Design-based research (DBR) is a diversified research genre: The combination of two worlds – that of research and that of education – and the different backgrounds and intentions of those involved entail different emphases, epistemological ideas, ideas on valuable outcomes and normative claims. This becomes visible in very different kinds of reasoning: No uniform structure of argumentation can be discerned, and so far, a differentiation into clear DBR types has not been convincingly achieved. This is a challenge for the orientation of DBR novices, the quality review of DBR studies, and the legitimation of DBR in the field of educational research. This article provides an empirical contribution to the discussion on argumentation: In a literature review, DBR studies are examined regarding their outcomes, the rationales authors use to justify their outcomes and indications for specific challenges in DBR reasoning. The analysis confirms for the sample that preliminary, prescriptive theory is most common alongside diverse practical outcomes. Authors often justify them with emphasis on variation, iteration, cooperation, and data triangulation. Different (standard) orientations, multi-level reasoning, and sub-studies present challenges for authors and readers, going back to the complexity of DBR projects. To justify their results in a comprehensible way, authors are confronted with the task to actively select an argumentation strategy.
{"title":"Knowledge generation between design, data and theory","authors":"A. Brase","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2125","url":null,"abstract":"Design-based research (DBR) is a diversified research genre: The combination of two worlds – that of research and that of education – and the different backgrounds and intentions of those involved entail different emphases, epistemological ideas, ideas on valuable outcomes and normative claims. This becomes visible in very different kinds of reasoning: No uniform structure of argumentation can be discerned, and so far, a differentiation into clear DBR types has not been convincingly achieved. This is a challenge for the orientation of DBR novices, the quality review of DBR studies, and the legitimation of DBR in the field of educational research. This article provides an empirical contribution to the discussion on argumentation: In a literature review, DBR studies are examined regarding their outcomes, the rationales authors use to justify their outcomes and indications for specific challenges in DBR reasoning. The analysis confirms for the sample that preliminary, prescriptive theory is most common alongside diverse practical outcomes. Authors often justify them with emphasis on variation, iteration, cooperation, and data triangulation. Different (standard) orientations, multi-level reasoning, and sub-studies present challenges for authors and readers, going back to the complexity of DBR projects. To justify their results in a comprehensible way, authors are confronted with the task to actively select an argumentation strategy.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140428971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Within Design Based Research (DBR), designing and implementing an intervention in order to improve an educational practice become part of the research process. This represents a unique feature of DBR. Though the innovative nature of DBR raises questions that have not yet been answered. This paper focuses on the extent to which systematicity, as principle of scientific research, and openness, as essential prerequisite of teaching practice, can be both fulfilled within the implementation phase of DBR studies. By presenting an investigation in the field of German as a foreign language I will offer an example of the challenges that researchers face regarding the tension between systematicity and openness. Besides the discussion about DBR standards, the aim of this paper is to delineate concrete requirements for the further development of this research approach. Guidelines helping researchers to use DBR appropriately represent an important step which could clarify still controversial aspects of DBR and also lead to an increase in its use. In this paper, I suggest that concepts discussed within the implementation research, like for instance Fidelity of Implementation, can help to develop such guidelines.
{"title":"Is this systematic enough? Systematicity and openness in the implementation phase of DBR","authors":"Silvia Introna","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2161","url":null,"abstract":"Within Design Based Research (DBR), designing and implementing an intervention in order to improve an educational practice become part of the research process. This represents a unique feature of DBR. Though the innovative nature of DBR raises questions that have not yet been answered. This paper focuses on the extent to which systematicity, as principle of scientific research, and openness, as essential prerequisite of teaching practice, can be both fulfilled within the implementation phase of DBR studies. By presenting an investigation in the field of German as a foreign language I will offer an example of the challenges that researchers face regarding the tension between systematicity and openness. Besides the discussion about DBR standards, the aim of this paper is to delineate concrete requirements for the further development of this research approach. Guidelines helping researchers to use DBR appropriately represent an important step which could clarify still controversial aspects of DBR and also lead to an increase in its use. In this paper, I suggest that concepts discussed within the implementation research, like for instance Fidelity of Implementation, can help to develop such guidelines.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140430989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The editorial introduces the special issue Knowledge by Design in Education: Key challenges and experiences from research practice, posing key questions, offering an insight into ongoing discussions, and presenting an overview of the included articles.
{"title":"Knowledge by Design in Education","authors":"A. Brase, Tobias Jenert","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2213","url":null,"abstract":"The editorial introduces the special issue Knowledge by Design in Education: Key challenges and experiences from research practice, posing key questions, offering an insight into ongoing discussions, and presenting an overview of the included articles.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140431397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Matthew W. Easterday, Christopher K. Riesbeck
Educational Design Research (EDeR) methodologists argue that iteration is a core component of EDeR. Iteration is currently defined as a process of gathering more information through actions, such as testing, and using that information to improve the design. In this paper, we seek to tighten the definition of iteration to help EDeR teams conduct iterations more effectively. We argue that EDeR teams should organize their research in slices that deliver small but real value to end users while informing the design research. EDeR should pick slices that are: (a) minimal and focused, (b) deployed in a real context, (c) valuable to the end users, and (d) informative to the research. Slicing helps EDeR teams increase ecological validity when they test because it allows testing which is within real-world educational contexts or with the stakeholders who will use and be impacted by the design. Increasing ecological validity of testing is particularly important because EDeR projects tackle highly complex real-world problems with many unknown elements and relational complexity—this means it is challenging to predict what designs will have the desired impact without real-world deployment. Effective iteration through organizing research in slices helps EDeR teams to better support stakeholder goals, develop more impactful theory, and have greater and earlier impact upon education.
教育设计研究（EDeR）方法论专家认为，迭代是教育设计研究的核心组成部分。目前，迭代被定义为通过测试等行动收集更多信息，并利用这些信息改进设计的过程。在本文中，我们试图收紧迭代的定义，以帮助 EDeR 团队更有效地进行迭代。我们认为，EDeR 团队应在为设计研究提供信息的同时，组织切片研究，为最终用户提供微小但真实的价值。EDeR 应选择以下切片：(a) 最小且重点突出；(b) 在真实环境中部署；(c) 对最终用户有价值；(d) 为研究提供信息。切片有助于教育电子化研究团队在测试时提高生态有效性，因为它允许在真实的教育环境中或与将使用设计并受其影响的利益相关者一起进行测试。提高测试的生态有效性尤为重要，因为教育电子化研究项目要解决的是高度复杂的现实世界问题，其中有许多未知因素和复杂关系--这意味着，在没有实际部署的情况下，预测什么样的设计会产生预期的影响具有挑战性。通过分片组织研究进行有效迭代，有助于教育电子化研究团队更好地支持利益相关者的目标，开发更有影响力的理论，并对教育产生更大、更早的影响。
{"title":"Research Slices","authors":"Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Matthew W. Easterday, Christopher K. Riesbeck","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2127","url":null,"abstract":"Educational Design Research (EDeR) methodologists argue that iteration is a core component of EDeR. Iteration is currently defined as a process of gathering more information through actions, such as testing, and using that information to improve the design. In this paper, we seek to tighten the definition of iteration to help EDeR teams conduct iterations more effectively. We argue that EDeR teams should organize their research in slices that deliver small but real value to end users while informing the design research. EDeR should pick slices that are: (a) minimal and focused, (b) deployed in a real context, (c) valuable to the end users, and (d) informative to the research. Slicing helps EDeR teams increase ecological validity when they test because it allows testing which is within real-world educational contexts or with the stakeholders who will use and be impacted by the design. Increasing ecological validity of testing is particularly important because EDeR projects tackle highly complex real-world problems with many unknown elements and relational complexity—this means it is challenging to predict what designs will have the desired impact without real-world deployment. Effective iteration through organizing research in slices helps EDeR teams to better support stakeholder goals, develop more impactful theory, and have greater and earlier impact upon education.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140428667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The interaction of scientists and practitioners is an essential component within Design-Based Research. Their close collaboration is assumed to hold the potential to increase the quality of both the innovative solution of educational problems and the generation of scientific knowledge. At the same time, there are some challenges associated with realizing this potential. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges of collaboration between researchers and practitioners in DBR projects. After a broader description of the problem situation, an in-depth discussion of the interests, perspectives, and frame conditions of the project actors from science and practice takes place using the example of the determination of project goals. The paper ends with the recommendation of design principles for the cooperation of scientists and practitioners.
{"title":"How to align objectives of practitioners and scientists in DBR projects?","authors":"Dieter Euler","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2131","url":null,"abstract":"The interaction of scientists and practitioners is an essential component within Design-Based Research. Their close collaboration is assumed to hold the potential to increase the quality of both the innovative solution of educational problems and the generation of scientific knowledge. At the same time, there are some challenges associated with realizing this potential. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges of collaboration between researchers and practitioners in DBR projects. After a broader description of the problem situation, an in-depth discussion of the interests, perspectives, and frame conditions of the project actors from science and practice takes place using the example of the determination of project goals. The paper ends with the recommendation of design principles for the cooperation of scientists and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140429433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article intends to provide answers to the overarching question of how theories, which are transferred into concrete design principles, develop in a DBR process. Theories from three completed DBR projects in geography didactics will be examined regarding their genesis in the research process and their function in individual phases of a DBR cycle. The chosen theories differ in scope, depth and empirical saturation. The aim is to analyse the role that these theories take in the DBR research process and to discuss them in terms of their contribution to the output of DBR projects and a possible generalisability of the findings. Finally, the results of the analyses are synthesised into a model for theory genesis in DBR projects.
{"title":"Theory genesis in the design-based research process – a subject didactic view on theory application, verification and development by using design principles","authors":"Barbara Feulner, Jan Hiller, Pola Serwene","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2128","url":null,"abstract":"This article intends to provide answers to the overarching question of how theories, which are transferred into concrete design principles, develop in a DBR process. Theories from three completed DBR projects in geography didactics will be examined regarding their genesis in the research process and their function in individual phases of a DBR cycle. The chosen theories differ in scope, depth and empirical saturation. The aim is to analyse the role that these theories take in the DBR research process and to discuss them in terms of their contribution to the output of DBR projects and a possible generalisability of the findings. Finally, the results of the analyses are synthesised into a model for theory genesis in DBR projects.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140429427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Design research in education pursues two goals simultaneously: the development of a design and a local theory that clarifies how the design can achieve the intended effects and under what conditions. The results are obtained in an iterative cyclical process including both the implementation of the design and the research on its implementation. Each cycle contains a prospective phase, in which the design is determined, and a reflective phase, in which the implementation of the design is examined. The nested connection of theory and design development leads to a reciprocal relationship between the two final products. This article introduces an example of design research from mathematics education, in which an online summer school for doctoral students was to be framed in response to the sudden lockdown situation at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. At short notice, the original summer school was moved into the virtual space of a digital conference system resulting in new framework conditions; previous design principles were adapted and a rhythmical organization of space and time was theorized and implemented. Rhythm analyses show that design decisions to realize ontological, epistemological and axiological commitments intertwined and thus fostered students’ interactive learning processes. Consequently, the suggestion is made to merge the three commitments into a three-dimensional framework concept of ethico-onto-epistemological commitments. Such a framework concept would have the function of reconciling ethical, ontological and epistemological dimensions in design research in the pursuit of robust teaching-learning processes and incorporating the ethical responsibilities of design researchers conceptually for both design and local theory.
{"title":"Design research on an online summer school in mathematics education","authors":"A. Bikner-Ahsbahs","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2129","url":null,"abstract":"Design research in education pursues two goals simultaneously: the development of a design and a local theory that clarifies how the design can achieve the intended effects and under what conditions. The results are obtained in an iterative cyclical process including both the implementation of the design and the research on its implementation. Each cycle contains a prospective phase, in which the design is determined, and a reflective phase, in which the implementation of the design is examined. The nested connection of theory and design development leads to a reciprocal relationship between the two final products.\u0000This article introduces an example of design research from mathematics education, in which an online summer school for doctoral students was to be framed in response to the sudden lockdown situation at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. At short notice, the original summer school was moved into the virtual space of a digital conference system resulting in new framework conditions; previous design principles were adapted and a rhythmical organization of space and time was theorized and implemented. Rhythm analyses show that design decisions to realize ontological, epistemological and axiological commitments intertwined and thus fostered students’ interactive learning processes. Consequently, the suggestion is made to merge the three commitments into a three-dimensional framework concept of ethico-onto-epistemological commitments. Such a framework concept would have the function of reconciling ethical, ontological and epistemological dimensions in design research in the pursuit of robust teaching-learning processes and incorporating the ethical responsibilities of design researchers conceptually for both design and local theory.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140430820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although generating empirically grounded theoretical contributions has been an essential aim of design research from the beginning, the underlying methodology has been described as in need for further elaboration with respect to rigor. Existing methodological elaborations on theorizing in design research often focus on argumentative grammar of strengthening prescriptive conjectures. Beyond these, this paper argues that prescriptive theory elements require generating categorial, descriptive, and explanatory theory elements before the suggested argumentative grammars can be treated. With an example from a design research study for professional development, the immense work of elaborating categorial and explanatory theory elements is illustrated that is needed before concise prescriptive conjectures can be made and tested.
{"title":"Conjecturing is not all","authors":"Susanne Prediger","doi":"10.15460/eder.8.1.2120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2120","url":null,"abstract":"Although generating empirically grounded theoretical contributions has been an essential aim of design research from the beginning, the underlying methodology has been described as in need for further elaboration with respect to rigor. Existing methodological elaborations on theorizing in design research often focus on argumentative grammar of strengthening prescriptive conjectures. Beyond these, this paper argues that prescriptive theory elements require generating categorial, descriptive, and explanatory theory elements before the suggested argumentative grammars can be treated. With an example from a design research study for professional development, the immense work of elaborating categorial and explanatory theory elements is illustrated that is needed before concise prescriptive conjectures can be made and tested.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140431038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jens-Ole Jensen, Hanne Hede Jørgensen, Anne-Lene Sand, Janne Hedegaard Hansen, Andreas Lieberoth, Helle Maria Skovbjerg
Many school-age children have difficulties participating in play and need support to find playmates, take the initiative and structure play. If children do not master these competencies, they risk ending up in a spiral in which they are not given the opportunity to practice playing and develop play competencies. The purpose of the present study is to investigate how design principles in three different play types can be formulated in order to support pedagogues (educators) in developing new play activities with significant potential for participation. In addition, how these design principles cover more general and generic principles are scrutinized. This paper is based on a three-year design-based research study in two Danish schools investigating three play types: creative play, role play and movement play. It also presents four design principles on each play type which were found to support the development of new play activities with inclusive potential. As a theoretical contribution, the design principles of each play type are meta-analysed with the goal of helping pedagogues generate play activities with different participation possibilities. The generic design principles are the essence of play, play practices, play materials and play opportunities for participation.
{"title":"Play Types, Design Principles and Participation in Play","authors":"Jens-Ole Jensen, Hanne Hede Jørgensen, Anne-Lene Sand, Janne Hedegaard Hansen, Andreas Lieberoth, Helle Maria Skovbjerg","doi":"10.15460/eder.7.1.1978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.7.1.1978","url":null,"abstract":"Many school-age children have difficulties participating in play and need support to find playmates, take the initiative and structure play. If children do not master these competencies, they risk ending up in a spiral in which they are not given the opportunity to practice playing and develop play competencies. The purpose of the present study is to investigate how design principles in three different play types can be formulated in order to support pedagogues (educators) in developing new play activities with significant potential for participation. In addition, how these design principles cover more general and generic principles are scrutinized. \u0000This paper is based on a three-year design-based research study in two Danish schools investigating three play types: creative play, role play and movement play. It also presents four design principles on each play type which were found to support the development of new play activities with inclusive potential. As a theoretical contribution, the design principles of each play type are meta-analysed with the goal of helping pedagogues generate play activities with different participation possibilities. The generic design principles are the essence of play, play practices, play materials and play opportunities for participation.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138953413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Der Fokus des Beitrags liegt auf der Deutung von Design-Based Research (DBR) als eigenes Forschungsparadigma. Ich möchte zeigen, inwiefern DBR als Research Through Design (RTD) paradigmatischen Charakter hat und sich in dieser Form besonders für hochschuldidaktische Forschung eignet. Darauf aufbauend werde ich Qualitätsstandards vorschlagen, die spezifisch für DBR als RTD sind[1]. In meinem Vorgehen hin zu diesem Ziel spielt die designwissenschaftliche Forschung und deren Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen Formen des Forschens einschließlich Fragen der Qualität eine zentrale Rolle. Auch in den Designwissenschaften existieren verschiedene Vorstellungen davon, welche Rolle Design in der Forschung spielen kann; RTD ist hier ebenfalls nur eine davon. In Verbindung mit der Auffassung, dass das Lehren (an Hochschulen) als Design bzw. Entwurfshandeln verstanden werden kann, hat die designwissenschaftliche Debatte um RTD, so die diesem Text zugrundeliegende These, nicht nur analoge, sondern auch direkte Relevanz für DBR in der Hochschuldidaktik. Mit dem resultierenden Vorschlag spezifizierter Qualitätsstandards für DBR als RTD in der Hochschuldidaktik möchte ich dazu beitragen, DBR in der Hochschulbildungsforschung zu etablieren, Forschenden in diesem Bereich eine Orientierung zu geben und DBR für den Kontext Hochschullehre besser lehrbar zu machen.
{"title":"Design-Based Research (DBR) als Research Through Design (RTD)","authors":"G. Reinmann","doi":"10.15460/eder.7.1.2089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.7.1.2089","url":null,"abstract":"Der Fokus des Beitrags liegt auf der Deutung von Design-Based Research (DBR) als eigenes Forschungsparadigma. Ich möchte zeigen, inwiefern DBR als Research Through Design (RTD) paradigmatischen Charakter hat und sich in dieser Form besonders für hochschuldidaktische Forschung eignet. Darauf aufbauend werde ich Qualitätsstandards vorschlagen, die spezifisch für DBR als RTD sind[1]. In meinem Vorgehen hin zu diesem Ziel spielt die designwissenschaftliche Forschung und deren Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen Formen des Forschens einschließlich Fragen der Qualität eine zentrale Rolle. Auch in den Designwissenschaften existieren verschiedene Vorstellungen davon, welche Rolle Design in der Forschung spielen kann; RTD ist hier ebenfalls nur eine davon. In Verbindung mit der Auffassung, dass das Lehren (an Hochschulen) als Design bzw. Entwurfshandeln verstanden werden kann, hat die designwissenschaftliche Debatte um RTD, so die diesem Text zugrundeliegende These, nicht nur analoge, sondern auch direkte Relevanz für DBR in der Hochschuldidaktik. Mit dem resultierenden Vorschlag spezifizierter Qualitätsstandards für DBR als RTD in der Hochschuldidaktik möchte ich dazu beitragen, DBR in der Hochschulbildungsforschung zu etablieren, Forschenden in diesem Bereich eine Orientierung zu geben und DBR für den Kontext Hochschullehre besser lehrbar zu machen.","PeriodicalId":145708,"journal":{"name":"EDeR. Educational Design Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138950945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：