Design-based implementation research

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 393-400

  Fishman, Barry ^a   Penuel, William ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049293411     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N., & Martin, C. K. (2014). The Digital Youth Network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
2. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
4. Donovan, M. S., Snow, C. E., & Daro, P. (2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, develop-ment, and implementation. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education) (pp. 400-425). New York: Teachers College Record.
5. Fishman, B., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., & Cheng, B. H. (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 2). New York: Teachers College Record.
6. Gomez, K., Kyza, E. A., & Mancevice, N. (2018), Participatory design and the learning sciences. In F. Fischer, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 401-409). New York: Routledge.
7. Hannan, M., Russell, J. L., Takahashi, S., & Park, S. (2015). Using improvement science to better support beginning teachers: The case of the Building a Teaching Effectiveness Network. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 494-508.
8. Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-23). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
9. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: When school reform collided with organizational culture and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.
10. Huizinga, T., Handelzaltz, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33-57.
11. Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 113-128. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_6
12. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
13. Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Research to support scaling up technology-based innovations. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 176-197). New York: Jossey-Bass.
14. O’Neill, D. K. (2016). When form follows fantasy: Lessons for learning scientists from modernist architecture and urban planning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 133-152. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2015.1094736
15. Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
16. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11421826
17. Penuel, W. R., Tatar, D., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 331-348.
18. Pinkard, N., Penuel, W. R., Dibi, O., Sultan, M. A., Quigley, D., Sumner, T., & Van Horne, K. (2016). Mapping and modeling the abundance, diversity, and accessibility of summer learning opportunities at the scale of a city. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
19. Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383-392). New York: Routledge.
20. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
22. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., & Knudsen, J. (2008). The role of scaling up research in designing for and evaluating robustness. Educational Studies of Mathematics, 68(2), 149-170.
23. Rosé, C.P. (2018). Learning analytics in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 511-519). New York: Routledge.
24. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
25. Schochet, P. Z. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of educational programs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62-87.
26. Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531-564. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541
27. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
28. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380-1400. doi: 10.1177/0002764213498851
29. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
30. Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344.
31. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refo-cusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
32. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps Toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large infor-mation spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134. doi: 10.1287/isre.7.1.111
33. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2006). Applied social research methods series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34. Vahey, P., Roy, G., & Fueyo, V. (2013). Sustainable use of dynamic representational environments: Toward a district-wide adoption of SimCalc-based materials. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Democratizing access to important mathematics through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the SimCalc research program (pp. 183-202). New York: Springer.
35. Voogt, J. M., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. E. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259-282.
36. Wentworth, L., Carranza, R., & Stipek, D. (2016). A university and district partnership closes the research-to-classroom gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 66-69.