Design

research with a focus on learning processes:

an overview on achievements and challenges

Susanne Prediger Koeno Gravemeijer Jere Confrey

Webversion of the Introductory Article of the Special issue of ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6) 2015,
877-891, Original under Springer Link http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0722-3.

Abstract. Design research continues to gain prominence as a significant methodology in the

mathematics education research community. This overview summarizes the origins and the cur-
rent state of design research practices focusing on methodological requirements and processes of
theorizing. While recognizing the rich variations in the foci and scale of design research, it also
emphasizes the fundamental core of understanding and investigating learning processes. That is
why the article distinguishes two archetypes of design research, one being focused on curriculum
innovations, one being focused on developing theories on the learning processes, which is the
main focus of the thematic issue. For deepening the methodological discussion on design research
it is worth to distinguish aims and quality criteria along the archetypes and elaborate achievement
and challenges for the future.

1. Introduction
Design research is an evolving methodology with substantial variation among concrete
approaches, and yet with common features. We briefly sketch the origins of design re-
search (in Section 2.1) and identify dimensions of variability (Section 2.2). Distinguish-
ing two archetypes, design research with a focus on curriculum products, and design
research with a focus on learning processes (in Section 2.3), this thematic issue and the
overview on achievements and challenges mainly concerns the elaboration of the latter
archetype for mathematics education, where it is the dominant approach.
We first characterize this approach by grounding it in background theories that require
an active role of students in constructing their own knowledge (Section 3). This is fol-
lowed by a methodological reflection on this type of design research (Section 4), which
takes its starting point in some of the critique on design research. As generating theories
is crucial for design research with a focus on learning processes, we discuss the variety of
theories that play a role, and the process of developing theories in design research. We
close with an overview of how those considerations play out, elucidated with reference to
the contributions to this thematic issue (Section 5).

1
2. Design research as a research program of increasing importance
in general education and mathematics education

2.1 Different origins of design research

Design research emerged in different places, under different names (e.g., design re-
search, design-based research, design experiments, design theories, educational
design research, and developmental research), and what is more important to serve
different needs, resulting in different characteristics. In this article we use the term de-
sign research as a generic, symmetric term, which does not prioritize research over de-
sign or vice versa, even if the variety of terms still exists today (see for instance, Kelly,
Lesh, and Baek 2008; van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, and Nieveen 2006). We
sketch some different lines of origin in order to make understandable different priorities.
One origin of design research goes back to the tradition of curriculum innovation: In
the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called RDD model (research-development-dissemination-
model) was the primary model for curricular innovation. According to this model, fun-
damental research precedes and informs the development of curricula, which then are
disseminated and implemented. However, in reality in schools, ready-made curricula
were not implemented as intended (Fullan and Pomfret 1977). Furthermore, it became
evident that the so-called first-generation instructional design theories (Merrill, Li, and
Jones 1990) of that time presupposed the use of scientific knowledge that was not availa-
ble to support innovative curriculum development projects.
Against this background, design research emerged as an alternative. Design research
combines instructional design and educational research. Instead of executing those activi-
ties in sequence, design-researchers perform both simultaneously, often while involving
teachers from the beginning.

Basic Applied Develop- Productions

Research Research ment and operations

Fig. 1 Former linear causal models relating basic research and innovation (Stokes 1997, p. 10)

This shift may be clarified with the perspective of Stokes (1997) on the relation be-
tween theory and practice in general. When analyzing the relation between technology
and fundamental research in science from a historical perspective, Stokes found that the
standard model of the relation between basic research and practical use is too narrow to
reflect what happened in reality. The standard model suggests that all innovations start
with pure basic research that informs applied research which is used in development and
finally translates into production and operation (Fig. 1). He came to the conclusion that
the conduct of science is better described by a model that involves two dimensions,
quest for understanding, and considerations of use. Those together constitute a ma-
trix with four quadrants (Fig. 2).

2
 Research is inspired by
Consideration of use?
No Yes

Use-inspired
Pure basic
basic
Quest for research
Yes research
fundamental (Bohr)
(Pasteur)
understanding

Pure applied
No research
(Edison)

Fig. 2 Stokes (1997, p. 73) model of four quadrants with two dimensions of goals

Stokes model may be used to describe the situation in educational research, and many
authors have advocated that besides Bohrs and Edisons quadrant, also Pasteurs quad-
rant of use-inspired basic research must be filled (Burkhardt and Schoenfeld 2003;
Reeves 2000). This is the quadrant where design research fits, as it pairs a quest for un-
derstanding to considerations of use.
The aforementioned first-generation instructional design theories were tailored to the
linear model and assumed fixed learning goals, ample academic knowledge, and directly
applicable general theories. Design research ideas emerged in situations where first-
generation instructional theories fell short; they are tailored to more innovative learning
environments, where learning goals are to be refined in the process, little academic
knowledge is available, and general theories do not yet offer much help (cf. Section 4.1
for further discussion).
Historically, the ideas of design research often emerged when researchers involved in
instructional design projects felt the need for strengthening the scientific basis of their
projects, while existing knowledge to build on was very scarce or completely lacking (cf.
Confrey 2006 for a historical reconstruction). In these processes, the awareness emerged
that carefully conducted and analyzed design projects also could generate theory. This
was for example the case in the Madison-Project (Romberg 1973), UCSMP (Usiskin
1986), the work of Brown (1992), who coined the term design experiments, Collins
(1992), and others in the US.
Also in Europe, various traditions arose: As Margolinas and Drijvers (2015) describe,
the research program of Didactical Engineering came to fruition in France, which was
centered around the Theory of Didactical Situations (Artigue 1992, 2015; Brousseau
1983, 1997). In the Netherlands, there were two different strands of developmental re-
search, one linked to the development of RME (realistic mathematics education) at
Utrecht University (see for instance Gravemeijer 1994, 1998; Streefland 1991), and one
that had its roots in general educational technology at the University of Twente (van den

3
Akker 1999). Although the Dutch discussion started in the late 1980s (cf. Gravemeijer
and Koster 1988 for early Dutch proceedings), it only reached a wider attention in the
mid-1990s (Gravemeijer 1994) and changed the name to the internationally more com-
mon design research (Gravemeijer and Cobb 2006). In Germany, Wittmann (1995),
one of the authors of the primary curriculum Mathe 2000, advocated for a design sci-
ence by emphasizing the need for didactical engineering based on both, insights into
student thinking and into mathematical structures relevant for learning. In the last years,
the Dortmund tradition was elaborated by a systematic emphasis on empirical investiga-
tion and theory building in topic-specific didactical design research (Prediger et al.
2012; Prediger and Zwetzschler 2013).
Design research further has its roots in engineering (Edelson 2002), and in one-on-one
teaching experiments (Cobb and Steffe 1983; Confrey and Lachance 2000; Steffe 1983;
Thompson 1979). According to Edelson, design research expands on ordinary design
which uses knowledge on design procedures, problem analyses, and design solutions to
create a successful design productby adding the goal of developing useful, generali-
zable theories. In one-on-one teaching experiments, researchers tried to come to under-
stand how students think and provide instructional tasks to elicit student thinking as the
experiment evolves. This orientation on student thinking subsequently fed into design
research focusing on student thinking (cf. Confrey 2006).
Design research became more widely known in 2003 and 2004 with special issues of
the Educational Researcher (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, and Schauble 2003; De-
sign-based research collective 2003) and the Journal of the Learning Sciences (Barab and
Squire 2004). Especially the article by Cobb et al. (2003) became a reference point,
thanks to their exposition on general characteristics of design research (which they refer
to as design experiments). They discern the following five common characteristics:
(1) interventionist,
(2) theory generative,
(3) prospective and reflective,
(4) iterative, and
(5) ecologically valid and practice-oriented.
Although a more elaborate discussion of those characteristics can be found in the contri-
bution of Confrey and Maloney (2015), we briefly explain these common characteristics:
(1) The intent of design research is to create and study new forms of instruction, in this
sense, it must be interventionist rather than naturalistic.
(2) The goal of design research is to generate theories about the process of learning and
the means of supporting that learning. Generating theories here means both, develop-
ing and refining theories (but rarely testing in the narrow sense of experimental
psychology). Individual design experiments aim at pragmatic, humble theories;
humble in the sense of being concerned with topic-specific learning processes, and
pragmatic in that they effectively inform prospective design. The authors further

4
 stress the central role of prior research as a means to both, specify the design and jus-
tify the differentiation of central and ancillary conditions. In a chain of projects, the-
ories are amalgamated beyond the humble, pragmatic ones (cf. Section 3).
(3) The connection between theory and experiment is twofold, namely prospective and
reflective: Theory prospectively informs the design for the design experiment, and is
further developed in the retrospective reflection on deviances between the expected
and the observed teaching and learning processes.
(4) Typical for design research studies are the iterative cycles of invention and revision;
when conjectures are refined during an experiment or between experiments (Confrey
and Lachance 2000), in respectively micro-design cycles and macro-design cycles
(Gravemeijer and Cobb 2013). The micro-design cycles take place within one design
experiment, when the researches try and adapt both, the instructional activities and
the theory that underpins them. Each micro-design cycle consists of an anticipatory
thought experiment, the enactment of instructional activities, and analysis, leading to
adaptation or revision of subsequent activities. Macro-design cycles occur when de-
sign experiments are repeated while building on one or more preceding design exper-
iments. In practice, design research may vary in the extent that it builds on either mi-
cro- or macro-cycles, or both. And, as will show later on, the contributions to this is-
sue show that these are not the only ways in which individual trials can build on each
other. Moreover, knowledge is not only gained in the various iterations, but also in
the retrospective analysis.
(5) The emphasis on ecological validity and practice-orientation reflects its pragmatic
roots: [] The theory must do real work (Cobb et al. 2003, p. 11). Because the re-
search is situated within real classrooms, the conditions of the study already repre-
sent the complexity of conditions of practice. Hence, care has to be taken that re-
search reports describe those conditions, and the way they may have influenced the
learning process. In addition, the theories are closely tied to the activities of students
and teachers and tested locally, and revised repeatedly.
As a caveat we may note that although the research is carried out in real classrooms, and
in this sense is closely linked to practice, the experimental reform classrooms differ im-
mensely from everyday practices in regular schools due to the interventionist characteris-
tics. How this gap might be bridged is described in the contribution of Cobb and Jackson
(2015). Another solution is presented by Stephan (2015) who shows how carrying out
design research in close collaboration with teachers can be instrumental in avoiding the
aforementioned gap.

2.2 Variability of design research approaches today

Although most design research approaches can be subsumed under the previously identi-
fied five characteristics, they still present a large variability in forms, depending on its

5
origin, its actual context and the specific needs it is supposed to fulfill. Hence, literature
of the last ten years pays tribute to this variety (e.g. Kelly et al. 2008; Plomp and Nieveen
2013; van den Akker et al. 2006, for educational research in different domains; and Bak-
ker and van Eerde 2015 for mathematics education).
The above-mentioned book of Plomp and Nieveen (2013), which comprises 51 illus-
trative cases of design research, marks the interest in and use of design research in gen-
eral. The same can be said for mathematics education, where especially in the last years,
the fields of actions have been extended to all age levels and institutions, from Kindergar-
ten (Sarama and Clements 2002), primary schools (e.g. Confrey and Maloney 2015; de
Beer et al. 2015), secondary schools (e.g. Gresalfi 2015; Lobato et al. 2015; Prediger and
Krgeloh 2015; Stephan 2015) to university (e.g. Kwon et al. 2015; Rasmussen 2001).
Surveying the field, we may observe that design research not only varies with respect
to age groups, but also with respect to:
the reasons for doing design research,
the type of results,
the intended role of the results in educational innovation one is aiming for,
the scale of the design project, and
the background theory.

For some researchers, the main reason for doing design research is the wish to account
for the messiness of real classrooms. For others, the necessity of experimenting primarily
emerges from their desire to come to grips with forms of instruction that do not yet exist.
In the former case, practical usefulness may be an important goal, whereas in the latter
case, understanding what is going on and what is made possible in the classroom as well
as developing corresponding theories are paramount.
In terms of results, the former may aim at producing artifacts that can be used directly
in classrooms. In contrast, the latter may aim at local instruction theories or more general
insights that cannot directly be applied. However, they are considered informative for
practitioners, instructional designers and researchers.
Depending on what role the results are meant to play in educational innovation, the
proceeds of a design experiment may be ready to use, translated into a prototypical in-
structional sequence, or framed as a paradigm case. In relation to the latter two, we may
observe a continuum that varies from approaches that are closely related to the method of
a one-on-one teaching experiment (Confrey 2006), to design research in which the one-
on-one teaching experiment methodology is paired to the development of prototypical
instructional sequences and the underlying local instruction theories (Gravemeijer and
Cobb 2013). An additional distinction concerns the question whether the design experi-
ment is basically self-contained, or part of a larger research program.

6
 Van den Akker (2013, p. 55) describes differences in scale by listing different levels
to which the research and design refers. From the nano level (of individuals and single
tasks), micro level (classrooms and teaching units), meso level (e.g. school-specific cur-
riculum), macro level (e.g. national syllabi or core objectives) up to the supra level (in-
ternational or internationally comparative aspects). This ZDM-issue mainly refers to the
micro level, with one exception (Cobb and Jackson 2015) on the macro level.
Finally, implicit or explicit background theories on teaching and learning will strongly
influence both the conception and the results of the design experiment. Here a self-
evident example is that of socio-constructivism, which orients design-researchers to think
through and analyze how students construct new knowledge (cf. Section 3 and 4).

2.3 Two archetypes of design research

The variation on the above aspects results in a variety of approaches to design research.
However, this variety may be smaller than expected, since the aforementioned character-
istics are not independent from each other. In fact, we may discern two archetypes of
design research, one that primarily aims at direct practical use, and one that primarily
aims at generating theory on teaching learning processes. Both aim at generating theory
and practical products, but there is a difference in focus and time span. This becomes
visible with respect to what the research is expected to produce, and what role those
products are meant to play; respectively:
curriculum products and design principles, ready to be used by practitioners and in-
structional designers;
local theories and paradigm cases that are meant to inform practitioners and research-
ers.

The second approach is the focus of this introduction and special issue. We briefly dis-
cuss the first approach, which is exemplified by the work of Van den Akker, Plomp, and
colleagues.
Nieveen, McKenney, and Van den Akker (2006) characterize their approach as design
research from a curriculum perspective, which has as its leading objective to improve
understanding of how to design for implementation: () insights are sought on how to
build and implement consistent, harmonious, and coherent components of a robust cur-
riculum (). (ibid, 72). They envision three types of outputs of design research: design
principles, curricular products, and professional development of the participants. The
design principles constitute the theoretical yield; often generalizations on the basis of the
characteristics of the actual intervention. The approach consists of successive approxima-
tions of ideal interventions which are indicated as prototypes.
These prototypes are subject to an elaborated process of formative evaluation cycles in
a series of phases, which are summarized by Plomp and Nieveen (2013) as: preliminary
research, development or prototyping phase, and assessment phase. The preliminary re-

7
search phase concerns a problem analysis and the development of a conceptual frame-
work. The prototyping phase encompasses various iterations of the prototype, with form-
ative evaluation as the main research activity. The assessment phase also may comprise a
number of iterations but the evaluation has a more summative character. The evaluation
criteria that are used in the various phases, reflect the focus on ready-to-use products,
they encompass the quality criteria of relevance, consistency, practicality, and effective-
ness. Using a similar set of cycles, curricular development can be described in phases of
pilot studies, field-tests and evaluation of full implementation, leading to the articulation
of program theory and implementation study (Schoenfeld 2007).

3. General characteristics of design research focusing on learning processes

in mathematics education
The focus of this volume is on the second archetype, design research which focuses on
learning processes and generating local theories. This section provides an overview of the
background theory and research that serve as the foundation for these studies

3.1 Relevance of focus on learning processes and basic assumptions

Background theories (like e.g. genetic epistemology, constructivism, constructionism,
socio-cultural approaches and situated learning) act as a fundamental core of design re-
search approaches in mathematics education. Most often chosen are those theories which
articulate an active role by students with support from teachers in constructing their own
knowledge (Brousseau 1997; Cobb and McClain 2004; Confrey and Kazak 2006; Steffe
1991; Voigt 1985). These theories compel design researchers to design and create class-
rooms where students are provided rich tasks to work with and ample opportunities to
participate, individually and collectively. Once these conditions are met, the research
concentrates on the emergence of students thinking over time and seeks to identify both,
productive moments and moments of failure, refining the relevant designs in light of
them. The ramifications of modifications are tested and explored both during the teaching
phase and in the retrospective analysis (Cobb et al. 2003).
Design research requires a different approach to curriculum and its supports needed by
teachers than is often assumed in direct studies of curriculum (Grouws et al. 2010). The
goal is not to study the implementation of a finished piece of curriculum where mea-
sures of fidelity of implementation apply (Huntley 2009; Tarr, Grouws, Chvez, and So-
ria 2013). Rather the curricular materials in design research are used to stimulate and
leverage active, anticipated and unanticipated forms of learning, and therefore revisions
during the experiment are expected (Ball and Cohen 1996). The materials (tasks, selec-
tion of tools, sequencing) are designed to elicit student thinking and to see where they
take the class or rather where the class takes the materials and ideas (Watson and Ohtani
in press). Design research requires that teachers are prepared and supported in developing

8
a knowledge base sufficient to support the constructive process, both for individual stu-
dents and for students-to-student and student-teacher interactions (Lehrer, Carpenter,
Schauble, and Putz 2000).
Most design research with a focus on mathematics learning processes is informed by
grand learning theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey and their intellectual heirs
such as Freudenthal (1968), Brousseau (1983), Treffers (1987), Collins (1992), Brown
and Campione (1996), and Vergnaud (1996). These theorists focus on what it means to
know and understand as it relates to learning over time and among communities of learn-
ers. From these foundational thinkers, a set of three broad assumptions about learning can
be derived and are used by most designer researchers.
Firstly, design researchers with this background draw on learning theories that treat
students as epistemic agents of their own who bring to bear their own experience and
resources. Students are not incomplete adults (Kaput 1999); they have their own points of
view, which must be carefully unearthed, often to the surprise and delight of the research
teams (Ackermann 1995; Duckworth 1996; Maher 2005). These points of view demon-
strate how children are actively working to make sense of the phenomena or circum-
stances and do so within the limits of their experience (Confrey 1991). While such re-
stricted perspectives can lead to misconceptions, closer examination often reveals roots
in justified, albeit limited, reasoning and/or potential alternative conceptions (Brousseau
1983; Confrey 1990; Lehrer et al. 2000; Minstrell 2001). The foundational learning theo-
ries seek out the actions taken by students to solve problems and study how they develop
into cognitive operations and schemes that support building rich concepts over time
(Ackermann 1995; Confrey 1990; Kamii 1985; Prediger and Schnell 2014; Thompson
1979). In the building of knowledge, students use representations to express their ideas in
ways that may differ and shed light on conventional representations and evolve over time
(Janvier 1987; Kaput 1987). In addition, children bring to school their own personal and
cultural experiences, which profoundly influence what and how they learn (Moll et al.
1992).
Secondly, design research with this background is typically conducted over an extend-
ed time period because of the benefit of examining gradual and steady or rapid and dra-
matic changes as students learn substantial ideas, conceptions, or strategies. One means
of study of the conditions students are likely to change their thinking was labeled con-
ceptual change (Posner et al. 1982), and sought to examine how changes in student
thinking could be informed by historic changes and epistemological practices in the dis-
ciplines during the evolution of the ideas.
Thirdly, based on the key theories of Vygotsky and his successors, design researchers
with this background recognize that thought and action are intricately interconnected and
influence each other. This implies that design researchers have to closely attend to the
discourse in the studied classrooms. Student discourse fosters learning to the degree the
participants learn to listen and seek to understand the perspective of others and as teach-

9
ers scaffold student thinking (Cazden 2001; Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, and Sherin 2004).
Vygotskian and related frameworks point to the mediational role played by the choice,
availability and affordances of tools and their semiotic character (Gravemeijer, Lehrer,
van Oers, and Verschaffel 2002). Consequently, design researchers are advised to pay
close attention to the variety of representations developed by the students, the tools and
manipulatives used, and how these interact with the classs developing ways of talking,
explaining, and justifying their thinking. Thus many design researchers document how
the use of these representations change over the course of the study as students build on
each others inventions and ways of talk are assimilated into ongoing dialogue. For these
reasons, artifacts from students seatwork and board work are a key source of evidence in
the studies (Simon 2000, Lehrer, Giles, and Schauble 2002).

3.2. Consequences for design research studies with a focus on learning processes
The design research in the current issue shows direct evidence of such a focus on learn-
ing. During all three stages of conduct of planning, executing and retrospectively analyz-
ing data, this process focus leads to a number of methodological commitments from the
researchers. They require the investigator to observe classes, to listen to students and
teachers carefully recording their uses of language, inscriptions, and explanations, and, to
collect and substantial amounts of student work samples and most fundamentally, be
deeply curious about what occurs within the context of learning mathematical ideas. That
is why design research with a focus on learning really has to investigate the process of
learning, not only its inputs and outputs. Thus, a process-orientation of the investigations
is a major characteristic (Gravemeijer and Cobb 2006; Prediger et al. 2012; Steffe and
Thompson 2000), which becomes increasingly adopted by other research approaches
outside design research, e.g. control trials which start to account for the processes in
terms of implementation quality or explaining effects.
This focus on learning as a process in which students are actively engaged in making
sense of mathematical ideas remains a hallmark of the type of design research that is cen-
tral here. Just as in the past, in this special issue, the topics still vary widely in grade
range (from primary to tertiary level), and in content (from equipartitioning, speed, divi-
sion and ratio reasoning, to integers, statistics, arithmetic problem solving, functions, and
multivariable calculus). But what is also noticeable is that nearly all of the papers com-
bine a primary design challenge with a secondary one. Besides restructuring a mathemat-
ical topic, a second challenge involves more general instructional issues like inquiry-
based learning (Kwon et al. 2015), strategic scaffolding (Prediger and Krgeloh 2015),
engagement (Gresalfi 2015), model-based reasoning (de Beer et al. 2015), and the role of
diagnostic assessment (Confrey and Maloney 2015).
Design research studies with a focus on learning processes can take place in laboratory
(interview) settings and in classroom settings. Design experiments in laboratory (inter-
view) settings with small groups of students (n=1-6) are mostly used for early design ex-

10
periment cycles, focusing on specifying and structuring the learning progression (e.g.,
Prediger and Krgeloh 2015 start with laboratory settings). For grasping the classroom
dynamics and classroom routines and norms, (later cycles of) design research are situated
in classroom settings.
Because the focus on process extends over the duration of the study, researchers have
time to test ongoing and evolving conjectures about student reasoning and classroom in-
teractions, by trying mini-experiments and exploring the robustness and dispersion of
ideas and their influence on each other. When an unexpected result arises during the con-
duct of the research, the team will devise a way to adjust the instructional plan to allow
them to test the meaning and extent of the result. This may require the development of an
additional formative assessment, the modification of a task assignment to ask for more
explanation, or preparing the teacher to watch for and bring out further examples. For
example, Lobato et al. (2015) report on how, within a design study on quadratics, they
recognize a critical need to understand how students were reasoning about division and to
address it through a small intervention within a study of quadratics. Simultaneously, there
was a critical need to help students change their understanding of explanations, so as to
use division meaningfully in the context of an evolving understanding of rate and its rep-
resentation on a number line. It was the retrospective analysis of the second study that led
them to revisit and reinterpret the first study. This illustrates how a conjecture may
evolve in a study, or across study iterations.
Even projects with a strong focus on curriculum innovation like Kwon et al. (2015)
sometimes adopt a process focus: In their design research project on inquiry-based learn-
ing for a multivariable calculus course, the quality criteria for which the inquiry-based
learning is optimized required the process focus: When quality of innovation is related to
the deepening the structures of students argumentation processes, it is necessary to de-
velop analytic tools for investigate deeply the students processes (Kwon et al. 2015).

4. Theories, theorizing and methodological issues

4.1 Critical perspectives on design research and methodological standards

Design research is still a contested approach (e.g. critique by Dede 2004; Kelly 2004;
Philips and Dolle 2006; and others). One main criticism is that design research is not one
well-defined research method. And it is true that there is a large variety of research ap-
proaches labeled design research. However, rather than to force all variants of design
research into one straightjacket, we propose to acknowledge the variations, and demand
specification in each study of how their methods were tailored to the individual purpose
and context. In Section 2.3, we already discerned two main archetypes; that of design
research from the curriculum perspective, and design research with a focus on learning

11
processes. The first does have a rather well articulated research methodwhich has some
similarities with formative evaluation (cf. e.g. Plomp and Nieveen 2013).
In contrast, design research projects in the second archetype with a focus on learning
processes apply a larger variety of methods and data analysis procedures. When discuss-
ing methodology, the bottom line for a research project is in the end: Why should one
believe its claims? A standard quality criterion for achieving such an accountability is to
make transparent the process by which the results are produced (cf. Freudenthal 1991).
We may observe that in classic research approaches, accountability is achieved by stand-
ardized research methods. This does not mean, however, that a sound research approach
cannot exist without some pre-accepted standard procedure. In contrast, we would argue
that the deeper analysis of learning processes requires adaptations and new inventions of
data analysis procedures, which match to the specific topics and learning contexts. Still,
even though each design research project has to produce its own methodological justifica-
tion of its methods, it seems reasonable to formulate general directions on what such a
justification would have to look likea point we will come back to later.
Some researchers have proposed means to reconcile design research with other types
of curriculum study. For instance, Schoenfeld (2007) suggested a three-phase model,
which would start with small-scale design experiments, then midscale exploratory studies
aiming at understanding how and why instruction works, and finally expanded studies
replicating the effects discovered in phase 2, or comparative in-depth evaluations of any
number of promising curricula (involving random assignment of participants) (Schoen-
feld 2007, p. 97f). This three-phase model is one possible means to use design studies,
but if it implies all design research studies are pilot studies or preliminary to the real
study, then such a phased model fails to recognize the full contribution of the approach of
design research. Instead, small-scale design experiments can inform researchers more
deeply about the mechanism of teaching and learning in a way that explains how learning
occurs. This sheds light on theory, simultaneously. Furthermore, in the three-phase mod-
el, there is a danger that particularly in the later phases, the teacher becomes the person
charged with fidelity of standardized implementation, i.e. loosing the necessary agency of
adaptations to local contexts and students.
A fundamental question that underlies much of the critique on design research is, if it
is (in principle) possible or impossible, to simultaneously pursuit a design goal and a the-
oretical yield. Philips and Dolle (2006) are quite outspoken in this respect by claiming
that it is not possible to freely pursue design possibilities and at the same time make theo-
retically sound conclusions around theory. They apparently reason from the classic exper-
imental perspective of the natural sciences, while seeking a controlled means of identify-
ing the set of independent variables which influences the output variables. We may coun-
ter, however, that design research is grounded in the assertion that classrooms are com-
plex ecologies where one cannot sufficiently control all variables to draw causal conclu-
sions. This calls for a different approach than the reductionist approach of natural science

12
like psychology in which phenomena are disassembled in individual variables whose
interdependencies can be researched systematicallyessentially by testing hypotheses.
The underlying idea of grasping how things work resonates with Maxwells (2004)
process-oriented conception of causal explanation, which he juxtaposes with a regularity
conception of causality. The regularity conception of causality is based on the logic that,
if A follows B frequently, then B is the cause of A. The process-oriented conception of
causality refers to the mechanisms through which and the conditions under which that
causal relationship holds (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002, p. 9). This is a more ho-
listic conception that fits with the objective of design research, to come to understand
how things work. Whichas we argued beforemay have more practical value for
teachers, than knowing that A works better than B.
Many criticizers seem to conceptualize educational innovation from a fidelity perspec-
tive, in which teachers are expected to use instructional materials in prescribed ways in
order to achieve a specified result. This conception of educational innovation is at odds
with the background theories we described earlier (Section 3.1), based on an active role
of the students in constructing their own knowledge. This requires the teachers to contin-
uously adapt to how the students of their classroom act and reason rather than simply use
ready-made instructional materials in prescribed ways. For a more adaptive and interac-
tive kind of teaching, a different kind of teacher support is needed, enabling teachers to
interpret how their students act and reason, and to react adequately. The here discussed
archetype of design research aims at offering theories which inform teachers about the
anticipated learning processes, and the potential means of supporting those learning pro-
cesses. Thus, the objective is notas Philips and Dolle (2006) presumeto design a
finished piece of curriculum. Instead, the design aspect concerns design and creation of
learning environments as a means for coming to understand innovative learning processes
and the way in which those learning processes can be supported. This understanding may
take the form of local instruction theories, as well as theoretical frameworks that address
more encompassing issues. Following the Research Advisory Committee of NCTM
(1996), we may speak of a change in research goalsfrom What works? to, How
does it work? And, as they go on to say, this implies a shift in the norms of justification.
Hence guaranteeing methodological standards requires a deep reflection on the role of
theories in design research.

In spite of the variations between forms and aims of design research with a focus on
learning processes, common criteria have been established, especially the role of theories,
relevance of the questions and results for classrooms and the educational system; (ecolog-
ical) validity, reliability, transparency, intersubjectivity, for the empirical methods (cf.
Bakker and van den Eerde 2015; Kelly 2003). In the next subsections, we discuss the role
of theories as quality criteria for design research.

13
4.2 Different levels of theories
Two central criteria help to distinguish high quality design research from more or less
research-inspired design: the coherent use of theories as a base of design research, and
relevant contributions to further theorizing (Confrey and Lachance 2000; Design-Based
Research Collaborative 2003; Gravemeijer 1994). Naming these both criteria refers to the
double role of theories in mathematics education research (Assude et al. 2008; Prediger
and Bikner-Ahsbahs 2010):
(a) theory as a framework for research, and,
(b) theory as a major outcome of research.
Sometimes the framework and the outcome belong to the same kind of theories or even
the same theories, but with adaptations and with a different level of empirical support or
further refinements. Hence, the roles of theory in design research are rather complex and
dynamic.
The role of theories as a precondition for methodologically sound design research has
often been emphasized (e.g., Bakker and van Eerde 2015; Cobb et al. 2003; Confrey
2006). Often mentioned are different levels of generality (Confrey and Kazak 2006; diS-
essa and Cobb 2004; Gravemeijer 1998), listed from most general level to the most spe-
cific:
orienting frameworks or background theories
domain-specific instruction theories as frameworks for action
local instruction theories / humble theories / hypothetical learning trajectories

Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted nomenclature; not only are various labels used
to describe the same levels, but also the same labels are used to denote different levels,
even by the same authors. If possible, we will use the meaning that was intended by the
authors who first coined the terms.
Orienting frameworks (diSessa and Cobb 2004) or background theories (Gravemeijer
and Cobb 2013), such as socio-constructivism or cognitive theory, function as the foun-
dation of the research and significantly influence both, the design and the way data are
interpreted. They do not change or emerge in a research project. Once the researchers
have committed themselves to certain grand theories and background theories, those the-
ories are basically treated as givens in a design research project. The article of Abraham-
son (2015) shows, however, that a series of design research projects can lead researchers
to switch to another background theory.
Domain-specific instruction theories are specific for the school subject, in our case
mathematics education and offer a general framework for action. One example of such a
domain-specific instruction theory is Brousseaus (1997) Theory of Didactical Situations
which is instrumental in the French Didactical Engineering as described by Margolinas
and Drijvers (2015). Another example is the theory of realistic mathematics education,

14
RME, which is used in various contributions to this special issue (de Beer et al. 2015;
Kwon et al. 2015; Margolinas and Drijvers 2015; Stephan 2015). RME is typical in that it
was defined as a domain-specific instruction theory (Treffers 1987) from the outset.
Treffers construed RME retrospectively by analyzing the results of various design re-
search projects trying to fulfill Freudenthals (1973) adagio of mathematics as a human
activity. Although being the product of design research, Treffers RME theory also
started to function as a guideline for new design research projects. Gravemeijer (1999)
recasts RME in terms of instructional design heuristics: guided reinvention, didactical
phenomenology and emergent modeling, where emergent modeling may be considered
an addition to Treffers work, which again was the product of retrospective analysis of a
number of design research projects. As a caveat we should add that it is not always clear
whether the classroom culture is considered a part of the domain-specific theory or not.
However, enacting RME requires a specific classroom culture (as clearly comes to the
fore in Stephan 2015).
diSessa and Cobb (2004) have emphasized that even the domain-specific instruction
theory is mostly too general for deriving designs. One of the RME heuristics, emergent
modeling for instance, advises the designer to look for a model that models the students
experientially reality, may support students in developing mathematical relations, and can
become a model for more formal reasoning when the model starts to derive its meaning
from the emerging network of mathematical relations (Gravemeijer 1999). When design-
ing a learning trajectory for a given topic, however, the design heuristic does not tell you
what model to choose.
A local instruction theory hence addresses the learning of a specific topic such as ad-
dition and subtraction of numbers up to ten, of the multiplication of fractions, offering
theories about a possible leaning process, together with theories about possible means of
supporting that learning process (Cobb et al. 2003; Gravemeijer 1998). These means of
support include the classroom social norms and the socio-mathematical norms that have
to be in place. The means of support encompass potentially productive instructional ac-
tivities and (computer) tools (discussed by Hoyles and Noss 2015) as well as an envi-
sioned classroom culture and the proactive role of the teacher. This broader perspective
fits with the notion of a learning ecology:
Elements of a learning ecology typically include the tasks or problems that students are asked to solve, the kinds of
discourse that are encouraged, the norms of participation that are established, the tools and related material means
provided, and the practical means by which classroom teachers can orchestrate relations among these elements. (Cobb
et al. 2003, p. 9).

Whereas the local instruction theory is formulated on the level of an instructional se-
quence, the hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT) was originally defined on a more spe-
cific level, that of instructional activities, the anticipated mental activities in which stu-
dents will engage when they participate in envisioned instructional activities, and consid-
erations on how the anticipated mental activities relate to the end goals one is aiming for
(Simon 1995). Speaking of teachers doing the anticipating, Simon emphasizes the hypo-

15
thetical character of these learning trajectories; the teachers are to analyze the reactions of
the students in light of the stimulated learning trajectory to find out in how far the actual
learning trajectory corresponds with what was envisioned. Based on this information the
teacher has to construe new or adapted instructional activities in connection with a re-
vised learning trajectory.
Over time, the meaning of the term hypothetical learning trajectory has shifted. Simon
(1995) introduced the term in the context of the design of one or two lessons, nowadays,
the term hypothetical learning trajectory, or learning trajectory for short (Confrey
2006), is also used for learning processes that evolve during an instructional sequence for
a certain topic and can extend beyond a single class, unit or even school year. Understood
this way, the notion of a learning trajectory is very similar to that of a local instruction
theory. Next to those terms, the appellation learning progression is often used nowa-
days. However, this term comes with a different connotation, in that it primarily refers to
an empirically grounded sequence of steps that describe how students are likely to reason
as they move from nave to more sophisticated reasoning (Daro, Mosher, and Corcoran
2011). Finally Stephan (2015) distinguishes between a classroom learning trajectory and
an individual learning trajectory, highlighting that individual trajectories will vary while
Confrey (2006) argues that a learning trajectory always contains an understanding of
multiple pathways in relation to certain landmarks and obstacles.
The above tidy categorization of theories does not cover all theoretical aspects that
come to the fore in design research. The various studies that are presented in this issue
show that intermediate theoretical gains often concern design details, which truly deserve
the title humble theories, for example the design elements of the strategic scaffolding
tool underlying the word problem cracker developed by Prediger and Krgeloh (2015)
which has also led to contributions with a wider range, for example the specification of
necessary strategies.

4.3 Theorizing as a process

All high quality based research is based on theory, but all high quality research also aims
at contributing to developing theories, i.e. to theorizing. But what exactly does develop-
ing theories mean? Some design researchers talk about developing theories in terms of
validation (Plomp and Nieveeen 2013, p. 16) which is a usual term for example in the
context of randomized control trials in which hypothesis are validated or falsified. This
way of theorizing is highly valued and in some countries even claimed with exclusive-
ness (Slavin 2002).
However, within design research with a focus on learning processes, theorizing is not
restricted to validating theories formulated in hypotheses but about emergent theorizing
in an evolutionary sense of refining and revising categories and conjectures (Confrey and
Lachance 2000). Metaphorically expressed, this requires to put theories in harms way,

16
as Cobb et al. (2003) formulated and Confrey and Maloney (2015) exemplify for equipar-
titioning in this issue.
The process of theorizing often takes place on the level of local instruction theories:
The type of design research project we discuss here usually starts with a conjectured local
instruction theory, which then evolves by the design experiments. Although also design
researchers use terms like put to the test, the role of such theories in design research is
very different from the role theory plays in (quasi-)experimental research. The aim is not
to either accept or reject theoretical elements as is the case in experimental research
but to revise, refine or improve them. This comes to the fore in many of the papers in this
special issue.
These papers also show the power of iterations and trials of different elements of a lo-
cal instruction theory in iterative experiment cycles. Often it is not one design experiment
that leads to a local instruction theory, nor a series of design experiments in which a
complete theory is iteratively adapted and improved. More often various pieces of under-
standing gained in individual experiments are put together in one coherent whole (e.g. de
Beer et al. 2015; Stephan 2015). In all its variation, accumulation and synthesis strongly
shapes the process of theorizing and then contributes to the persuasive power.
The investigation of the students learning pathways often transcends the initial con-
jectures and is open to unanticipated findings (de Beer et al. 2015), or even failures (Lo-
bato et al. 2015). In this respect, design research adheres to Smalings (1992) conception
of methodological objectivity. He argues that doing justice to the object of research en-
compasses both, avoiding distortions, and, letting the object speak. The former corre-
sponds with the usual requirements of reliability and validity. The latter involves looking
for signs that may indicate possibilities for promising alternatives.
Accumulation and openness to unanticipated findings can lead to what diSessa and
Cobb (2004) call an ontological innovation. They argue that a series of design experi-
ments can serve as the context for the development of theories or theoretical frameworks
that entail new scientific categories, which can serve as lenses contributing to making
sense of what is happening in the actual instructional setting. To fulfill this role, the new
categories will have to be embedded in and supported by a corresponding theoretical
framework. Note that ontological innovations can play a dual role. On the one hand, they
can serve as lenses for making sense of what is happening in the complex, more-or-less
real world instructional setting in which a design study is conducted. On the other hand,
ontological innovations can function as guidelines or heuristics for instructional design.
Social norms and socio-mathematical norms may function as an example. On the one
hand, the concepts of social norms and socio-mathematical norms offer an interpretative
framework for analyzing classroom discourse and communication (Yackel and Cobb
1996). The interpretative framework then plays a role in interpreting data (as in Lobato et
al. 2015), which can be seen as pendant of operationalizing in classical educational re-
search. On the other hand, the same framework reveals what norms have to be established

17
in the classroom to make certain design experiments successful. This is exemplified in
this issue by Gresalfis (2015) study on the role of critical engagement.
Coming back to quality criteria for theorizing, most important for us seem to be those
criteria which refer to the interplay of experiment and the process of theorizing. Ecologi-
cal validity requires that the applied theories and the resulting theoretical contributions
have to take into account the complexity of classrooms. This asks for a different approach
than the reductionist approach of natural science like psychology in which phenomena
are disassembled in individual variables whose interdependencies can be researched sys-
tematicallyespecially by testing hypotheses. In this respect, we may refer to Gould
(2004) who depicts a complementary way of knowing; the more holistic approach of the
humanities, in which, in his view, concilience plays a large part: the validation of a theo-
ry by the jumping together of otherwise disparate facts into a unitary explanation (ibid,
p. 192). He presents Darwins theory of evolution as a key example of the latter; the cred-
ibility of his evolution theory resides in the fact that it explains the large variety of spe-
cies in one stroke.
Cobb, Jackson, and Dunlap (2015) take this process-oriented conception as a basis for
elaborating the scheme of argumentation that underpins the methodology of this type of
design research. He adopts the term argumentative grammar that is introduced by Kelly
(2004). According to Cobb et al. (2105), the argumentative grammar that links data to
analysis and to final claims and assertions, requires design-researchers to show:
(a) that the students developed specific forms of reasoning,
(b) that this has to be attributed to the students participation in the design experiment,
(c) how these forms of reasoning emerged, and
(d) how the evolving learning ecology ensured this process.
The articles in this issue show a broad range of ways to meet those requirements.

5. Outlook on the papers of the special issue

The studies in this volume, drawing on the sketched theories of learning, and situated in
the broad evolution of an engineering based use of design studies with a strong focus on
theorizing, share a number of the characteristics described heretofore:

Explicit articulation of a broad or grand theory under which the work is conducted
and the development of local instructional theories (Gravemeijer and Cobb 2006; 2013),
humble theories (Cobb et al. 2003) or bridging theories (Confrey and Kazak 2006). This
volume begins with a report from Margolinas and Drijvers (2015), which provides an
overview on two traditions of research that are frequently used as the grand theories for
European design research: didactical engineering from the French research community
based on Guy Brousseau (1983; 1997), and Realistic Mathematics Education from the
Dutch tradition evolving from the fundamental ideas of Freudenthal (1968; 1973). In

18
each, the scholars describe the need to study learning in context and in real classrooms
led to the need to evoke an engineering orientation to design research. They further de-
scribed how such research would be approached through the careful design of tasks fol-
lowed by observations and analysis to further refine tasks. Other studies in this special
issue track back to teaching experiments (Abrahamson 2015; Confrey and Maloney 2015;
Stephan 2015) and early design research (Gresalfi 2015; Labato 2015).
In the contribution of Confrey and Maloney (2015), the authors report on two conjec-
tures and how they were investigated over the course of the study they conducted on the
use of diagnostic assessments with second, third and fourth graders. In one case, they
show how the theory had to be substantially reevaluated and revised, and in the other,
how the conjecture flourished and was elaborated. In neither of these two cases, the re-
sults of the study could be anticipated and hypothesized in advance. A design research
approach was selected to allow the results to emerge and be carefully documented due to
the method in which the study was conducted.

A careful delineation of tasks and how they were designed. Design researchers devote
considerable thought to the design of their tasks and how those tasks can elicit rich
threads of student reasoning. De Beer et al. (2015), interested in how students combine
their understanding of intuitive experience of rate with a meaning of rate as a quantitative
description of the relationship between distance and time, report on how they used variety
of shapes of glass containers to elicit student thinking. Gresalfi (2015), interested in un-
derstanding student engagement in relation to reasoning about measures of central ten-
dency places her tasks in the context of city planning, strengthening the game parameters
and raising the stakes.
As has been noted previously in Cobb et al. (2003), design research studies are
uniquely suited to exploring the use of rich tasks using new technologies to support inno-
vation and intervention. In the special issue, authors demonstrate ways of designing and
redesigning technologies such as the LYPP-Sync, a diagnostic system delivered on smart
phones (Confrey and Maloney 2015) or Seeing Chance, Kinemathics, and Giant Steps
(Abrahamson 2015). In one submission (Gresalfi 2015) the author works to bring togeth-
er the use of a game, Quest Atlantis, and their compelling forms of engagement together
with what is known from research about the relative merits of different conceptions of
central tendency. The combination of design studies reported leaves one with a very con-
temporary view of education.

Examples clearly demonstrate articulated evolution of the conjectures over the course
of the cycles and variations of design and how they affect the phenomenology of the
classroom events. Gresalfi (2015), Lobato et al. (2015), and Prediger and Krgeloh
(2015) most clearly demonstrate the process of revising iterations of design based on the
ongoing results. Gresalfi (2015) does this over a series of three years of development and

19
revision within her ongoing research program, while Lobato et al. (2015) demonstrate
how conditions of failure can be leveraged to find, explore and eventually weave in un-
expected results. Prediger and Krgeloh (2015) present a project with six design experi-
ment cycles in laboratory settings with a total of 70 students. The problems appearing in
the third design experiment cycle gave rise for their work on comprehension strategies.

Articulation of the critical role of classroom milieu and related sociomathematical

norms in the conduct of the instruction. Because the studies often introduce new types of
tasks, tools, and ideas, there is often a need to explicitly address and refine the norms of
classroom behavior, interaction patterns and expectations about student reasoning. This is
evident in the second part of the article of Lobato et al. (2015) when student weakness in
understanding division is accompanied by a need to set new expectations for explanation
and understanding. It is also evident in the way in which Gresalfi (2015) orients to define
engagement and evidence. In Cobb and Jackson (2015), their primary claim most teach-
ers therefore have to fundamentally reorganize rather than merely extend or elaborate
their current instructional practices if they are to enact the products of classroom design
studies as intended requires changes in classroom norms and expectations.

Careful attention to argumentation, explanation and warrant with attention to gener-

alizability of findings. Confrey and Maloney (2015) report on the extensive analysis that
was required to explain the data from their study and how it led them to a variety of out-
comes: revising materials, checking the accuracy of the algorithm operating in the soft-
ware and reformulating aspects of the equipartitioning learning trajectory. The contribu-
tion of Prediger and Krgeloh (2015) articulate a variety of outcomes and show how the-
se are explicitly related to their original conjecture and assumptions.

Thoughtful consideration and intentional consideration of the relationship of the re-

search-practice interface. While design research has a prima facie relationship to practice
in comparison to laboratory-based studies, design researchers often attend to this in mul-
tiple ways. Typically this surfaces in relation to the role of the teacher in the study. These
studies vary in that regard. In the report of Confrey and Maloney (2015), the teacher is a
researcher and the study is conducted in a special summer session, a decision largely in-
fluenced by the novelty of the technology used. Describing the development of design
research, Margolinas and Drivers (2015) articulate how in didactical engineering, the role
of the teacher has evolved. It has evolved from teacher as partner, to teacher as collabora-
tor, to studying teaching in its reciprocal relation to student learning. In contrast, In con-
trast, in the paper of Stephan (2015), the researcher is the teacher in some instances, but
she collaborates with a group of teachers as she merges design research with lesson
study. She reports on how the consistent involvement of teachers influences the ecologi-
cal validity of the work. Cobb and Jackson (2015) take on the issue of transfer of de-

20
sign research most directly and articulate a set of considerations that need to be recog-
nized and tackled for the results of these studies to influence practice at scale. They call
for a set of design studies that investigate dissemination processes by focusing on the
development of the capacity for instructional improvement at the level of individual
schools and of school systems.

We welcome our readers to this Special Issue and hope that you find the compilation
of articles useful and provocative for further elaboration of design research methodolo-
gies.

References
Abrahamson, D. (2015). Reinventing Learning: A Design-Research Odyssey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi
10.1007/s11858-014-0646-3 (this issue).
Ackermann, E. (1995). Construction and transference of meaning through form. In L. P. Steffe & G. Steffe (Eds.),
Constructivism in Education (pp. 341-354). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Akker, J. van den (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van Akker, R. M. Branch, K.
Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14).
Boston: Kluwer.
Akker, J. van den (2013). Curricular Development Research as a Specimen of Educational Design Research. In T.
Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research: Illustrative Cases (pp. 52 -71). Enschede: SLO,
Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Akker, J. van den, Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational Design Research.
London: Routledge.
Artigue, M. (1992). Didactical engineering. In R. Douady & A. Mercier (Eds.), Recherches en Didactique des
Mathmatiques. Selected papers (pp. 4170). Grenoble: La Pense Sauvage.
Artigue, M. (2015). Perspectives on design research: The case of didactical engineering. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C.
Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of
methodology and methods (pp. 467-496). New York, Heidelberg: Springer.
Assude, T., Boero, P., Herbst, P., Lerman, S., & Radford, L. (2008). The notions and roles of theory in mathematics
education research - A Survey. In ICME (Ed.), Proceedings of ICME 11 in Monterrey, Mexico. (pp. 338-356).
ICME: www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICMI/files/About_ICMI/Publications_about_ICMI/ICME_11/Assude.pdf
[April, 26, 2015].
Bakker, A., & Van Eerde, H. A. A. (2015). An introduction to design based research with an example from statistics
education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Doing qualitative research: Methodology and
methods in mathematics education (pp. 429-466). New York: Springer.
Ball, D. L.. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is or might be the role of curriculum materials in
teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6-8, 14.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13(1),1 -14.
Brousseau, G. (1983). Les obstacles pistmologique et les problmes en mathmatiques. Revue Internationale de
Philosophie Recherches en Didactique des Mathmatiques, 4, 165-198.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On
procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments
for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141-178.
Burkhardt, H. & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and
better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom Discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Cobb, P. & Jackson, K. (2015). Supporting teachers use of research-based instructional sequences. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 47(6), doi 10.1007/s11858-015-0692-5 (this issue).

21
Cobb, P. & McClain, K. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design for Supporting the Development of Students'
Statistical Reasoning. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The Challenge of developing Statistical Literacy -
Reasoning and Thinking (pp. 375-396). Boston: Kluwer.
Cobb, P. & Steffe, L.P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83-95.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 913.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Dunlap, C. (2015). Design research: An analysis and critique. In L. English & D. Kirshner
(Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 481-503) (3rd edn.). New York:
Routledge.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in
educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York: Springer.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004): Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Journal of
the Learning Sciences,13(1), 15-42.
Confrey, J. (1990). A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science and Programming.
Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
Confrey, J. (1991). Learning to listen: A student's understanding of powers of ten. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical
constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 111-138). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of the learning sciences (pp. 135-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Confrey, J. & Kazak, S. (2006). A Thirty-Year Reflection on Constructivism in Mathematics Education. In Gutirrez,
A. & Boero, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, Present and
Future (pp. 305-345). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Confrey, J. & Maloney, A. (2015). A Design Study of a Curriculum and Diagnostic Assessment System for a Learning
Trajectory on Equipartitioning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0699-y (this issue).
Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design.
In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231266).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., & and Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning Trajectories in Mathematics: A Foundation for
Standards, Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction (Research Report #RR-68). Philadelphia: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education. Retrieved at 12/12/2013 from:
http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/1220_learningtrajectoriesinmathcciireport.pdf
de Beer, H., Gravemeijer, K., & van Eijck, M. (2015). Discrete and continuous reasoning about change in primary
school classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi 10.1007/s11858-015-0684-5 (this issue).
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1),
105-114.
Design Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
Duckworth, E. (1996). The Having of Wonderful Ideas. New York: Teachers College Press.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
11(1), 105-122.
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1-2), 3-8.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an Educational Task. Dordecht: Reidel
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation. Review of Educational
Research, 47(2), 335-397.
Gould, S. J. (2004). The hedgehog, the fox, and the magisters pox. London: Vintage.
Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: Cd- Press.
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. 277295). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155177.
Gravemeijer, K. & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Akker, K. Gravemeijer,
S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 4585). London: Routledge.
Gravemeijer, K. & Cobb, P. (2013). Design research from the learning design perspective. In: T. Plomp & N. Nieveen
(Eds.). (2013). Educational design research Part A: An introduction (pp. 72-113), Enschede: SLO.
Gravemeijer, K. & Koster, K. (Eds.). (1988). Onderzoek, ontwikkeling en ontwikkelingsonderzoek. Utrecht: Vakgroep
OW&OC.

22
Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.) (2002). Symbolizing, Modeling and Tool Use in
Mathematics Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gresalfi, M. (2015). Designing to support critical engagement with statistics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi
10.1007/s11858-015-0690-7
Grouws, D. H., et al. (2010). COSMIC: Comparing Options in Secondary Mathematics: Investigating Curriculum.
From http://cosmic.missouri.edu/. [Last access Dec, 16, 2015]
Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2015). A computational lens on design research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), (this
issue).
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning
community. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81-116.
Huntley, M. A. (2009). Brief report: Measuring curriculum implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 40(4), 355362.
Janvier, C. (Ed.) (1987). Problems of representation in the learning of mathematics. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piagets theory. New York: Columbia
University, Teachers College Press.
Kaput, J. (1987). Representation and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the learning of
mathematics (pp. 1926). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and Learning a New Algebra. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics
classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133-155). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Kelly, A. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
Kelly, A. (2004). Design Research in Education: Yes, but is it Methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13(1), 115-128.
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.
Kwon, O.N., Bae, Y.G., & Oh, K.H. (2015). Design Research on Inquiry-Based Multivariable Calculus: Focusing on
Students Argumentation and Instructional Design. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), (this issue).
Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., & Putz, A. (2000). Designing Classrooms That Support Inquiry. In J. Minstrell
& E.H. von Zee (Eds.), Inquiring in Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 80-99). Reston: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Lehrer, R., Giles, N. & Schauble, L. (2002). Children's work with data. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.),
Investigating real data in the classroom: expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1-26.
Lobato, J., Walters, C. D., Hohensee, C., Gruver, J, & Diamond, J.M. (2015). Leveraging Failure in Design Research.
ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi 10.1007/s11858-015-0695-2 (this issue).
Maher, C. A. (2005). How students structure their investigations and learn mathematics: Insights from a long-term
study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(1), 1-14.
Margolinas, C. & Drijvers, P. (2015). Didactical engineering in France; an insiders and an outsiders view on its foun-
dations, its practice and its impact. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi 10.1007/s11858-015-0698-z (this is-
sue).
Maxwell, J.A. (2004). Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education. Educational
Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990). Limitations of First Generation Instructional Design. Educational
Technology, 30(1), 7-11.
Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice.
In Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D. &Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom,
and professional settings. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzlez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach
to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Nieveen, N., McKenney, S., & Van den Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research: the value of variety. In J. van
den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 151-158).
London: Routledge.
Philipps, 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 (pp. 277-292). Oxford / Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research. Enschede: SLO.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception:
Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Prediger, S. & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2010). Networking of TheoriesAn Approach for Exploiting the Diversity of
Theoretical Approaches. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of Mathematics Education (pp. 483-506).
Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer

23
Prediger, S. & Krgeloh, N. (2015). Low achieving eighth graders learn to crack word problems: a design research
project for aligning a strategic scaffolding tool to students' mental processes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6),
doi 10.1007/s11858-015-0702-7 (this issue).
Prediger, S. & Schnell, S. (2014). Investigating the Dynamics of Stochastic Learning Processes: A Didactical Research
Perspective, Its Methodological and Theoretical Framework, Illustrated for the Case of the Short TermLong Term
Distinction. In E.J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic Thinking: Presenting Plural Perspectives (pp.
533-558). Dordrecht: Springer.
Prediger, S., & Zwetzschler, L. (2013). Topic-specific design research with a focus on learning processes: The case of
understanding algebraic equivalence in grade 8. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research:
Illustrative Cases (pp. 407-424). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Prediger, S., Link, M., Hinz, R., Humann, S., Thiele, J., & Ralle, B. (2012). Lehr-Lernprozesse initiieren und
erforschen Fachdidaktische Entwicklungsforschung im Dortmunder Modell [Initiating and researching teaching
learning processes Didactical Design Research in the Dortmund model]. Der mathematische und naturwissen-
schaftliche Unterricht, 65(8), 452457.
Rasmussen, C. (2001). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students understandings
and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(1), 5587.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), 19-28.
Research Advisory Committee of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1996). Justification and reform.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(5), 516-520.
Romberg, T. A. (1973). Development Research: An Overview of how Development-Based Research Works in Practice.
Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sarama, J. & Clements, D. H. (2002). Building Blocks for young childrens mathematical development. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 27(1-2), 93-109.
Schoenfeld, A. (2007). Methods. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning (pp. 69-107). Charlotte: Information Age / NCTM.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized
causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145.
Simon, M. A. (2000). Research on the development of mathematics teachers: The teacher development experiment. In
A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 335-359).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational
researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
Smaling, A. (1992). Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity - the relations with qualitative and quantitative
research, and with objectivity. Quality & Quantity, 26, 169-180.
Steffe, L. P. (1983). The teaching experiment methodology in a constructivist research program. In M. Zweng, T.
Green, J. Kilpatrick, H. Pollak, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on
Mathematical Education (pp. 469-471). Boston: Birkhuser.
Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.),
Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education (pp. 177-194). Boston: Kluwer.
Steffe, L. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential
elements. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education
(pp. 267-307). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stephan, M. L (2015). Conducting classroom design research with teachers. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), doi
10.1007/s11858-014-0651-6 (this issue).
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: Brooking
Institution Press.
Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chvez, ., & Soria, V. M. (2013). The effects of content organization and curriculum
implementation on students mathematics learning in second-year high school courses. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 44(4), 683-729.
Thompson, P. W. (1979). The constructivist teaching experiment in mathematics education research. Presentation to
the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Boston, MA.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instructionThe
Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Usiskin, Z. (1986). Translating grades 7-12 mathematics recommendations into reality. Educational Leadership, 44(4),
30-35.
Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical
learning (pp. 219239). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24
Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Researches en Didactique de Mathmatiques, 6, 69-
118.
Watson, A. & Ohtani, M. (in press). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design: ICMI Study
22. New York: Springer.
Wittmann, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a design science. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 355-
379.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.

25