Extending the Discussion – Week 4 Educational Research Methods
Early discourse in educational technology research were focused on the difference between quantitative, experimental research and qualitative, descriptive research. Quantitative research designs are privileged in that discussion as though they illuminate generalizable truths, while qualitative methods may be viewed as illuminating specific, local truths. The discourse has since shifted to adopting mixed-methods approaches so the right tool can be employed for the research task at hand (Cobb, 2003; Foster, 2023; Jacobsen et al., 2023). Design-based research seems to be emerging in the discourse as a top contender for “gold standard” status of research in educational technology.
Design-based research does not privilege one qualitative or quantitative study. Rather, the process of research, the question posed, and the desired outcome of the research should shape and determine what processes are applied to gain an understanding (Jacobsen et al., 2023; Sandoval, 2014). Research is an iterative process – and when a researcher starts out looking at a topic, the questions asked are not fully formed and shaped because information is gathered during the research process (Jacobsen et al., 2023). Since the question evolves based on the phase and researcher’s knowledge, the methodologies employed may also need to evolve as the study progresses (Jacobsen et al., 2023). Cobb (2002) pointed out that a “primary goal for a design experiment is to improve the initial design by testing and revising conjectures as informed by ongoing analysis …” (p. 11.) Even though Cobb is speaking specifically to student learning, this goal underscores the iterative process of specifically educational research that may be overlooked in strictly quantitative or qualitative research designs, where the questions do not evolve much during the process.
Jacobsen et al. (2023) analyzed two student dissertations to illustrate the iterative process of design-based approaches in educational research. The methods to achieve understanding aren’t as important as having an open mind for this iterative process. The goal of methodological alignment should be to make sure that the questions asked by researchers can be “operationalized at each phase” of the process and are “precise” so the questions can be answered proficiently by the research (p.5). Qualitative methods should be applied when the question calls for it, just as quantitative methods should. Results from all aspects of investigation should be analyzed, compared and contrasted, and synthesized to make meaning.
The most compelling aspect of design research for me so far is that it breaks down silos of scientific vs. non-scientific, qualitative vs. quantitative, and hard vs. soft science. It opens up the discourse to focus not on how educational researchers approach questions, but what questions we are asking and what value those answers will have on the field of educational technology.
References
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Foster, C. (2023). Methodological pragmatism in educational research: From qualitative-quantitative to exploratory-confirmatory distinctions. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2023.2210063
Jacobsen, M., & McKenney, S. (2023). Educational design research: Grappling with methodological fit. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10282-5
Sandoval, W. (2013). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Educational Technology Blog 