Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning pp 479–496Cite as

Design-Based Research Methods in CSCL: Calibrating our Epistemologies and Ontologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series ((CULS,volume 19))

Abstract

Design-based research (DBR) methods are an important cornerstone in the methodological repertoire of the learning sciences, and they play a particularly important role in CSCL research and development. In this chapter, we first lay out some basic definitions of what DBR is and is not, and discuss some history of how this concept came to be part of the CSCL research landscape. We then attempt to describe the state-of-the-art by unpacking the contributions of DBR to both epistemology and ontology of CSCL. We describe a tension between two modes of inquiry—scientific and design—which we view as inherent to DBR, and explain why this has provoked ongoing critique of DBR as a methodology, and debates regarding the type of knowledge DBR should produce. Finally, we present a renewed approach for conducting a more methodologically coherent DBR, which calibrates between these two modes of inquiry in CSCL research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Many thanks to the anonymous reviewer who brought our attention to Bhaskar’s conceptions of philosophy of science making a distinction between (a) the “real” world, i.e., laws of nature independent of human interpretation, (b) the “actual” world, i.e., things that have come to exist through the action of those laws of nature, and (c) the “empirical” world, i.e., what we, as humans come to observe, measure, describe, or experience of the actual world. Neilson and Stolterman use the term “real” for the x-axis but we have relabeled it to be the “actual” to align with Bhaksar’s terminology. We believe this is closer to what Neilson and Stolterman meant.

References

  • Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2015). The practicality of principled practical knowledge: A response to Janssen, Westbroek, and Doyle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 187–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–186). University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 68–95). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education. Center for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A 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. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desforges, C. W. (2000). Familiar challenges and new approaches: Necessary advances in theory and methods in research on teaching and learning. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180624013426/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001535.htm

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction (pp. 162–202). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 136–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. (2002). Creating context: Design-based research in creating and understanding CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 (pp. 453–462). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 423–438). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. Keynote presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Eylon, B.-S., McKenney, S., & Kidron, A. (2018). Design-centric research-practice partnerships: Three key lenses for building productive bridges between theory and practice. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_122-1.

  • Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Cole, M. (2002). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In T. Kosmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL (Vol. 2, pp. 303–316). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 495–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. (2013). Computers as theatre. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, N., Niederhauser, D. S., Christensen, R., & Shear, L. (2016). A multilevel system of quality technology-enhanced learning and teaching indicators. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012/2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46(3), 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, D. K. (2012). Designs that fly: What the history of aeronautics tells us about the future of design-based research in education. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 35(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2012.683573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagy, O., Hod, Y., & Kali, Y. (2019). Teaching and learning cultures in higher education: A mismatch in conceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 849–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Tsaushu, M., & Tal, T. (2018). The culture of learning continuum: Promoting internal values in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 416–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D. (2011). In defense of chi’s ontological incompatibility hypothesis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Reconstructing context: Negotiating the tension between exogenous and endogenous educational design. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 225–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsaushu, M., Tal, T., Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Gepstein, S., & Zilberstein, D. (2012). Peer learning and support of technology in an undergraduate biology course to enhance deep learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 402–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. This paper, published in a special issue of Educational Researcher (the first special issue published on DBR), is used in the current chapter to characterize DBR, as it encapsulates what critics find challenging about DBR, which our model for calibrating epistemologies and ontologies addresses.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212. This paper provides a detailed explanation of the notion of methodological alignment, which is one of the two components (the other being DRTL) in our model for calibrating DBR epistemologies and ontologies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128. The critique in this paper, concerning a missing argumentative grammar in DBR, has provoked an ongoing debate, as well as various approaches for enhancing rigor in DBR. It is a good starting point for researchers who are already conducting DBR and are required to convince reviewers of the rigor in their work to show that Yes—it can be methodological!

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012/2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. This book provides a generic model for conducting DBR and explains in detail its main elements: analysis and exploration; design and construction; evaluation and reflection; and implementation and spread. The book also offers guidance for proposing, reporting, and advancing DBR, and is recommended especially for graduate students, as well as experienced researchers who are new to this approach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Tsaushu, M., & Tal, T. (2018). The culture of learning continuum: promoting internal values in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 416–436. This DBR study is the case we use in our chapter to illustrate the “behind the scenes” DRTL processes. The study also illustrates the use of Sandoval’s (2014) conjecture mapping in DBR. We claim that such mapping highlights the tension within both epistemic and ontological games within the abstraction-particularization curve.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Yael Kali

  2. Educational Communication and Technology Program, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Christopher Hoadley

Authors
  1. Yael Kali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Hoadley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Kali .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany

    Ulrike Cress

  2. Language Technologies Institute and Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Carolyn Rosé

  3. Department of Administration Leadership, and Technology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Alyssa Friend Wise

  4. Faculty of Informatics, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu-shi, Shizuoka, Japan

    Jun Oshima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kali, Y., Hoadley, C. (2021). Design-Based Research Methods in CSCL: Calibrating our Epistemologies and Ontologies. In: Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A.F., Oshima, J. (eds) International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65290-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65291-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation