International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No.

10 October 2013

Adapting Design-Based Research as a Research Methodology in

Educational Settings

Ahmed Hassan Alghamdi

College of Education, Albaha University, Albaha, Saudi Arabia
Email: [email protected]

Li Li
Graduate School of Education, the University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Recently, design-based research has received a significant amount of attention in educational
research literature. Accordingly, we aim from this paper at reviewing design-based research
literature in order to provide the educational researchers with different aspects of this research
methodology that might contribute to guiding them to use effectively this methodology to address
the critical issues that occur in their educational settings. These aspects involve (1) research
paradigms and design-based research, (2) design-based research in terms of its emergence, (3)
definition, (4) purposes and characteristics, (5) the procedure for conducting it, (6) ensuring the
required rigour in the findings, (7) the participants, and (8) data collection and analysis techniques.
Finally, a conclusion is included.

Keywords: design-based research, research, methodology, education

1. Research Paradigms and Design-Based Research

The literature on research processes points out that a researcher has to set out with a clear vision
with regard to paradigms or worldviews, which generally provide researchers with philosophical,
theoretical, instrumental, and methodological foundations that underpin the paradigms of their
studies. These will shape decision-making and enable the researcher to successfully carry out the
research process (Burrell & Morgan, 1985; Myers, 2000; Schuh & Barab, 2007). More specifically,
Dills and Romiszowski (1997) stated:
Paradigms define how the world works, how knowledge is extracted from this world, and how
one is to think, write, and talk about this knowledge. Paradigms define the types of questions to
be asked and the methodologies to be used in answering them. Paradigms decide what is
published and what is not published. Paradigms structure the world of the academic worker,
provide its meaning and its significance. (p. 11)

Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods characterise any research paradigm

(Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In this context, ontology is “the starting point of all
research” (Grix, 2004, p. 59). “Epistemology should inform methodology, which in turn, informs
methods” (Henn, Weinstein, & Foard, 2006, p. 18).
Generally, there are various philosophical assumptions that undergird any decision to adopt a
given research paradigm and conduct research accordingly (Grix, 2004; Guba, 1990; Mackenzie &
1
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Knipe, 2006; White, 1999). A paradigm, according to Neuman (2007), is an “integrated set of
assumptions, beliefs, models of doing good research, and techniques for gathering and analysing
data” (p. 41). On the other hand, positivism (objectivism, and realism); interpretivism
(constructivism, naturalism, idealism, and rationalism); critical theory (transformativism, and
relativism); and pragmatism (functionalism) comprise the main educational research paradigms
(Grix, 2004; Henn, et al., 2006; Luo, 2011; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006; Neuman, 2007; Schuh &
Barab, 2007; White, 1999).
Education research is conducted to achieve different purposes and functions, such as describing,
comparing, evaluating, explaining, designing, and developing elements of the teaching and learning
process (Plomp, 2007). These purposes and functions can be accomplished by using different
research methodologies, which refer generally to “principles, procedures, and practices that govern
research” (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005, p. 22). However, Plomp (2007) suggested the
following purposes that can be served by using the various research methodologies indicated:
 Survey: to describe, to compare, to evaluate;
 Case studies: to describe, to compare, to explain;
 Experiments: to explain, to compare;
 Action research: to design/ develop a solution to a practical problem;
 Ethnography: to describe, to explain;
 Correlational research: to describe, to compare;
 Evaluation research: to determine the effectiveness of a programme; and
 Design research: to design/develop an intervention (such as programmes, teaching-learning
strategies and materials, products and systems) with the aim to solve a complex educational
problem and to advance our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and the
processes to design and develop them. (p. 12)

The majority of writers in the literature on research methodologies agree that pragmatism is an
appropriate paradigm for underpinning design-based research (Barab & Squire, 2004; Juuti &
Lavonen, 2006). Furthermore, the term pragmatism “is derived from the Greek words ‘pragmein’
and ‘pragma’ (thing and fact) which literally mean ‘to do.’ The emphasis is on what is done; on
outcomes rather than ideas or ideals” (Mouton, 1996, p. 8). In addition, pragmatism “was first
introduced through the works of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), and then further developed
by William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey (1859–1952)” (Given, 2008, pp. 671-672). The
pragmatic paradigm was founded by the above philosophers “in order to provide an answer to the
mind-body-problem: how our immaterial mind can acquire knowledge of a material world” (Juuti &
Lavonen, 2006, p. 57). That indicates that the philosophy of pragmatism is concentrated on the
neutral of truth. Thus, the pragmatists believe that “truth is found in ‘what works’ and that truth is
relative to the current situation” (Given, 2008, p. 672).
Finally, the pragmatic paradigm has a set of characteristics that distinguish it from other
research paradigms; Creswell (2007) sums up these characteristics as follows:
 Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality.
 Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. They are ‘free’ to choose the methods,
techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes.
 Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity.
 Truth is what works at the time; it is not based in a dualism between reality independent of the
mind or within the mind.

2
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 10 October 2013

 Pragmatist researchers look to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ to research based on its intended
consequences—where they want to go with it.
 Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts.
 Pragmatists have believed in an external world independent of the mind as well as those lodged
in the mind. But they believe that we need to stop asking questions about reality and the laws of
nature. (p. 23)

2. The Emergence of Design-Based Research

Overall, there is a strong and complicated relationship between theory and practice in
educational research (Moore, 1982). Theory, according to Neuman (2007), is “a system of
interconnected abstractions or ideas that condenses and organises knowledge about the social
world” (p. 24). Hence, Pring (2004) emphasised that educational research should generally
contribute to building up the theory and then, this theory should be put into practice.
Recently, the majority of educational research literature has acknowledged that educational
research is often divorced and alienated from our educational issues and daily practices (Juuti &
Lavonen, 2006; Sari & Lim, 2012). Indeed, different reasons have been advanced to explain this
issue; one of these reasons is that much educational research concentrates mainly on “research
about education” (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006, p. 54) that aims at understanding educational problems,
rather than “research for education” (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006, p. 54) that aims to bridge the gaps
between the theoretical aspect and the practical aspect of research within the educational
environment (Henn, et al., 2006).
As design-based research has emerged as a reaction against the failure of some traditional
research methodologies to link theory and practice within educational research, and as a means of
generating useful knowledge to guide educational practice (Design-Based Research Collective,
2003; Dix, 2007; Lai, Calandra, & Ma, 2009; Ma & Harmon, 2009). In addition, Parker (2011)
stated that design-based research “is being used more and more in education” (p. 1) because it
“combines research, design, and practice into one process, resulting in usable products that are
supported by a theoretical framework” (Bowler & Large, 2008, p. 39).
Finally, there is total agreement across the research literature that design-based research is a
research methodology (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver, 2007; O’Donnell, 2004; Wang &
Hannafin, 2005). Likewise, the Design-Based Research Collective (2003) supported this agreement
by indicating that design-based research is “a coherent methodology that bridges theoretical
research and educational practice” (p. 8).

3. Definition of Design-Based Research

Design-based research is not new, but recently, given the reasons discussed above, it has
received a significant amount of attention in educational research. The literature on research
methodologies shows that design-based research is also known as design experiments, design
research, design studies, design science, development research, developmental research,
fermentative research, fermentative inquiry, fermentative experiments, and ermentative evaluation
(Andriessen, 2007; O’Donnell, 2004; Parker, 2011; Sari & Lim, 2012; van den Akker, 1999).
Hence, throughout this paper, we preferred to use design-based research instead of another term
because it is most commonly used in the research literature and, as the Design-Based Research
Collective (2003) mentioned, using it helps to avoid confusion with “studies of designers.”
In addition to the above, Collins (1992) in his report entitled Toward a design science of
education, and Brown (1992) in her article entitled “Design experiments: Theoretical and

3
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings,” were the first
authors who introduced design-based research as a methodology in education research (O’Donnell,
2004). Moreover, Herrington, et al. (2007) suggested that, according to Collins and Brown, design-
based research involves:
 addressing complex problems in real contexts in collaboration with practitioners;
 integrating known and hypothetical design principles with technological affordances to render
plausible solutions to these complex problems; and
 conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning environments as
well as to define new design principles. (p. 4090)

Finally, a wide range of definitions of design-based research have been presented in the
literature. For example, Shavelson, Phillips, Towne, and Feuer (2003) mentioned that design-based
research is “based strongly on prior research and theory and carried out in educational settings,
seeks to trace the evolution of learning in complex, messy classrooms and schools, test and build
theories of teaching and learning, and produce instructional tools that survive the challenges of
everyday practice” (p. 25). In addition, Barab and Squire (2004) stated that design-based research is
a “series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artefacts, and practices that
account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic setting” (p. 2). Further,
Wang and Hannafin (2005) defined it as “a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve
educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on
collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to
contextually-sensitive design principles and theories” (pp. 6–7).
It appears from the above definitions of design-based research, that Wang and Hannafin’s
definition is most persuasive because it provides comprehensive details about design-based research
from different perspectives.

4. Purposes and Characteristics of Design-Based Research

Generally, the main purpose that design-based research aims at achieving is to “address complex
problems in educational settings”(Sari & Lim, 2012, p. 2) in order to “build a stronger connection
between educational research and real-world problems”(Amiel & Reeves, 2008, p. 34), while
“supporting design and development of prototypical products to solve complex authentic context-
specific problem”(Lai, et al., 2009, p. 120).
More specifically, by using design-based research, different outcomes can be obtained (Design-
Based Research Collective, 2003; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006). One of these outcomes is the production
of design principles (Bowler & Large, 2008; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006), which as mentioned above,
“can be implemented by others interested in studying similar settings and concerns”(Amiel &
Reeves, 2008, p. 35) in order to address complex problems in educational settings. In addition, it
can offer beneficial methodological tools for researchers who seek to understand different variables
within a naturalistic context (Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia,
2006b). Furthermore, design-based research can generate new theories or help to develop existing
ones (Bowler & Large, 2008; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006), but generating new theories according, to
Amiel and Reeves (2008), can “only occur after long-term engagement and multiple design
investigations” (p. 35). For that reason, Barab and Squire (2004) stated that design-based research
“requires more than simply showing a particular design works but demands that the researcher
(move beyond a particular design exemplar to) generate evidence-based claims about learning that
address contemporary theoretical issues and further the theoretical knowledge of the field” (pp. 5–
4
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 10 October 2013

6). Accordingly, Edelson (2002) pointed to three types of theories that can be generated from
design-based research. These include:
 Domain Theories: A domain theory is the generalisation of some portion of a problem analysis.
Thus, a domain theory might be about learners and how they learn, teachers and how they teach,
or learning environments and how they influence teaching and learning;
 Design Frameworks: A design framework is a generalised design solution. Although design
theories are descriptive, design frameworks are prescriptive. They describe the characteristics
that a designed artefact must have to achieve a particular set of goals in a particular context;
 Design Methodologies: A design methodology is a general design procedure. Like a design
framework, it is prescriptive. However, a design methodology provides guidelines for the
process rather than the product. (pp. 113–115)

Finally, design-based research has some similarities with other research methodologies such as
participatory action research, formative evaluation research, ethnography, and positivist
experiments (Hoadley, 2011; MacDonald, 2008). Yet, design-based research has a set of
characteristics that distinguish it from these methodologies. Thus, Wang and Hannafin (2005)
summarised these characteristics as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of Design-based Research

Characteristics Explanations
Pragmatic  Design-based research refines both theory and practice.
 The value of theory is appraised by the extent to which principles inform and improve
practice.
Grounded  Design is theory-driven and grounded in relevant research, theory, and practice.
 Design is conducted in real-world settings and the design process is embedded in, and
studied through, design-based research.
Interactive,  Designers are involved in the design processes and work together with participants.
iterative, and  Processes include iterative cycles of analysis, design, implementation, and redesign.
flexible  Initial plan is usually insufficiently detailed so that designers can make deliberate changes
when necessary.
Integrative  Mixed research methods are used to maximise the credibility of ongoing research.
 Methods vary during different phases as new needs and issues emerge and the focus of the
research evolves.
 Rigour is purposefully maintained and discipline applied appropriate to the development
phase.
Contextual  The research process, research findings, and changes from the initial plan are documented.
 Research results are connected with the design process and the setting.
 The content and depth of generated design principles varies.
 Guidance for applying generated principles is needed.
Note. Adapted from Wang and Hannafin (2005, p. 8).

5. Conducting Design-Based Research

Different designs for conducting design-based research have been suggested throughout the
design-based research literature (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006; Wang & Hannafin, 2005), but the majority
of researchers indicated that design-based research lacks an established process for its conduct
because it is still an emerging methodology (Joseph, 2004; Ma & Harmon, 2009). However,
Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia (2006a) pointed to nine general
steps that should be taken into account when conducting design-based research. These are described
as follows: (a) begin with a meaningful problem, (b) collaborate with practitioners, (c) integrate
5
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

robust theory about learning and teaching, (d) conduct literature review, needs analysis, etc., to
generate research questions, (e) design an educational intervention, (f) develop, implement, and
revise the design intervention, (g) evaluate the impact of the intervention, (h) iterate the process,
and (i) reporting the findings of design-based research. Furthermore, the intervention in design-
based research could include “programmes, teaching-learning strategies and materials, products,
and systems” (Plomp, 2007, p. 13), and other similar types.
More specifically, McKenney (2001) suggested three phases for conducting design-based
research; these involve (a) needs and context analysis, (b) design, development, and formative
evaluation, and (c) semi-summative evaluation. In addition, Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc (2004)
developed guidelines for carrying out design-based research, which include (a) implementing a
design, (b) modifying a design, (c) identifying multiple ways of analysing the design, (d) measuring
dependent variables, (e) measuring independent variables, and (f) reporting on design research.
Moreover, there is another design for conducting design-based research that is commonly cited in
many studies that have used design-based research (e. g., Ashford-Rowe, 2008; Dix, 2007; Hood,
2008; Mantei, 2008; Parker, 2011; Sari & Lim, 2012). This design, however, was developed by
Reeves (2000; 2006) who suggested four phases for carrying out design-based research, as Figure 1
shows; these include (a) analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners, (b)
development of solutions with a theoretical framework, (c) evaluation and testing of solutions in
practice, and (d) documentation and reflection to produce ‘design principles.’

Figure1. Reeves’s phases in the conduct of design-based research

Note. Adapted from Reeves (2000).

Finally, Plomp (2007) examined the above designs for conducting design-based research and
concluded that the majority of writers cited in the literature agree that design-based research should
comprise the following three phases:
 Preliminary research: needs and context analysis, review of literature, development of a
conceptual or theoretical framework for the study;
 Prototyping phase: iterative design phase consisting of iterations, each being micro-cycle of
research with formative evaluation as the most important research activity aimed at improving
and refining the intervention;
 Assessment phase: (semi-) summative evaluation to conclude whether the solution or
intervention meets the pre-determined specifications. As also this phase often results in
recommendations for improvement of the intervention, we call this phase semi-summative. (p.
15)

From the guidelines discussed above for conducting design-based research, Plomp’s three
phases constituted an appropriate design because it seemed that these phases covered all different
activities and iterative cycles that a study based on design-based research principles should take into
account.
6
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 10 October 2013

6. Rigour in Design-Based Research

As with any other research methodologies, design-based research faces different challenges that
might threaten the rigour of its findings (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Dix, 2007; Juuti
& Lavonen, 2006; Plomp, 2007). These are reflected in data collection and analysis techniques,
which represent “the heart of rigour” (Hoadley, 2004, p. 203). Accordingly, Design-Based Research
Collective (2003) indicated that design-based research is “empirical research,” so the objectivity,
validity, and reliability are all necessary to make the findings of design-based research meet
acceptable standards.
Indeed, design-based research literature has not yet provided strict criteria for evaluating the
rigour of the findings of design-based research in terms of objectivity, validity, and reliability;
rather it includes discussions of these issues and some suggested strategies that can be used for
achieving that rigour (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006; Plomp, 2007). Therefore, Kelly (2004) emphasised
that design-based research experts should pay considerable attention to developing clear criteria that
can be employed for ensuring objectivity, validity, and reliability in the findings of design-based
research.
As mentioned above, design-based research is generally viewed as empirical research, so Plomp
(2007), Shavelson, et al. (2003), and Wang and Hannafin (2005) pointed out that design-based
research’s researchers have to meet and apply the guiding principles for scientific research in order
to maintain the necessary rigour in their findings. Accordingly, Plomp (2007) suggested employing
Shavelson and Towne’s guiding principles for scientific research. In this regard, Shavelson and
Towne (2002) developed six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry, including
education research. These guiding principles suggest that a researcher should
 pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically;
 link research to relevant theory;
 use methods that permit direct investigation of the question;
 provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning;
 replicate and generalise across studies; and
 disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique. (pp. 3–5)

More specifically, with regard to achieving objectivity, which “deal[s] with the idea of
neutrality or the extent to which the research is free of bias in the procedures and the interpretation
of results” (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2010, p. 504). Nevertheless, achieving objectivity
in design-based research is not an easy task (Akilli, 2008; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003;
Hoadley, 2011; O’Donnell, 2004) because “researchers conducting design-based research usually, if
not always, need to immerse themselves in the research context and intensely interact with
participants. As a consequence, it is difficult to keep being objective and neutral” (Instructional
Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia, 2006c, para, 2). However, employing
triangulation by using multiple sources and kinds of data can maintain and increase the objectivity
in the findings of design-based research (Akilli, 2008; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003;
O’Donnell, 2004; Thurmond, 2001; Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
Validity, on the other hand, concentrates mainly on two aspects. The first aspect is external
validity, which refers to “the extent to which the findings of a study can apply to a wider
population. Research which is generalisable enables the results and implications of a study to be
brought into more general use” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 93). However, design-based research
literature agrees completely that the findings of design-based research cannot be generalised from a
sample to a large population (Akilli, 2008; Barab & Squire, 2004; Hoadley, 2011; O’Donnell, 2004;
Plomp, 2007) because design-based research has a “highly contextualised research agenda and its
7
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

heavy reliance on thick description for data analysis”(Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the
University of Georgia, 2006c, para, 3). Therefore, the literature suggests that design-based research
should result in generalisable theory from its context to other contexts; as mentioned earlier, this
theory might include domain theories, design frameworks, and design methodologies (Bowler &
Large, 2008; Edelson, 2002; Plomp, 2007).
The second aspect is internal validity, which refers generally to “the degree to which the
investigator’s conclusions correctly portray the data collected” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 148).
There are different factors that may threaten the validity of design-based research, so Hoadley
(2004) suggested that validity has a larger sense, involving “the likelihood that our interpretation of
the results accurately reflects the truth of the theory and hypotheses under examination” (p. 204).
Therefore, adopting many iterations of the phases of design-based research over time as well as
repeating the analysis through cycles of iterations can result in strengthening the internal validity of
the findings of design-based research (Bloor & Wood, 2006; Design-Based Research Collective,
2003; Dix, 2007; Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia, 2006c).
Reliability, refers generally to “the extent to which research produces the same results when
replicated” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 147). Achieving reliability in design-based research also faces
challenges, so using triangulation through multiple data sources contributes to improved reliability
in the findings of design-based research (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Dix, 2007;
Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia, 2006c).

7. Participants in Design-Based Research

Generally, design-based research should be based on three elements: (a) a designer (e.g. the
researcher), (b) a practitioner (e.g. a teacher), and (c) an artefact (e.g. a framework for improving
different aspects of teachers’ performance) (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006, p. 55). As a consequence, the
design-based research literature emphasises that the collaboration between researchers and
practitioners represents the essential element for conducting design-based research (Ma & Harmon,
2009; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). On the other hand, the practitioners in design-based research “are
not ‘subjects’ assigned to treatments but instead are treated as co-participants in both the design and
even the analysis” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 3).
Indeed, design-based research literature does not support parametric techniques for selecting
samples in the design-based research process; rather, it points out that design-based research will be
successful if conducted “with a single setting over a long time”(Design-Based Research Collective,
2003, p. 7).

8. Data Collection and Analysis Techniques in Design-Based Research

Data collection and analysis refer generally to “the techniques or procedures used to gather and
analyse data related to some research question or hypothesis” (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). However,
appropriate research methodology literature was consulted and this indicated that methods of data
collection in design-based research “are not necessarily different from those in other research
[methodologies]” (van den Akker, 1999, p. 9).
Overall, there are three approaches for collecting and analysing research data, which involve, (a)
quantitative, (b) qualitative, and (c) mixed methods approaches (Migiro & Magangi, 2011). As
mentioned above, the pragmatic paradigm underpins design-based research, so from the point of
view of pragmatism, a researcher “should use whatever works” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p, 559).
Therefore, MacDonald (2008) states that design-based research “pragmatically employs qualitative
[and/]or quantitative research methods that are congruent with the research questions” (p. 430). That
8
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 10 October 2013

indicates that a researcher who uses design-based research can use any research approaches—
quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of the two.
Indeed, the majority of design-based research literature agrees that the mixed methods approach
is an appropriate one for collecting and analysing design-based research’s data because it can
maximise the validity as well as increase the objectivity, and reliability of ongoing research (Bell,
2004; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). However, a mixed
methods approach, according to Migiro and Magangi (2011), is “research in which the researcher
uses the qualitative research [approach] for one phase of a research study and the quantitative
research [approach] for another in order to understand a research problem more completely” (p.
3757).
On the other hand, Amiel and Reeves (2008, p. 35) pointed out that collecting data in design-
based research should aim at achieving three purposes as follows: (a) re-define the problems, (b)
explore possible solutions, and (c) consider the principles that might best address them.

9. Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems that design-based research has emerged as a reaction against the failure
of some traditional research methodologies to link theory and practice within educational research,
and as a means of generating useful knowledge to guide educational practice.
According to the above discussion, we encourage all educational researchers to adopt design-
based research to investigate the different issues that face them in their educational settings because
it will contribute effectively to addressing these issues as well as bridging the gaps in research
between theory and practice.

References
Akilli, G. K. (2008). Design based research vs. mixed methods: The differences and commonalities.
1-10. Retrieved from
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper110/Akilli_DBR_vs_MM_ITForum.pdf
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking
technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40.
Andriessen, D. (2007). Combining design-based research and action research to test management
solutions Paper presented at the 7th World Congress Action Learning, Action Research and
Process Management, Groningen.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education
(8th ed.): Cengage Learning.
Ashford-Rowe, K. (2008). Applying a design-based research approach to the determination and
application of the critical elements of an authentic assessment. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference, Wollongong: University of
Wollongong.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational
Psychologist, 39(4), 243-253.
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research
concepts. London: SAGE.
9
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Bowler, L., & Large, A. (2008). Design-based research for LIS. Library & Information Science
Research, 30, 39-46.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2),
141-178.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1985). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of
the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. New York: Center for Technology in
Education.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological
issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London: SAGE.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Dills, C. R., & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). The instructional development paradigm: An
introduction. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development
paradigms. New Jeresy: Educational Technology Publications.
Dix, K. L. (2007). DBRIEF: A research paradigm for ICT adoption. International Education
Journal, 8(2), 113-124.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles;
London: SAGE.
Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA. ; London: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117): Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Foard, N. (2006). A short introduction to social research. London:
SAGE.
Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral
students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2007, Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Hoadley, C. (2011). Design, research, and DBR: How can we improve and study how people live
and learn with their technology? , Retrieved from
http://www.kaputcenter.umassd.edu/events/cs/10-
11/8_hoadley_042011/hoadley_presentation.pdf
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational
Psychologist, 39(4), 203-212.
Hood, G. (2008, June). Using a design-based research paradigm to develop an online course aimed
at disseminating research findings and informing practice. Paper presented at the
10
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 10 October 2013

Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference, Wollongong: University of

Wollongong.
Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia. (2006a). How do I get started
with design-based research (DBR)? , Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/dbr/enact01.htm
Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia. (2006b). What are the benefits
of DBR? , Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/dbr/explain04.htm
Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia. (2006c). What are the
challenges of doing DBR? , Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/dbr/enact03.htm#first
Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design,
research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235-242.
Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2006). Design-based research in science education: One step towards
methodology. NorDiNa, 4, 54-68.
Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-128.
Lai, G., Calandra, B., & Ma, Y. (2009). Leveraging the potential of design-based research to
improve reflective thinking in an educational assessment system. International Journal of
Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 119-137.
Luo, H. (2011). Qualitative research on educational technology: Philosophies, methods and
challenges. International Journal of Education, 3(2), 1-16.
Ma, Y., & Harmon, S. W. (2009). A case study of design-based research for creating a vision
prototype of a technology-based innovative learning environment. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 20(1), 75-93.
MacDonald, R. J. (2008). Professional development for information communication technology
integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based
research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 429-445.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.
Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.
Mantei, J. (2008, June). Using a design based research approach to explore the ways that primary
school teachers conceptualise authentic learning: A work in progress. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference, Wollongong: University of
Wollongong.
Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and
methodology. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
McKenney, S. E. (2001). Computer-based support for science education materials developers in
Africa: Exploring potentials. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente,
Enschede.
Migiro, S. O., & Magangi, B. A. (2011). Mixed methods: A review of literature and the future of
the new research paradigm. African Journal of Business Management, 5(10), 3757-3764.
Moore, T. W. (1982). Philosophy of Education : an introduction. London ; Boston: Routledge & K.
Paul.
Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing firm with
proteus. 4(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.
; International ed.). Boston, Mass; London: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.

11
ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

O’Donnell, A. M. (2004). A commentary on design research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 255-

260.
Parker, J. (2011). A design-based research approach for creating effective online higher education
courses. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Research Forum: Education Possibilities
(Western Australia Institute for Educational Research Inc), University of Notre Dame.
Fremantle.
Plomp, T. (2007). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
An introduction to educational design research. Enschede: SLO.
Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research (2nd ed.). London; New York: Continuum.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design
experiments” and other development research strategies. Paper presented at the
"International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century" a
Symposium sponsored by SIG/Instructional Technology at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van Den Akker, K.
Gravemeijer, S. Mckenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52-66):
Routledge.
Sari, E., & Lim, C. P. (2012). Design-based research: Understanding its application in a teacher
professional development study in Indonesia. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1),
28-38.
Schuh, K., & Barab, S. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van
Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications
and technology. New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education
design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientifc research in education. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253-
258.
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, N.
Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and
developmental research in education and trainin (pp. 1-14). The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology: Enhanced learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
White, J. D. (1999). Taking language seriously: The narrative foundations of public administration
research. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

12