Design-Based Research – A Vehicle for Pedagogic Change

‘The twin assumptions that all ‘theory’ is non-practical and all ‘practice’ is non-theoretical are, therefore, entirely misguided….. ‘Theories’ are not bodies of knowledge that can be generated out of a practical vacuum and teaching is not some kind of robot-like mechanical performance that is devoid of any theoretical reflection. Both are practical undertakings whose guiding theory consists of the reflective consciousness of their respective practitioners.’

Carr and Kemmis (1986, p.113)

This quote from Carr and Kemmis is one way of understanding the concept of ‘praxis’. Here they argue that any attempt to separate out theory and practice is doomed to failure; they see them as intimately related. In our practice we generate generalisations (or theories), and in developing our practice we draw, however generally, on theory. This quote comes from their book Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research which sets out a philosophical case for the use of action research.

This is a very useful starting point for the development of curricula, the development of resources or the embedding of technology in pedagogy, and is also one of the starting points for the use of design-based research (DBR). DBR is a relatively new, but rapidly expanding, approach to research and change (Anderson and Shattuck, 2012) and can be best described as a method which aims to improve practice through cycles of diagnosis/analysis, design, development and implementation. The method makes use of teachers and researchers working together to create learning designs which are context sensitive. The development of technological innovations is particularly prevalent in the use of DBR (Wang and Hannafin, 2005), but any project which focuses on developing a curriculum design (Plomp & Nieveen, 2007), or resources would be a great focus for using this approach.

The DBR cycle

The DBR cycle starts by identifying an issue, such as an area of learning, or a decision that the current approach/resource base in an area of the curriculum is old and outdated. Having decided on the problem/issue which the group faces, a proposal is developed which aims to solve the deficit or improve the area of interest. This can be developed through internal discussion within the group, but in good quality DBR should evolve from an engagement with relevant research literature so that there is a strong theoretical foundation to the planned design.

Having sketched out a proposal for development based on engagement with research and theory, the next stage is for the group to create a tentative design. This stage focuses on deciding the technology, resources or curriculum design which would help transform the area of interest. At this point, the group might sketch out loose ideas on paper, and discuss the outline of the proposed changes/developments. The principle here is to bring together the ideas learned from the research undertaken in the first stage and the group’s professional knowledge and creativity to develop a design.

Next, the group, or an associated researcher, create artefact(s), be this a scheme of work, a technologically based development such as a website, or activity resources. These artefacts are then used in a learning context, and their success is measured. This might be through the use of interviews or questionnaires with students to gain their perceptions of the design change, and/or it might be based on test scores or a consideration of the work students have produced. This stage is important as it is the ‘test’ of the utility and success of the designed intervention. The results are then used as a way of considering whether the design needs to be further developed, or whether the group can move on to another area of innovation.

As we begin to develop a new approach to a master’s degree by repositioning study skills and research methods to become a central component in student learning, there are a number of areas that we need to consider. What does research suggest is the best way of encouraging learning in:

–        Study skills

–        Research methods

But also approaches to independent student learning including exploration of:

–        Blended learning approaches

–        Problem-based learning

Ultimately, how can all of these elements be embedded in authentic and meaningful ways into the other modules of the master’s degree? One initial represent of a possible conceptual design is given below but will no doubt change (possibly quite radically) as we develop our thinking and dig deeper into relevant research.

DBR masters outline

The DBR will create a ‘meta-level’ framework for developing the curriculum, teaching and learning approaches and blended learning technologies. It will also allow us to identify elements of the framework which we wish to investigate through a number of smaller, more detailed evaluative and action research projects. At the end of the first year of the new course we can then bring these different projects together to act as an evaluation of the DBR framework. In addition, given the nature of the development, we might even be able to involve students in their own evaluative research about the course.

References

Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012) ‘Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research?’ Educational Researcher 41(1), 16-25.

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/16.full.pdf+html

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.

Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (2007) Introduction to educational design research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26, 2007

http://www.slo.nl/downloads/2009/introduction_20to_20education_20design_20research.pdf/

Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005) ‘Design-Based Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments.’  Educational Technology Research and Development 53(4), 5-23.

http://lopezlearning.net/files/19511441FenWangArticle-2.pdf

Advertisements

Reflections on starting points for course development

Deciding to develop a course which is already established and well thought of is never an easy process. When the various elements which go together to form a Masters degree work well and the feedback from students is overwhelmingly positive, the temptation is to sit back and enjoy the teaching. However, as with any course there’s always that nagging feeling that somehow it could be better. One of the problems with such a position is that the greater the degree to which pre-existing material is already viewed as excellent the greater the feeling that any further change will need to develop a new perspective.

I’m currently leading a very successful Masters course which draws the vast majority of its students from an international background. Over the past three years we’ve managed to retain, or even slightly expand, numbers on the course at a time when numbers elsewhere have seen slow contraction. However, there has been debate amongst the team who teach on the course as to whether or not we should be satisfied with what appears to be an excellent course, or whether we should attempt to bring transformational change by developing the course in a way that allows for a more authentic philosophy, for both staff and students. Carolin Kreber’s (2013) fantastic book on authenticity in teaching in HE quotes Walker (2006) who argues that university pedagogies should foster,

Practical reason; Educational resilience; Knowledge and imagination; Learning dispositions; Social relations and integrity; Respect, dignity and recognition; Emotional integrity, and Bodily integrity.’

(Walker, 2006, 127, quoted in Kreber 2013, 46)  

Kreber suggests that such a curricula view is important in developing capacities which offer life choices to students, which brings an authenticity to the development and process of student learning. In addition such authenticity requires reflection and debate by teachers to discuss and develop an approach which is both authentic to students and staff. I would argue that such reflection and discussion needs to be an ongoing, iterative debate amongst staff and students – the realisation of the community of pedagogy to which Shulman (1993) eludes in his thoughts on pedagogical solitude.

Through discussion, two areas have emerged as central to our thinking about further development:

  1. Study skills. Many of our students arrive on our course direct from undergraduate study in a number of educational systems around the world. This brings with it a wide variety of experiences and expertise in the reading of research and the process of critical writing. For a number of years we have embedded supplementary sessions within the course and have attempted to give students extra support and guidance to help them make the transition to Masters level and to the expectations of the UK academic culture. We have done this with varying degrees of success. At the moment two members of the course team are undertaking collaborative research with a colleague in the English Language Teaching Unit to develop insights into this strand of the course. The opportunity to spend time discussing common issues from the different perspectives we bring to the discussion has proved immensely important in shaping and advancing our understanding concerning study skills and wider course development.
  2. Research methods. In any course development I’ve been involved in research methods always has the potential to fulfil the role of a ‘curricula outsider’. Everyone knows it’s an important part of any Masters curriculum but there is always angst about where to locate it, how to build relations between it and the other elements of the course, and even how to develop it through a coherent pedagogy. Over the past four years it is the research methods element of the course which has changed each year.

Discussions amongst the team involved in developing and delivering our Masters course have emphasised that if we are to move the course forward in a meaningful way it is in these two areas that we need to affect well considered and radical change. Reflection by the team has established some simple principles from which the basis for a way forward is beginning to emerge.

Both study skills and research methods need to be at the centre of course design rather than ring fenced specialities or support services to content. There needs to be a genuine symbiosis between all elements which sees them as mutually supportive in the holistic development of the student. Study skills become another facet of research methods, a foundation for understanding, critiquing, synthesising and writing about research. By coalescing study skills with research methods they can be repositioned to become the backbone of the course rather than just another module which sits uneasily within the curriculum wherever it is placed. As Garner et al (2009, 3-4) state:

Until research methods itself is accepted as central to students’ education in a discipline, and a passion for research and ability in teaching it is a sine qua non for research methods tutors, students are unlikely to learn how to do research well.’  

If research methods is to be central to the rest of the course, it must talk to and become embedded within all the modules on the course in a meaningful and effective way. This brings a second principle. Shulman (1993) argues for the need of a shift away from ‘pedagogical solitude’, the need for a community of pedagogy. If research methods is to be brought to the centre of course development it requires engagement and discussion by the group of academics responsible for the course. Collaborative development needs to be at the centre of any course transformation which hopes to bring research methods to the centre of student thinking and development because it is only through a cultural shift that the changed pedagogy will be practically and consistently applied.

If a major shift in course structure through collaborative development is to be successful there needs to be a clear framework for developing that course. Developing a framework is best achieved by initially engaging with past studies and insights. As outlined in the next post, the redesign of this course will be founded on the use of Design-Based Research (DBR). This approach has two main advantages. Firstly, it allows us to develop an approach of theory informed practice development (praxis). Secondly, it allows us to develop a number of small scale research projects around the processes and outcomes of change. In this way, it will hopefully become a true contribution to scholarship of teaching and learning.

Garner, M.; Wagner, C. & Kawulich, B. (2009) ‘Introduction: Towards a Pedagogical Culture in Research Methods.’ In Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Garner, M.; Wagner, C. & Kawulich, B. (eds.). Farnham: Ashgate. 1-10.

Kreber, C. (2013) Authenticity In and Through Teaching in Higher Education: The transformative potential of the scholarship of teaching. Abingdon: Routledge.  

Shulman, L.S. (1993) ‘Teaching as Community Property: Putting an End to Pedagogical Solitude.’ Change, 25 (6), 6-7. (http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part4/shulman%20community%20property.pdf)

Walker, M. (2006) Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach. Maindenhead: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Some initial reflections about teaching and learning in higher education

Over the past few years, the period during which I’ve been working as a lecturer in higher education, I have been fortunate to be in a position where my research has lived in close synergy with my responsibilities for teaching and learning. Over this period I’ve had the opportunity to complete a number of small scale projects which have played an important role in developing my own practice as a teacher, and in a few cases the results I have gained from this work have reached publication. However, in the often hectic environment which is the typical experience of many in the modern UK university there is a tendency for ideas and insights to go unnoticed and unreported. Recently, however, I returned to a short paper by Shulman (1993), the title of which is ‘Teaching as Community Property’, with a subtitle ‘putting an end to pedagogical solitude’. Much of what Shulman writes in this paper has a resonance with my own experience where in the busy ‘day to day’ much of our practice as teachers is never discussed, never observed by others and is certainly rarely shared with the wider community for discussion and debate. This is not meant as a chastisement to either myself or others, but is merely the natural outcome when individuals have a number of different responsibilities in different domains.

Shulman makes the case that for teaching and learning to become a community property it first needs to be made explicit, thereby allowing interrogation, debate and discussion. Just a few years earlier Ernest Boyer (1990) had coined the term Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) building on the work of others, for example Shulman’s (1987) ‘pedagogic content knowledge‘. Since the early 1990s the scholarly approach to teaching and learning in higher education has grown apace and offers an interesting approach for making available the research and reflections of those interested in developing understanding of teaching and learning. A crucial part of SoTL is the sharing and publication of the insights gained through scholarly pursuit. It is this pursuit which has led to the development of this blog which I hope will be a positive space for reflection on issues relating to teaching and learning, as well as offering summaries, updates and reflections on the projects that I, often with colleagues, develop as we attempt to develop better teaching and learning on the postgraduate courses for which we are responsible. Some of the questions which are at the forefront of my thinking at present include:

  • what is the distinct nature of Masters level study and how can teaching and learning approaches aid in the transition from undergraduate to doctoral study?
  • at Masters level what does a research methods pedagogy consist of, and how can RM be properly integrated into the rest of the course (all too often it can become an appendage)?
  • given the diversity of international students working together on a Masters course how can provision be formed to enable and develop individuals to their full potential?
  • what methodologies can be added to those already seen as central to SoTL to extend the depth and breadth of our understanding of teaching and learning in higher education?

It is these questions, together with occasional other interests, which have led to the creation of this blog. I hope some of our work and the insights they provide might act as a useful point of contact for others who are interested in developing teaching and learning in HE. Unlike the school sector in England, which is ever more riven with politicisation and the results of marketization, HE still retains a great deal of space for experimentation, the development of original approaches and a belief in professional trust and authenticity.

References

Boyer, E. (1990) ‘Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.’ The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (http://depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf)

Shulman, L. S. (1987) ‘Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.’ Harvard Educational Review, 36 (1), 1-22. (http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/yerrick/ubscience/UB_Science_Education_Goes_to_School/21C_Literature_files/shulman,%201987.pdf)

Shulman, L.S. (1993) ‘Teaching as Community Property: Putting an End to Pedagogical Solitude.’ Change, 25 (6), 6-7. (http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part4/shulman%20community%20property.pdf)