A Stake in the Ground

For whatever reason I had difficultly "getting into" the readings for this week. The topic was good and I don't think that they were a particularly difficult read so maybe it was just the timing, as there was a lot going on in my life this past week. At any rate I had to read my article a couple of times to get through it.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1-14.

Characteristics of Learning and Design-based Research:

I like these statements from the abstract concerning learning, "A fundamental assumption of many learning scientists is that cognition is not a thing located within the individual thinker but is a process that is distributed across the knower, the environment in which knowing occurs,and the activity in which the learner participates. In other words, learning, cognition, knowing, and context are irreducibly co-constituted and cannot be treated as isolated entities or processes." I like this concept as it considers learning as a whole. And so, "As such, learning scientists have found that they must develop technological tools, curriculum, and especially theories that help them systematically understand and predict how learning occurs."

So then, "Design-based research is not so much an approach as it is a series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts, and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings. Design-based research is not simply a type of formative evaluation that allows learning scientists to better understand the ecological validity of theoretical claims generated in the laboratory. Design-based research, as conceived by Ann Brown (1992), was introduced with the expectation that researchers would systemically adjust various aspects of the designed context so that each adjustment served as a type of experimentation that allowed the researchers to test and generate theory in naturalistic contexts."

Designed-based Research versus Formative Evaluation:

Barab and Squire point out that, "At first glance, design-based research closely resembles formative evaluation methodologies. Both are naturalistic, process-oriented, iterative, and involve creating a tangible design that works in complex social settings. The process of conducting a formative evaluation—articulating goals, operationalizing measures, examining a phenomena and understanding the consequences of its use (both intended and unintended)—is quite similar to many design-based research studies. Indeed, design-based research has been justifiably criticized for being little more than formative evaluation, even ignoring some of the recent advances made in formative evaluation. What separates design-based research in the learning sciences from formative evaluation is (a) a constant impulse toward connecting design interventions with existing theory, (b) the fact that design-based research may generate new theories (not simply testing existing theories), and (c) that for some research questions the context in which the design-based research is being carried out is the minimal ontology for which the variables can be adequately investigated (implying that we cannot return to the laboratory to further test the theoretical claims). The goal of Barab and Squire, as applied researchers engaged in doing design work, is to directly impact practice while advancing theory that will be of use to others."

They go on to discuss that, "Design-based research involves more than simply describing the design and the conditions under which it changed. Cobb et al. (2003, p. 10) suggests that “design experiments are conducted to develop theories, not merely to empirically tune ‘what works.’” diSessa and Cobb (this issue), along similar lines, argue that design-based research should involve theory work, treating the design platforms as contexts through which theory may be advanced. This type of work is iterative in nature, with the long-term commitment being to continually refine theoretical claims so as to produce what diSessa and Cobb refer to as “ontological innovations.” They suggest that design-based research allows for the production and testing of theory that can be used to generate, select, and validate specific design alternatives; revealing how various designs predicated on different theoretical assumptions are differentially consequential for learning. In this way, the validation of a particular design framework is not simply intended to show the value of a particular curriculum but results in the advancement of a particular set of theoretical constructs. Another core challenge in carrying out design-based research arises given the oint role of the researchers as designer and researcher. Design-based researchers are not simply observing interactions but are actually “causing” the very same interactions they are making claims about. Barab and Kirshner (2001) wrote: The goal of these researchers/educators/designers moves beyond offering explanations of, to designing interventions for. In fact, and consistent with pragmatists such as Dewey, Pierce, and James, to some degree it is the latter functional constraint that constitutes what is a useful explanation of. (p. 4)"

I found this to be interesting and a good point to consider that, "Researchers working in schools often face difficult ethical choices. Do they stand idly by and watch a teacher struggle to use their curricula, or do they intervene providing additional support? Do researchers share stories of struggling students with teachers and allow them to change instruction accordingly, or do they play a “hands-off” role, minimizing their impact on classroom practices?" So the point being is should you observe the natural occurrences or intervene occasionally when needed.