Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Critical-Comparison-Of-Design-Based-R 👈

1. UCL IOE
MA Education and Technology
MA Task
Module: Research Methods
Week 4
Activity 1
A Critical Comparison of Design-Based Research and Action Research
Group B: Alexandros Xafopoulos, Alexa Joyce, Adam Briggs, Hayoung Lee
Module Leader: Dr Asimina Vasalou
London Knowledge Lab
London, UK
February 2015 (Updated)
1

2. A Critical Comparison of Design-Based Research (DBR) and Action Research (AR)
In the table below the DBR and AR approaches are explored, comparing objectives, strengths, and weaknesses. Consequently, key
similarities and differences between them are highlighted. For each point source references are provided.
Table 1. DBR and AR Comparison
DBR AR
Synonyms (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16; Wang & Hannafin,
2005, p. 7)
• Also termed or highly related to Design (Science)
Research and Development Research.
Kind (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16-17)
Social and Educational Applied Research Approach
Introduction (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16)
● Ann Brown, 1992
(Cole et al., 2005, p. 326)
● Kurt Lewin, 1946
Objectives (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 6)
● Aims to improve educational practices through
iterative analysis, design, development, and
implementation.
(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, pp. 16-17)
● Design improving research and both improving
practice and creating contextualised design
principles driving the next iteration.
(Waters-Adams, 2006)
● Addresses real-life problems and demands
change through research processes.
Strengths (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p.6)
● Enables rapid prototyping of a specific product,
followed by frequent refinements.
(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 17)
● Requirement to develop practical design
principles.
● Complementary collaborative partnership
between qualified educators and researchers-
designers.
(Waters-Adams, 2006)
● Encourages professional development by
supporting reflective critical practice.
● Investigates issues in such a way that
research results can be acted upon to effect
change.
(O'Leary, 2014, p.168)
● Effective strategy transforming both theory
and practice.
2

3. (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 4 Table 1)
● Social engagement: Complex social interactions
among designers, educators, learners, and
researchers including collaboration and sharing.
● Roles and participants: Active roles of different
kinds of participants influencing the design.
(Bergold & Thomas, 2012, p. 5)
● Democratizes and increases practitioners’
participation in and control on research.
Weaknesses (Anderson & Shattuck 2012, p.18)
● Possibly lengthy process due to its iterative
nature involving high time commitment with
multiple repeated iterations.
(Wang & Hannafin, 2005)
● Presence of researchers in the learning
environment throughout the process possibly
perceived as distraction or intrusion rather than
contribution (p. 19).
● Possible unwillingness of educators and
administrators to engage in and adopt new
approaches requiring extra time, expenses, and
efforts (p. 19).
● Possible unintentional influence in the learning
process and research outcome, such as,
Hawthorne or observer effects, from the
researcher-designer's pervasive presence (p.
20).
● Low utilisation of extensive and comprehensive
data (p. 20).
(Cole et al., 2005, p. 333)
● Lack of a clear stage for reflection.
(The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 7)
● A single complex intervention involves many
collective design, research, and practice
decisions.
● Difficulty in maintaining a productive collaborative
partnership.
(Brown, 2002, p.15)
● Lack of distance from the researched
situation to attain an unbiased viewpoint.
● Conflicts between researching and educating
objectives and practices.
● Increased time commitment to perform both
teaching and research procedures, such as,
data collection, processing, and
interpretation.
(Waters-Adams, 2006)
● Difficulty in maintaining rigour due to time
constraints.
● Action researchers are not typically full time
researchers and thus may not implement
methods effectively.
● Results are not easily generalised or
transferred.
(Cole et al., 2005, p. 333)
● Rare contributions toward theory building.
Similarities (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 4 Table 1)
● Environment: Real-world learning or social.
3

4. ● Complexity of variables: Multiple types of interacting, possibly interdependent, variables in the
environment.
● Treatment of variables: Not all domain variables known in advance and static; possibility of their
emergence during the study.
● Degree of flexibility: High with evolution of formative procedures.
● Characterisation of findings: Development of a practical design profile.
(Bergold & Thomas, 2012)
● Necessity of material support (Section 4.1).
● Demanding the possession and acquisition of a multitude of competences (Section 4.2)
● High degree and importance of spiral collaboration and critical reflection (Section 4.3).
● Data collection: Frequent use of interviews and focus groups (Section 4.4).
● Serious ethical and political considerations in need of consent (Section 4.8).
(Blaxter, 2010)
● Paradigm: Critical; improvement drives research (p. 62).
(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012)
● Ontology: Pragmatism; utility defines truth (p. 17).
● Epistemology: Largely agnostic, based on practical evidence (p. 17).
● Methodology: Typically multiple and mixed methods including triangulation and fostering reliability; mostly
non-replicable (p.17).
● Design process: Iterative refinement of prototypes based in authentic practice (p. 17).
● Very appropriate for technological interventions and artifacts (p.24).
Differences (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012)
● The design focus and basis in DBR; the action in AR (p. 16).
● In AR the educators also full, but of questionable expertise, researchers and designers assisted by
experienced researchers-designers. In DBR complementary collaborative partnership between qualified
educators and researchers-designers (p. 17).
● In DBR the theory-building phase and process more powerful than in AR; in AR the reflection ones more
powerful than in DBR (p. 17).
● DBR newer but probably more increasingly utilised than AR (p. 24).
(Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 5)
● In DBR design advancement of a practice-oriented theoretical agenda uncovering theoretical
relationships.
(Munn-Giddings, 2012, p. 72)
4

5. ● AR not necessarily collaborative although collabaratively-oriented; possibility of individual research.
5

6. References
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational researcher,
41(1), pp. 16-25.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), pp. 1-
14.
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum Qualitative Social
Research, 13(1), pp. 191-222.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to research. 4th edn. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Brown, B. L. (2002). Improving teaching practices through action research. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. (2005). Being proactive: where action research meets design research. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems ICIS 2005, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 325-336.
Munn-Giddings, C. (2012). ‘Action research’. In: Arthur J., Waring M., Coe R. & Hedges L. (eds.) Research Methods and Methodologies in
Education. London, UK: Sage, pp. 71-75.
O'Leary Z. (2014). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. 2nd edn. London: Sage.
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003) Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry, Educational
Researcher, 32(1), pp. 5-8.
Wang, F. & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 53(4).
Waters-Adams, S. (2006) Action Research in Education. [online] Available
at: http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm [Accessed 3 Feb. 2015].
6