EDUCATIONAL DESIGN RESEARCH

As the domain of education has a particular history with a plurality, differences and contingency, educational research must be able to accommodate the complexity within the research design (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010; Lehmann-Rommel, 2000). As described in the previous section, the epistemology of pragmatism serves in this context as a consensual method of using philosophy that seeks to transcend these many dualisms as a result of contingency (Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011; Kjær, 2010). This means that the research process must be able to accommodate situations characterised by process awareness, unpredictability, differences, diversity and contingency (Lehmann-Rommel, 2000). The choice of pragmatism as the epistemological basis, therefore, sets the agenda for the scientific process, which will thus be about finding clues that disturb the immediate understanding of the context as an engine for further development (Frega, 2011; Godfrey-Smith et al., 2015; Kjær, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).

With the pragmatic understanding of knowledge as temporary and contextually determined like “a moving whole of interacting parts”, Educational Design Research offers a design method capable of connecting theory and practice through inquiry (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Educational Design Research is traditionally defined as being “a methodology designed by and for educators that seek to increase the impact, transfer and translation of education research into improved practice” (Anderson &

Shattuck, 2012, p. 16). This means that Educational Design Research contains three epistemological cultural and traditional understandings: conducting research, creating a usable design and establishing a sustainable change in the field. Also, the method is not explicitly focused on a desire to create context-free generalisations (Akkerman &

Bronkhorst, 2013; Barab & Squire, 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004; Kelly, 2006).

As McKenney and Reeves (2013) state, it is not so much the method as the goals that set Educational Design Research apart from other genres of research (Kelly, 2006;

McKenney & Reeves, 2013). It is, therefore, a methodology that links several theoretical perspectives and research paradigms to bridge the gap between educational research and practice through the following three design levels: (1) educational research, (2) educational design, and (3) educational change. Initially, the three positions enrich each other as the educational theories and concepts serve as operational tools in the development of educational design (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013). These designs subsequently become tools for establishing an educational change, a change that will ultimately be the object of analysis. In practice, however, this is not a linear development but rather a process characterised by being contradictory, chaotic and iterative (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Barab & Squire, 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004; Kelly, 2006).

Development and testing of experimental designs or prototypes through a systematic approach, therefore, have a central focus. McKenney and Reeves (2013) point out that it is particularly about addressing both scientific and practical issues. Thus, an Educational Design Research project must be based on a robust theoretical insight to ensure that designs are developed based on existing theory and other research and thereby minimise the risk of speculative projects that are not reliable, legitimate or effective. The focus of the analysis in the process is, therefore, the relationship between the intended, the implemented and the realised design where the generated data must be able to determine the difference between the three previously described design levels (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Barab & Squire, 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004;

Nieveen et al., 2006).

This means that the PhD project in its analytical phase uses the abductive analysis process based on elements from both induction and deduction (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The abductive method looks at theories and data as developing entities and thus, according to Haig (2008), becomes a method for theories in the making (Haig, 2008). Through a coding process, the abductive analysis seeks to engage in imaginative thinking about intriguing findings. Through iterative loops in data processing, the goal

is to create creative inferencing and double-check previous assumptions (Timmermans

& Tavory, 2012). In doing so, the abductive analysis process works from the premise of moving back and forth between data and theory iteratively (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The abductive analysis process and its significance for this PhD project are explained later in Section 9.4.

An essential element here is to understand that Educational Design Research does not aim to “prove” that the applied design principles that form the basis of a given design are “true”. On the contrary, it will often be those situations where the designed intervention does not end up in a perfect implementation that new practical and theoretical understandings become clear (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Anderson &

Shattuck, 2012; Barab & Squire, 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004; Kelly, 2006; McKenney

& Reeves, 2013; Nieveen et al., 2006). As mentioned earlier, pragmatism points out that the creation of knowledge takes place in particular by observing the consequences of an intervention. It is thus when a form of doubt, disturbance or uncertainty is created that is subsequently solved by connecting theory and practice through reflection that new knowledge arises (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010; Elkjaer & Simpson, 2011;

Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). When this criterion is highlighted it is because the researchers are obligated to demonstrate a sensitivity to the observed consequences of a given design in order to avoid the design principles being elevated as decontextualised principles or grand theories that work with equal effect in all contexts. Anderson and Shattuck (2012) argue as follows:

Dewey warns that although general ideals and principles are of value in the direction and enlargement of conduct, they are also dangerous:

they tend to be set up as fixed things in themselves, apart from reference to any particular case. (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 17)

Engeström (2011) also criticises the practical utility of research in education when it is based on what he calls “classic well-controlled experiments”. Among other things, he disputes the idea that educational research can be based on the researcher knowing

“what they want to implement, how they want to change the educational practice”

where the desired outcome is already defined in advance (Engeström, 2011). In the following quote, Engeström (2011) highlights the importance of the link between interventions and Design Thinking in order to create new scientific knowledge and insights:

The main difference between “gold standard” interventions and design experiments seems to be that the former expects the design of the intervention to be completed at the outset while the latter, recognising the complexity of educational settings, expects the design to proceed through multiple iterations of “refinement”. (Engeström, 2011, p. 4)

As the field of education is characterised by changing and often unpredictable ways, research must necessarily be able to address this in its research design. He therefore

points out that research through design holds interesting perspectives as the culture of inquiry and exploration infuses Design Thinking (Engeström, 2011; Nelson &

Stolterman, 2014).

3.3.1. PRESENTATION OF A FOUR-PHASE RESEARCH MODEL Amiel and Reeves’s (2008) work describes a phase model for Educational Design Research. This phase model has since been further developed and refined through the ELYK project by Christensen et al. (2012). ELYK’s phase model thus targets specific research projects in professional and educational research with a specific focus on prototyping based on design principles (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Christensen et al., 2012). The basis for the model is the use of domain-specific theories that say something about the local problem or challenge linked with more of the general grand theories within the topic of the project. These connections are made through the development of design principles as described in Section 3.4 (Christensen et al., 2012).

Figure 3 – The four- phase model of Educational Design Research.

The model is a four-phase research model (see Figure 3) consisting of the following phases. Phase (1) addresses problem identification in which domain-specific theories are analytically defined. Also, there is the definition of more general theoretical assumptions that form the framework for the project. This process takes place in a collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Phase (2) is about the development of concrete

Implementing Experimenting Prototyping Validating

Communication

Scaling

3

4

Investigation

1

2

Participation

Practice ReflectionAcquisition

LAB CONTEXT

REFLECTION

INTER VENTION

designs or prototypes based on the defined design principles. Phase (3) consists of a series of iterative processes where the developed designs are tested in practice. Phase (4) is a reflection phase where the design principles are revisited to strengthen the developed design for future implementation in other contexts (Christensen et al., 2012).

The research design for this PhD project is, therefore, divided into four general phases:

1) investigating the problem, 2) developing the prototype, 3) experimenting through three iterative phases, and 4) reflecting and concluding regarding future implementing of the final educational design or model. In addition to the four phases, several small-scale pilot trials have been carried out concerning the initial definition of the PhD project. These are not covered by the material outlined in this PhD report, but those interested can refer to articles in the list of publications. The following sections describe the content of the phase model more specifically in terms of the PhD project’s activities and intentions, including a peripheral description of the link to the project’s data collection.

Figure 4 – The model for how EDR is interpreted in this PhD thesis.

Phase 1 ‒ Problem and theory identification (Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7)

The first step of the research process will be about defining the problem. In phase 1, the key activity is observing the existing pedagogical context with a focus on “describing”,

“explaining” and “understanding” the issues that characterise the existing practice

Insider