Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground

Barab, S., &Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

Learning sciences refers to the study of learning and instructional methodologies. One approach to this work is design-based research, the goal of which is to create new theories, and practices impacting learning and teaching in a real-life setting. In this approach, researchers systematically asses the impact of changes to the learning context. Barab & Squire (2004) outline seven differences between design-based research and traditional methodology. Some of these distinctions include: the location of research, complexity of variables, focus of research, and role of participants. These differences emphasize that design-research often occurs in a real-life setting, that measurement is challenging due to the continuously changing context, and that some researchers may be both designing and participating in the study.  A large distinction between traditional research and design-research is that design-research requires change at a local level and this change is used as evidence to support the theory behind the design.

The authors consider how to measure overall change in this approach and they pose the question - what counts as credible research? In a design-based research approach, the terms trustworthiness, credibility, and usefulness capture the study’s reliability, validity, and generalizability/external validity. Some critics of design-based research believe problems arise when the effectiveness of design-based research is evaluated. This is because it is the researcher who is determining the effectiveness that is also the designer and participated in the interactions assessed. However, other researchers argue that design-research can be adaptable to uniquely fit a local dynamic, and thereby the goal is to develop flexible theories applicable to the current and new contexts.  

Creating design-research that is usable and sustainable when implemented in real-world contexts may be an important facilitator of researcher-practitioner collaboration. Design-researchers work together to provide credible, trustworthy, and useful evaluation of instructional methods in a real-world environment.

Blogger: Meghan Vollebregt is a student in the combined SLP MSc/PhD program working under the supervision of Lisa Archibald.

The role of language in mathematical development: Evidence from children with specific language impairments

Donlan, C., Cowan, R., Newton, E.J., Lloyd, D. (2007). The role of language in mathematical development: Evidence from children with specific language impairments. Cognition,103. 23-33.

Although language and mathematics are distinct skills, some studies suggest that these two cognitive processes are related. One view suggests that language plays a bootstrapping role in numerical cognition, in which development of number concepts is dependent on number-related language experience¹. An alternate view proposes that number concept development is independent of number word knowledge². Children with specific language impairment (SLI) have impairments in receptive and expressive language but have non-verbal cognitive abilities within the average range. By studying numerical cognition in children with SLI, the present study aims to examine whether language impairments contribute to difficulty in mathematical cognition. Specifically, the paper differentiates between procedural mathematical knowledge (counting and basic calculations) and conceptual mathematical knowledge (understanding of place value and arithmetic principles) to examine the relative contributions of language and non-verbal abilities to these aspects of numerical cognition.

The present study examined three groups of children: children with SLI, typically developing children matched to the SLI group based on age, and typically developing children matched to the SLI group based on language comprehension. These participants all completed the following tasks: counting aloud, simple calculations, multi-digit magnitude comparison, and arithmetic problems using unfamiliar symbols. The counting and calculations tasks were categorized as procedural tasks, while the magnitude comparison and arithmetic problems tasks were categorized as conceptual as they were designed to measure understanding of place value principles and arithmetic principles.

Results demonstrated that on the counting and calculation tasks, the SLI group performed similarly to the language controls and more poorly than the age controls. On the magnitude comparison tasks, the age controls outperformed the SLI group and the SLI group outperformed the language controls. On the arithmetic principles task, the SLI and age controls performed similarly and both outperformed the language controls. Counting skills were a significant predictor of calculation and magnitude comparison performance. These findings suggest that the children with SLI are able to achieve conceptual understanding of mathematical principles, but that their language weaknesses may contribute to difficulty developing procedural mathematical skills. The authors suggest that conceptual understanding of arithmetic may be supported by a system separate from language but that language may support learning of the counting sequence, which, in turn, supports understanding of calculation and number notation.

1. Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133, 59–68.

2. Gelman, R., & Butterworth, B. (2005). Number and language: How are they related? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 6–10.

Blogger: Alex Cross is completing a combined MClSc and PhD in speech language pathology. Her work focusing on reading will be part of both the Language and Working Memory and the Language, Reading, and Cognitive Neuroscience labs.