Chapter 9. Design principles in design research: A

Chapter 9. Design principles in design research: A commentary Arthur Bakker1 In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, & M. Peters (Eds.), Unterrichtsentwicklung macht Schule. Fachdidaktische Forschung und Innovation im Fachunterricht (pp. ? -- ?). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Keywords: design principles, conjecture mapping, design-based research

Abstract In the context of this book, innovation is about achieving desirable goals in domain-specific education. The various contributions to the second part of the book provide knowledge about how to achieve something worthwhile in a particular domain, and all do so in the form of design principles as a result from design research. Such principles are popular in design research and other approaches to innovate educational practice, but education and educational research would benefit from further reflection on what they are and how they are grounded in research and practice. My commentary therefore reflects on design principles in design research. For the various chapters, I analyze whether the design principles as formulated are values, criteria, predictions, advice, or heuristics. I argue that design research would benefit from more clarity of the nature of design principles, and what counts as empirical support. Moreover, I reflect on how design principles could be communicated in a succinct form so that they can inspire others to use them wisely in educational practice. Inhalt 1 What kind of knowledge are design researchers after? ................................. 2 2 The design principles in the different chapters ............................................. 3 3 Reflection ...................................................................................................... 6 Literature ............................................................................................................ 7

1

A. Bakker | Utrecht University | [email protected]

1

What kind of knowledge are design researchers after?

The ambition of most educators, teachers, and researchers is to improve education, but this is by no means easy (Fullan, 2001). How can we innovate schools so as to achieve worthwhile educational goals? With good reasons, the Creative Unit FaBiT (Fachbezogene Bildungsprozesse in Transformation) at the University of Bremen has chosen design research, also called design-based research (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003), as a way to do so by means of research in close collaboration with teachers. Design research is namely not about education as it was or is, but how it could be or perhaps even how it should be (Schwartz, Chang, & Martin, 2008). It is typically conducted by researchers who have an idea of how education, by means of design, can be improved (McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Plomp & Nieveen, 2013). This type of research has emerged as a response to the limitations of the experimental designs typical of much educational and psychological research, and of descriptive or analytic studies such as ethnographic ones (Reinking & Bradley, 2004). Experiments may provide insight into new learning situations (education as it could be). It evaluates the effects of a limited number of variables on some outcome variable. In the eyes of many educational researchers, however, such studies often lack ecological validity (Brown, 1992): Findings from experiments are often hard to generalize to classroom practice (Mintrop, 2016; Russell, 1999). Ethnography, on the other hand, a research approach that take context very seriously, mostly only describes what happens (education as it was or is), and typically yields little information on how to change educational practice (Reinking & Bradley, 2004); an early exception is the work by Moll and Diaz (1987). Design researchers have the astonishing ambition (Phillips & Dolle, 2006) of combining the best of both worlds (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). They want to know how to change educational practice with an eye for contextual specifics. This implies that the type of knowledge that design researchers are after is “actionable knowledge” (Argyris, 1996), so knowledge about which actions will help to achieve particular educational goals. The problem with most theories in education is that they are in Argyris’ terms “after-the-fact” theories (descriptive, evaluative) rather than “before-the-fact” theories (prescriptive, advisory). So they tell us what happened in particular conditions (say within an experiment) but not how to create the necessary conditions, let alone what is worth teaching (cf. Prediger, 2015). Hence there is a need for “before-the-fact” theories that advise designers and educators on what to do if they want to make something happen in practice. In the large problem space in which they seek solutions, they need something to hold on to. These solutions typically involve a design in the broad sense of something being constructed or mapped out (in Latin, designare means to mark out) as well as advice on how to use that design. What does such design typically look like in education? Mintrop wrote: The purpose of design development is to discover an ensemble of tools, materials, tasks, organizational structures, and any other activities that are apt to set in motion a process of learning that improves on a focal problem of practice. This ensemble is the intervention, the final product of a given design development effort. (Mintrop, 2016, p. 219, chapter written with John Hall)

There are multiple ways by which design researchers try to summarize their advice, for example by means of design principles (Van den Akker, 1999), conjecture maps (Sandoval, 2014), local instruction theories (Gravemeijer, 1998), or hypothetical learning trajectories (Simon, 1995; see for a comparison Bakker, 2018, Chapters 3 and 21). In this chapter I focus on design principles because all five chapters in this part of the book use this term. At the same time, design principles are not appreciated by all design researchers. For example, in my interview study with design researchers, Leona Schauble was rather critical about them: They are kind of a trusting posthoc explanation at a higher level of what you think you did. But they don’t help you make decisions. The reason is, because you can apply any design principle in a 1000 different ways and getting one unprincipled thing wrong will ruin it. So, you’re not gonna be able to test your design principles. They’re heuristics for you. In the sense that they’re heuristics for you, they’re useful, and they have that sort of posthoc explanatory quality. In terms of explaining to people what you thought you were doing, after you did it. So I see them as a product. (personal communication, November 16, 2016)

It was relatively late in my experience as a design researcher that I devoted serious thought to the topic of design principles. I was raised in a tradition of working with hypothetical learning trajectories (Simon, 1995)—which in simple terms can be seen as thought experiments of how to help students from their current levels of understanding to specific learning goals. Whenever researchers reported on design principles, I had questions about what they really were and how they could be empirically studied or grounded. For example, it was and still is mostly unclear to me if people referred to a design principle as a prediction (Greeno, 2016), a criterion that needs to be fulfilled (Collins, 1990; Edelson, 2002), a value (something that is valued as important in itself), heuristic advice (Van den Akker, 1999), a design methodology (Edelson, 2002, guidelines for the process rather than the product of design), or perhaps a combination of such meanings. One of the clearest ideas on design principles in my view is provided by Van den Akker (2013), who proposed to summarize them in the following form (sometimes referred to as the alphabet sentence):

If you want to design intervention X [for purpose/function Y in context Z] • then you are best advised to give that intervention the characteristics C1, C2,…, Cm [substantive emphasis] • and to do that via procedures P1, P2, …, Pn [methodological emphasis] • because of theoretical arguments T1, T2, …, Tp • and empirical arguments E1, E2, …, Eq (p. 67)

It was not until working with the PhD students in Bremen that I started to appreciate the idea of design principles, and thought more deeply about them. The reflection on the design principles as formulated by the authors in the previous chapters is therefore a nice opportunity to share some of my progressive insights as well as the questions that keep nagging me: 1. 2. 3.

What is the nature of design principles? What counts as empirical evidence for design principles? How can one succinctly communicate design principles?

I would like to emphasize that all authors make interesting contributions so that these questions are not meant to criticize the authors but to push forward the design research field as a whole, and involve educators and researchers in the quest to share actionable knowledge that helps to innovate educational practice.

2

The design principles in the different chapters

To get to grips with the first question on the nature of design principles, I address the contributions to Part II one by one, but using the same format for each of them, with a focus on the design principles formulated by the authors. Table 1 provides an overview. Authors in Part II

Domain (topic)

Design principle

Aim

Design

Focus of the principle

1.

Schäfer

English (street art)

Teacher as codesigner

Accommodate diversity of learners

Advice on involving teachers as co-designers

2.

Panzer Konrad

Complexity of second-language mediation tasks Flexible teacher

Second-language mediation

3.

Spanish (language mediation) Music (band lessons)

Street art as alternative topic, worked out in tasks etc. Guidelines on how to sequence tasks

4.

Inthoff

Art (change of perspective)

Topsy-turvy principle

Promote aesthetic experience Change perspectives (reflexivity)

Repertoire of “movable pieces of scenery” KEPP: artexperimental process portfolio

5.

Best et al.

Mathematics (geometrical functions)

Functionally looking at formulas

Functionally looking at formulas

Series of tasks designed from a particular theoretical perspective

Advice on involving teachers as co-designers Inspirational idea as realized in educational materials Educational goal with means of reaching that goal

Tab. 1:

2.1

Fulfilment of criteria

Overview of design principles in Part II discussed in this commentary chapter

Schäfer: teacher as co-designer

An educational challenge that Schäfer addresses is the diversity of learners that teachers face. To accommodate the diversity of learners she decided to include alternative topics in English education as a foreign language (TEFL) and chose street art as an example of such a topic. It is known that establishing such diversity-oriented ideals is by no means easy. Schäfer focuses her chapter on the role of the teacher in her project to realize her ideas. By means of two case studies she shows the benefits of involving teachers not only as executors of her ideas but as co-designers. In line with the literature on co-design (Cviko, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014), she reports that one teacher had the ability to tailor design ideas to the specific classroom, and had an increased sense of ownership of the design. What proved crucial was the teacher’s idea to make smaller steps. Schäfer’s design principle is about the teacher as a co-designer, and it has an advisory nature:

To increase a teacher’s sense of participation in the design, s/he should adopt the role of co-designer. The benefit is an adequate judgment of the design, in particular of following design aspects that were relevant to the research: street art in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and diversity of learners. (translation by AB, approved by Schäfer)

As Schäfer claims, this principle is based on the literature and her own empirical work. It may be useful practical advice but the first part of the principle as formulated above, on involving teachers as co-designers, may be too general for most researchers to consider it a contribution. One might also argue that involving teachers as codesigners may not be a very economical advice. Perhaps this is wise in some stage of designing education, but as a general principle it may not be workable to include all teachers in co-design, whether in research or curriculum development. This raises the question of scope: In what circumstances does it make sense to involve which kind of teachers in co-design? The second part on street art sounds very specific: Why would the insights from this design study be generalizable to other settings? Street art functions here as an example of an alternative topic to tailor to a wider diversity of students, but it would be interesting to know which mechanisms might allow for theoretical generalization. These observations raise the questions of what counts as useful: Should design principles summarize actionable knowledge? Provide useful advice? And should they be to some extent new or better substantiated than previous design principles—something one may expect from research? Another issue I often stumble upon is the normative meaning of “should” (“sollten” in German). It is methodologically very challenging to make such a normative claim. From a methodological stance, one can make such an advisory claim if a particular condition has proven better than others. I prefer the phrase used by Van den Akker (2013): “If… you are best advised to…” (p. 67, emphasis original). The term “best” has to be taken to be a local optimum in the context of the study; it does not refer to various conditions compared in an experiment. However, to avoid potential confusion, I advise to leave out the word “best” if no alternatives have been explored. More concrete contributions are the pieces of advice that Schäfer provides such as on the need of ritual moments of planning and reflection. Such findings alert other design researchers to something they might not yet have thought about, and which are both specific and transportable enough to be used in other settings, even when aiming for very different educational goals than reported here. In other words, such findings have practical bearing and lend themselves to theoretical generalization. 2.2

Panzer: Complexity of second-language mediation tasks

Panzer focuses on the competence of second-language mediation, which is part of the central examination and addressed at a theoretical level, but hardly worked out concretely. This type of mediation is characterized by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages as the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary or record, provides for a third party a (re)formulation of a [spoken or written] source text to which this third party does not have direct access. Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies (p. 4).

What was necessary were means of support along with guidelines about how to sequence tasks of increasing complexity, within students’ zones of proximal development. Panzer summarized her design principle on complexity of language-mediating tasks as follows: In order to activate students’ different competencies and knowledge components relevant to deal with oral mediation tasks, the subsequent oral mediation task has to fulfil the following criteria: real world discourse/topicality, complexity, openness, competence development, initializing and structuring of processes. (translation by Panzer)

Note that Panzer uses the term “has to” (“muss” in German), which has an even stronger normative connotation than “should” in Schäfer’s design principle. Observe also that Panzer focuses—just like Edelson (2002)—on criteria to be fulfilled. The design principle as formulated here suggests that once these criteria are fulfilled an adequate sequencing of tasks can be accomplished. It is not fully clear to me if these are meant to be necessary or sufficient criteria. Or are they meant to be foci of attention? I assume they are a heuristic of what to attend to and take into consideration. Another question that often arises when criteria are used is: How easily are the criteria fulfilled? In an early report of design research, Collins (1990) used a simple technical criterion: “All technology used in projects must have the ability to stop work and restart easily on another machine (probability or restart capability) … to achieve continued use” (p. 5, emphasis in original). One worry question I often have when reading criteria that seem hard to achieve is: But how do we help others fulfil these criteria? If this turns out to be harder than the original educational goal then the criteria are of little practical use. I emphasize this because in one design study I participated in we had the high-level conjecture that using authentic professional practices in science education could give students a motive to see the need to learn about the scientific knowledge used in these professional practices. However, having formulated criteria for what counted as suitable authentic practices we could not find

any professional practice that fulfilled our criteria. It turned out that we had to simplify and adapt such practices so as to make them suitable contexts for teaching and learning science. What I appreciate in Panzer’s chapter is the reflection on what design principles are. Her overview shows that the literature requires more clarity on what design principles are, an overview of what kinds of principles are in use, and what they might be useful for in which cases. I return to this issue in the reflection section of this chapter. 2.3

Konrad: flexible teaching

The problem addressed by Konrad’s research is that the curricular learning goal on promoting aesthetic experiences are hard to achieve during practical music lessons in band classes. There is a tendency to focus on technical skills without reflecting on aesthetic experience. As a way to address this goal, Konrad focused her design-based research on meaning-making processes in band classes. It turned out that the key figure in this endeavor was the teacher, hence her decision to focus her design efforts on helping the teacher to become a flexible lesson planner. Like Schäfer, Konrad grounds the decision to involve the teacher as co-designer in the literature (in this case The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). In her chapter, Konrad resists the temptation to formulate her design principle on helping the teacher become flexible as one sentence or set of sentences. Rather she explains the framework that she designed in collaboration with the teacher. An advantage of this choice is that one sentence (or a few), even in a format like that of Van den Akker (1999, 2013), can hardly capture the richness of a design principle. However, most readers might appreciate a layered approach: a recognizable name, a brief description in a few sentences or a table, and a more elaborate explanation in several pages. After all, knowledge only becomes transportable if it is in some way turned into a kind of object that people can remember, talk about, and re-use. 2.4

Inthoff: Topsy-turvy principle

Inthoff stresses the importance of reflexivity for learning. In particular, she focuses on changing perspectives in the setting of art. To promote the ability to change perspectives, Inthoff developed a so-called art-experimental process portfolio (abbreviated as “KEPP” in German) that was inspired by the principle of topsy-turvy—putting things on their head. With reference to interesting art work by Hainke she explains both theoretically and practically how she adopted this topsy-turvy idea to her own context of art education. Like Konrad, Inthoff does not present her design principle as one sentence but rather uses a brief phrase (topsyturvy), explains its theoretical background in art and art education, and shows how she materialized it in her approach in art education. She distinguishes and discusses three aspects to substantiate the design idea: performative, knotted (vernetzt), and materialized. It took me some time to get the idea behind the topsy-turvy principle (but I am not an art educator). My initial google search led me astray to a movie with that title about Gilbert and Sullivan. But reading about Hainke’s art work (Bremen Kunsthalle 2007) and how Inthoff underpinned and realized the principle in education convinced me that it is an inspirational idea with educational potential. Undergoing this process also further reinforced one of my nagging questions: How can one present design principles in a succinct way that yet does justice to the richness of the underlying ideas and empirical enactments? And: what kind of knowledge do design principles provide? 2.5

Best: Functionally looking at formulas

Within mathematics education it is well known that students typically struggle with interpreting functions in the various forms in which they are presented. Function is a concept with multiple facets (strongly related concepts and representations). The educational goal that Best and colleagues set themselves was to help students become flexible in dealing with functions, whether as formulas, graphs, or description of a geometrical shape (e.g., a cone). To this end they formulated a design principle (“Formeln funktional betrachten”) which I translated as functionally looking at formulas, which primarily sounds like an educational goal. What the authors focus is to shape and refine this principle (“Ausgestaltung” and “Präzisierung”) in three cycles of design research. This implies that they take Freudenthal’s (1991) advice on reporting developmental research (as he then called what is now known as design research): Developmental research means: experiencing the cyclic process of development and research so consciously, and reporting on it so candidly that it justifies itself, and that this experience can be transmitted to others to become like their own experience. (p. 161)

Unfortunately, Freudenthal did not work out how to report such experience, but one can learn from how Best and colleagues presented their evolving design principle. The various formulations of the design principle have an interesting format because they link the educational goal (flexible dealing with functions) to an idea on how this

could be achieved. The third formulation was: “To help students deal with functions flexibly, one can stress the functional nature of geometrical formulas as a tool for contextual problem solving” (translation by AB) („Um den Umgang mit Funktionen zu flexibilisieren, kann der funktionale Charakter geometrischer Formeln als Werkzeug zum Problemlösen im Kontext gedeutet werden.“) I appreciate such formulations because they link means to ends, and thus seem to come close to what actionable knowledge in my view should be: If one wants to achieve something (an educational goal), what can I do? Of course, this one sentence in itself is not very informative unless accompanied by elaborate discussion of the tasks used and theoretical language to understand and justify particular choices as well as empirical support for claims on how the educational goal could be achieved. I think that many readers will appreciate the reports on various cycles of design research. The few times I have tried this in journal articles were not so successful. First, it is not that easy to identify in empirical rigorous ways what caused particular problems. Second, readers are often not so interested in in-between phases but rather hear the end result. What helps theoretical generalization of the design principles formulated by Best and colleagues is the link to theories well-known in mathematics education (e.g., on abstraction-in-context and general epistemic needs), which allows for linking findings to other situations.

3

Reflection

What can one learn more generally from the various design principles worked out by the authors in this part of the book? I come back to three questions raised in the introduction of this chapter. 3.1

The nature of design principles: value, criterion, prediction, or advice?

The first point I want to make is that it would be good if design researchers, in general, are explicit about the nature of design principles they formulate. The first nagging question I had was: Are they intended to be values, predictions, heuristics, pieces of advice, criteria to be fulfilled, or hints for the design process? The design principles put forward by Schäfer and Konrad are pieces of advice, or perhaps what Edelson (2002) would call design methodology; in their case to involve teachers as co-designers. This is useful advice for particular purposes, but it would be useful to know when this advice applies. Not all teachers can or want to be involved in this way— at least, this is my own experience and that of colleagues with whom I discussed this. Panzer aimed to break down a general piece of advice into several criteria that the instructional materials should fulfil. In principle, such criteria could be inspiring for others who plan to design similar materials for similar purposes. Best et al. formulate their design principle as one sentence and explain what it entails. Konrad and Inthoff use a name for their design principles but do not formulate them as one or a few sentences. Rather they explain what their principles entail in a few pages. When discussing the nature of design principles with Bill Penuel, he stressed that design principles are “a kind of amalgam of value and knowledge” (Bakker, 2018, p. 52). It is hard to argue with values: People find particular things important. Who would argue against more equitable education? Yet, as Biesta (2009) observes, many educational researchers tend to talk about effectiveness of educational interventions as if they are value-free. It would thus be good if design researchers resisted this temptation and be explicit about their values. For example, it is still worth spelling out why particular learning goals are worth pursuing (Prediger, 2015). But this raises the question of what counts as empirical evidence for a design principle apart from the value or goal to be achieved. 3.2

The empirical evidence for design principles

The second nagging question I had was: What counts as empirical evidence for a design principle? Subsequent questions pop up: What makes it a contribution to research? Or should we consider design principles to be the practical advice derived from design research? In this light it would be interesting to know if the authors formulated their principles before or after empirical testing. The chapter by Best et al. is the only one that shows the evolution of the design principle. Do readers need this history to apply the resulting design principle sensibly? Or does the average reader only want to know the locally best outcome? It is hard to judge the empirical evidence for the design principles presented in the previous chapters. One would need to read the full dissertations for a fair judgment. Because design principles are an amalgam of value and knowledge, I see only one way to answer the question on evidence: Be explicit about your values and analytically distinguish these values from the empirical knowledge about how to achieve desirable outcomes. The approach taken by Best et al. illustrates this nicely: In relation to an educational goal (something the authors find important to achieve), they formulate an approach that can be tested empirically. This allows the researcher to show evidence of how such goal can be achieved.

3.3

How to communicate design principles succinctly?

A third nagging question that has pestered me for many years is how to communicate results from design research in a concise form, as required in journal articles. Here I narrow this question down to design principles in particular. Van den Akker (1999, 2013) proposed the famous alphabet sentence to do so. What struck me as interesting is that in these particular chapters none of the authors use Van den Akker’s format, which to me looks convincing. This made me wonder whether the format is an idealized template that is experienced as a Procrustean bed: Is the format too rigid to fit their principles? During workshops, the students sometimes suggested they experienced the format as a straightjacket. But then one may wonder: Why do the authors not take the liberty to use it more flexibly? Or is there perhaps something inherently challenging about formulating design principles? There is much to learn from other attempts to communicate and share design principles. Kali and colleagues have reported on an interesting initiative, the design principles database (Kali, 2008). Participants in this endeavor uploaded the design principles in a database according to a particular format so that others could use it and report back on their failures and successes. The logic behind it is that design principles prove their value in practice. They become generalized not by measures taken within one design study (experimentalists would use random sampling to allow for statistical generalization), but by seeing how robust design principles are across contexts (see also Cremers et al., 2017). 3.4

Tentative advice on communicating design principles

Based on my reading of the five chapters I wonder if the following approach might work to communicate design principles. First, use an easy to remember name that catches the reader’s interest and covers the design principle well (cf. Inthoff’s topsy-turvy principle). Second, summarize the design principle in a couple of sentences, possibly inspired by Van den Akker’s format, or simpler in a means-end relationship (cf. Best et al.). Third, explain in surrounding text the values one adopts, whether the principle is supposed to be a prediction, a heuristic or informal piece of advice, and what counts as the theoretical and empirical grounding of the design principle. For readers it is essential to understand the inferential relations between elements of a design principle. For example, what is convincing about the design principles put forward by Best et al. is that they link means to an end, and use theories from mathematics education to underpin their choices. A more elaborate version of this is what Sandoval (2014) calls a high-level conjecture: an hypothesis about how particular theoretical ideas can be embodied in design, lead to relevant mediating processes, and eventually help to achieve particular outcomes. One advantage of Sandoval’s conjecture mapping is that it forces design researchers to make explicit the design and theoretical conjectures they have in relation to the literature, which in turn allows them to test them empirically. How this can be achieved, is often a matter of sequencing appropriate tasks. To summarize and ground such sequences, however, one may consider hypothetical learning trajectories (Simon, 1995): hypotheses about how particular tasks will help learners develop from a starting point (e.g., prior knowledge) towards a learning goal. These seem particularly useful when content or instructional activities have to be sequenced (which in the cases of Panzer, Konrad, and Best et al. is particularly clear). In my experience, design researchers typically report design principles, conjecture maps, or hypothetical learning trajectories (or none of these) but hardly combine them. Yet I see them as potentially complementary (Bakker & Smit, 2018): Where design principles seem to focus on actionable knowledge in the sense of giving advice on what to do, conjecture maps are more research-oriented in that they formulate testable conjectures. Neither design principles nor conjecture maps have a time dimension. So when it comes to longer-term instructional sequences, one may find hypothetical learning trajectories useful to capture how one expects learning to progress from prior knowledge to particular learning goals. I think that Phillips and Dolle (2006) are right in their observation that design research is astonishingly ambitious. The current focus on one aspect often used in design research, design principles, already shows the complexity of formulating actionable knowledge in a concise form so that it can be used by others. I think that more good examples as well as careful reflection on their educational, theoretical, and methodological value will help us improve design research as a genre of research and achieve sustainable innovation in education.

Acknowledgments I thank Jan van den Akker, Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs, and the five PhD students for the valuable feedback and conversations on this topic.

Literature Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 390–406. Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. London, UK: Routledge.

Bakker, A., & Smit, J. (2018). Using hypothetical learning trajectories in design research In A. Bakker (Ed.), Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers (pp. 256–272). London: Routledge. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from https://www.coe.int/en/web/langmigrants/linguistic-and-cultural-mediation Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education. Technical report. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. Cremers, P. H. M., Wals, A. E., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2017). Utilization of design principles for hybrid learning configurations by interprofessional design teams. Instructional Science, 45(2), 289-309. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Routledge. Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (An ICMI Study) (pp. 277–295). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Greeno, J. G. (2016). Cultural-Historical Activity Theory/Design-based research in Pasteur’s Quadrant. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 634–639. Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 423–438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mintrop, R. (2016). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Moll, L. C., & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 300–311. Phillips, D. C., & Dolle, J. R. (2006). From Plato to Brown and beyond: Theory, practice, and the promise of design experiments. In L. verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 277–292). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research: Introduction and illustrative cases. Enschede: SLO. Prediger, S. (2015). Theorien und Theoriebildung in didaktischer Forschung und Entwicklung. In R. Bruder, L. Hefendehl-Hebeker, B. Schmidt-Thieme & H.-G. Weigand (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Mathematikdidaktik (pp. 643–662). Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum. Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 149–169). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. Schwartz, D. L., Chang, J., & Martin, L. (2008). Instrumentation and innovation in design experiments: Taking the turn towards efficiency. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 47–67). London: Routledge.Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14): Springer. Van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as specimen of educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. Part A: An introduction (pp. 53–70). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.