Design Based Research (DBR) as Research Methodology

partnership between these two parties. Partnership with a local practitioner is important in order to ascertain how much freedom is allowed in a curriculum while ensuring the feasibility of the initial framework. Apparently, the local PBL practitioners know more about the complexity of the culture, objective, mission and vision of operating an educational intervention. On the other hand, a researcher/designer is well-trained to conduct rigorous research. Therefore, it is imperative that both parties collaborate for the PBL design affect changes in the real-world context. Theoretical contribution in DBR involves developing practical design principles– a key strength of the methodology compared to other research approaches. An action research, on the other hand, does not aim for theoretical contribution since it focuses on solving classroom problems.

DBR and experimental research are highly associated since the former’s inception as a research methodology in 1992. The DBR initiator, Brown, (1992) has expressed her dissatisfaction towards the experimental approach that is limited to explain or predict learning in classrooms. As she proposed, the important challenge is to develop a methodology of experiment interventions that aims to develop theories of teaching and learning from multiple interaction of people in a complex social settings. Likewise, Collins et al. (2004) have contrasted experimental research and DBR from several aspects. An experimental research typically involves a single dependent measure while a DBR use multiple dependent measures because the latter’s findings are the result of multiple interaction of measures. The research procedures in experimental research are fixed but the process in DBR is very flexible and interactive because the latter emphasises on adaptation to local conditions. In an experimental research, the researchers made all the decisions while in DBR, decisions are mutually developed from the interaction and collaboration between the researcher, the practitioner or even the participants of the study.

The following section describes DBR as a research methodology in this research.

2.3 Design Based Research (DBR) as Research Methodology

Research methodology is a plan or framework for a study. It is used as a guide from broad assumption to detailed methods of data collection and analysis. The Design Based

Research (DBR) is deemed a feasible methodology to address concerns of designing and enacting of teaching and learning innovation like the PBL–a practice that is theoretically grounded and co-constructed in a real-world context. The methodology involves

24

scrutinizing the research objectives that involve the interplay between change in the real world learning environment on one side, and the emphasis on the rigorous educational research on the other. Wang and Hannafin (2005) defined DBR as:

A systematic and flexible research framework that aims to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development and implementation, particularly by collaborating researchers and practitioners in a real world setting.

According to DBR advocates (e.g: Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, Barab and Squire, 2004, and Wang and Hannafin, 2005), the underlying assumption of DBR is that learning varies according to the environment in which it takes place. The DBR

emphasises on local learning environment and contributes to a more practical and relevant practice by allowing educational researchers to systematically design, implement and evaluate a teaching and learning approach in a real-world setting (Hung, 2011). Brown (1992) and Collins (1992) are widely recognized as early contributors to the DBR describe it as a methodology that requires:

i. Highlighting complex problem in real context in collaboration with practitioners

ii. Integrating known hypothetical design principles to obtain plausible solutions to the complex problems; and

iii. Conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning environments and to define new design principles

As a result, the gap between theory and practice is narrow, which simultaneously sustains the research rigour and new pedagogical practice. O´Donnell (2004) has summarized factors that contribute to the emergence of DBR as a methodology of researching new practice in a classroom, which include:

i. The need to measure higher order cognitive process such as reasoning and metacognition

ii. Change in the learning theories that demand a better methods to study higher order processes and instructional methods

iii. Concern of educational research that more relevant and contribute to the educational improvement.

25 DBR increases the relevance of learning research in a classroom since it emphasises on addressing the contextual elements from the begging of the research phase. The central focus of DBR is the understanding of the real-world practice, with the research context being the core part of the story. As a methodological approach, DBR is discussed in different journals: Educational Researcher (see e.g. Shavelson et al. 2003; Cobb et al.

2003), Educational Psychologist (see e.g: Hoadley 2004; Sandoval and Bell, 2004) and Journal of the Learning Sciences (see e.g. Collins et al. 2004; Barab and Squire 2004) and in a book chapter (see e.g. Reimann, 2011).

These studies proposed numerous number of phases, variety methods and levels of data collection, and approaches to data analysis according to the specific research phase to reflect the different aims of each phase. For example, Collins et al. (2004) has proposed six phases: implementing a design, modifying a design, multiple ways of analysing the design, measuring dependent variable, measuring independent variable and reporting on design research.

Reeves (2006) has translated DBR methodology into four phases: analysis of practical problems by researcher and practitioner in collaboration, development of solution informed by existing design principles and technological innovations, iterative cycles of testing and refinement of solution in practice, and reflection to produce design principles and enhance solution implementation.

In contrast, Reimann (2011) defined DBR methodology into three phases: preparation for the experiment, the experiment phase and phase of retrospective analysis. Across these proposals of DBR methodology, it can be concluded that the data that contribute to contextual understanding are most likely emphasised in the earlier phase of the study;

whereas data on prototype characteristics or user reactions are most likely collected later during the implementation phase.

As for this research, the phases is divided into three design phases: Compiling Initial Findings for the PBL Design, Developing the PBL Designs for Malaysia Setting and Implementing the PBL Designs in Malaysia Setting. Theoretical, practical and contextual understandings of the PBL implementation were deemed important in the first design phase. These understandings, along with the alignment of curriculum and course analysis,

26

would contribute to the development of the PBL designs in the second design phase. The PBL designs would be enacted in the Malaysian teacher education context through the third design phase, the PBL designs implementations phase. The activity during this phase focuses on data collection and analysis that runs simultaneously to elicit

information on the design and students’ learning. The design phases were aligned to the research questions, data collection and data analysis as depicted in Table 5:

27

Table 5: Methodological alignment of Design Based Research (DBR)

Design Phase Research Question Data collection Data analysis

Phase 1:

Compiling Initial Findings for the PBL Design

1. What is the present knowledge of the impact, potentials and constraints of implementing PBL in Malaysia and in teacher education?

(Theory) Literature review on:

 PBL implementation in Malaysia

 PBL implementation in teacher education

Literature review

(Practice) PBL case at Aalborg University (AAU):

 Interview

3. What are the potentials and constraints for the

PBL design implementation and data collection that involves:

28

As shown in Table 5, this research was divided into three design phases:

1) The first phase was Compiling Initial Findings for the PBL Design, which aimed to provide initial findings that served as a foundation to develop the PBL designs.

2) The second phase was Developing the PBL Designs for Malaysia Setting, which aimed to develop a PBL design for the Malaysian teacher education context.

3) The third phase was Implementing the PBL Designs in Malaysia Setting, which aimed to enact the PBL designs in the Malaysian teacher education context (further discussion on the process and procedures involved in each design phase can be found in Chapter 3, PBL Design Development and Implementation).

Relationship between the design phases and the research questions was not linear in the sense that the former was devoted to answering the latter (except for the first research question). Instead, two design phases may be required to answer a research question, or one particular design phase is sufficient to answer two research questions. As depicted in Table 5, the first research question was answered in the first design phase. The completion of the first and second design phase was required in order to answer the second research question since the design activity in the second phase was developed from the outcome of the first design phase. The third and the fourth research questions were answered in the third design phase since both questions enquired on the potentials, constraints and impact of the PBL design during implementation.

The research has employed a variety of data collection and data analysis methods to answer the research questions. The data analysis was coincided with the data collection in order to drive forward multiple cycle of testings and design optimisations. For the first research question,

literature review and best PBL practice in Aalborg University (AAU) were conducted to determine the impact, potential and constraints from both theoretical (literature review) and practical (PBL case at AAU) perspectives. This was aligned with the DBR methodology that emphasises on both theory and practice during the initial design stage. There was no specific data collection and analysis carried out to answer the second research question. However, the initial findings that was developed during the first design phase has served as a foundation to develop the PBL during the design activities in the second design phase. Therefore, both design phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2) were collectively accountable to answer the second research question. For the third and the fourth research questions, the research has employed observation, student written reflection, interview and

29 questionnaire to provide insights on constraints, possibilities and impact of the PBL design during the third design phase. It is worth mentioned here that from the begging of the design phase (Phase 1), the partnership between researcher and the local PBL practitioner was established in efforts to contextualise the PBL designs. Data collection and analysis were further discussed in the following section.