Design Research in Education: Yes, but is it Methodological?

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 115-128

  Kelly, Anthony ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1042291402     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_6     Document Type: Note

References (49)

1. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework. Educational Researcher, 32, 21-24.
2. Barab, S.A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (in press). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns.Educational Technology Research & Development.
3. Bennett, J. H. (Ed.), (1990). Statistical methods, experimental design, and scientific inference: R. A. Fisher. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Cline, H. F., & Mandinach, E. B. (2000) The corruption of a research design: A case study of a curriculum innovation project. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 169-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. C. Lageman & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Confrey, J., Bell, K., & Carrejo, D. (2001). Systemic crossfire: What implementation research reveals about urban reform in mathematics. Article presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. WA.
9. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8.
12. Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York: Pedigree.
13. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
14. English, R. E., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(1), 23-42.
15. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group, (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (Eds.), (1997). Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M., (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181(2), 25-55.
18. Holton, G. (1998). The scientific imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Hulse, R. (2003). Scientific discovery. Presentation at the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
20. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-4.
21. Kelly, A. E., & Sloane, F. C. (2003). Educational research and the problems of practice. Irish Educational Studies, 22, 29-40.
22. Lesh, R. A., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multi-tiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
24. Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. The Journal of Mathematical Thinking, 21(1), 87-116.
25. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2002). Developing understanding of ratio as measure as a foundation for slope. In B. Litwiller (Ed.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 Yearbook (pp. 162-175). Reston, VA: NCTM.
26. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (1998). The progress portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classrom context. In Proceedings of CHI '98 (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
27. Mandinach, E. B, & Cline, H. F (2000). It won't happen soon: Practical, curricular, and methodological problems in implementing technology-based constructivist approaches in classrooms (with H.F. Cline). In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. II, pp.377-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. Martinez, M. E., Whang, K., & Hamilton, E. (2003). ROLE and the controversy of theory versus practice. Article presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
29. McCandliss, P. D., Kalchman, M., & Bryant, P. (2003). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 14-16.
30. McClain, K. (2002). Teacher's and student's understanding: The role of tools ad inscriptions in supporting effective communication. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 217-249.
31. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). The development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 234-266.
32. Medawar, P. B. (1991). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In D. Pyke (Ed.), The threat and the glory: Reflections on science and scientists (pp. 228-233). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33. Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (Eds.), (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings.
34. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. OECD. (2002). Understanding the brain. Toward a new learning science. Paris: OECD.
37. Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
38. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mind sets and new directions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(1), 67-80. (Formative research is discussed on pp. 71-73.)
39. Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
41. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Educational technology and mathematics and science for the 21st century (pp. 47-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Runkel, P., & McGrath, J. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
43. Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32, 25-28.
44. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambride, MA: MIT Press.
45. Sloane, F. C., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29-31.
46. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E.Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
48. van den Akker, J. J. H., Branch, R. M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (Eds.), (1999). Design approaches and tools in education and training. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. See, i.e, http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/8788/DR.html.
49. Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers. E., & O'Neill, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences: A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32-34.