the actions taking place when thinking in the
moment; as well as to reflect on the actions in a retrospective manner (Pedgley, 2007). Retrospective reflection occurs soon after the design process is concluded. The
development of the website, ePlay MakerSpace Data Production, as part of this study, provided a tool for retrospective reflection.
A further characteristic of DBR relates to the generation of large quantities of data generally through mixed-method approaches (van den Akker et al., 2006). The magnitude of data collected through a mixed-method approach may potentially overwhelm the researcher- designer(s), leading to the possible exclusion of vital aspects of the data or inaccurate analysis, conclusions and findings in a haphazard attempt to make sense of it all. The challenge is to thoroughly and systematically structure the generation and management of data sets to pave the way for rigorous, reliable, valid and comprehensive analysis of the development and unfolding of “progressive approximations of ideal interventions in their target settings” (van den Akker et al., 2006, p. 2). Any voluntary deliberation and all
86
reflections that inform choices and decisions, as well as “the grounds for particular
inferences” (van den Akker et al., 2006, p. 69) should be recorded. The aim is to construct a map of decisions and choices, from identifying the global design problem to finalising the completely elaborated design principles. This map should allow independent researchers to follow each pathway leading to a claim through the various levels of analysis based on formative evaluations and even to the transcripts of recordings, in order to ascertain the validity and “empirical grounding for the analysis” (van den Akker et al., 2006, p. 69). In this study, adapting Bourdieu’s (1984) suggestion of a research diary, the website, ePlay
MakerSpace Data Production, provided a means through which to achieve. Figure 4 is a screenshot from the website indicating the use of the website to capture the design process.
This section developed the DBR methodology for the study to iteratively design, enact, test and evaluate the ePlay MakerSpace model as means to transform teachers’ dispositions through the transformative integration of emerging technologies (ETs). The DBR
methodology guides the iterative process to develop unique interventions, based on the conceptual development of the ePlay MakerSpace model and global design principles (GDPs) in section 2.3. Each iteration of the ePlay MakerSpace needs to be contextually sensitive and address the immediate and pressing needs of specific groups of teachers from South Africa’s disadvantaged primary schools. The methodology and iteration cycle
structure the evolutionary process to refine and elaborate GDPs.
Guided by the methodology, the problem identification and clarification of the study was conducted at two levels. The global problem for the study was identified through
unstructured, informal interviews with experts and practitioners in the field of education technologies and teacher development. This included interviews with the former director of the Khanya lab project in the Western Cape, leaders from the Cape Teaching and Leadership Institute, colleagues at the University of Cape Town, and teachers in the field. These
interviews foregrounded the challenges teachers experienced to integrate ETs, to change their practice, and the vaguely, ill-defined nature of ET integration for South African schools. A second layer of problem identification involved two reference groups, one for each of the
87
Foundation Phase and Intermediate Phase Language ePlay MakerSpace iterations. The reference groups included practitioners, experts and district officials who collaboratively identified the unique problems and priorities for each iteration as reported in Chapter 4 and 5 respectively. Consultation with these various groups at both levels critically informed the clarification of the research problem and the design of each iteration of the ePlay
MakerSpace.
Using the DBR methodology, the next section develops the data production methods used in the study.