# Reinventing learning: a design-research odyssey

- 570 Downloads
- 1 Citations

## Abstract

Design research is a broad, practice-based approach to investigating problems of education. This approach can catalyze the development of learning theory by fostering opportunities for transformational change in scholars’ interpretation of instructional interactions. Surveying a succession of design-research projects, I explain how challenges in understanding students’ behaviors promoted my own recapitulation of a historical evolution in educators’ conceptualizations of learning—Romantic, Progressivist, and Synthetic (Schön, Intuitive thinking? A metaphor underlying some ideas of educational reform (working paper 8). Division for Study and Research in Education, MIT, Cambridge, 1981)—and beyond to a proposed Systemic view. In reflection, I consider methodological adaptations to design-research practice that may enhance its contributions in accord with its objectives.

## Keywords

Design Project Systemic View Transformational Change Reverse Scaffolding Synthetic View## Notes

### Acknowledgements

For their highly constructive comments on earlier drafts, I wish to thank Dragan Trninic and Maria Droujkova as well as the ZDM Editor-in-Chief and three anonymous reviewers.

## References

- Abrahamson, D. (2009). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning—the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator.
*Cognition and Instruction,**27*(3), 175–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2012a). Seeing chance: Perceptual reasoning as an epistemic resource for grounding compound event spaces.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**44*(7), 869–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2012b). Rethinking intensive quantities via guided mediated abduction.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**21*(4), 626–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2012c). Discovery reconceived: Product before process.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**32*(1), 8–15.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds.
*International Journal of Child*-*Computer Interaction*. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.002. - Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2014).
*Learning is moving in new ways: An ecological dynamics view on learning across the disciplines. Paper presented at the “Embodied cognition in education” symposium*(A. Bakker, M.F. van der Schaaf, S. Shayan, & P. Leseman, Chairs), Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 23, 2014.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2015). Bringing forth mathematical concepts: Signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted action. In D. Reid, L. Brown, A. Coles, & M.-D. Lozano (Eds.),
*Enactivist methodology in mathematics education research*(special issue).*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education*. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0620-0. - Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery.
*Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,**16*(1), 55–85.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A. G., & Bumbacher, E. (2012). Fostering hooks and shifts: Tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery.
*Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,**17*(1–2), 61–86. doi: 10.1007/s10758-012-9192-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Chase, K., Kumar, V., & Jain, R. (2014a). Leveling transparency via situated, intermediary learning objectives. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.),
*Proceedings of “Learning and Becoming in Practice”, the 11*^{th}*International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014*(Vol. 1, pp. 23–30). Boulder: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014b). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**46*(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Allen, J. W. P., & Bickhard, M. H. (2013). Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate.
*Cognitive Development,**28*(2), 96–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**52*(3), 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. In D. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.),
*High technology and low Income communities*(pp. 235–262). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Bartolini Bussi, M.G., & Mariotti, M.A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L.D. English, M.G. Bartolini Bussi, G.A. Jones, R. Lesh & D. Tirosh (Eds.),
*Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition*(pp. 720–749). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Barwell, R. (2009). Researchers’ descriptions and the construction of mathematical thinking.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**72*(2), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bereiter, C. (1985). Towards the solution of the learning paradox.
*Review of Educational Research,**55*(2), 210–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bernstein, N. A. (1996).
*Dexterity and its development*. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H.-J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.),
*Chance encounters: Probability in education*(pp. 73–105). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brousseau, G. (1997).
*Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield, Trans.)*. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Bruner, J. S. (1966).
*Toward a theory of instruction*. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar - Chase, K., & Abrahamson, D. (2013). Rethinking transparency: Constructing meaning in a physical and digital design for algebra. In J.P. Hourcade, E.A. Miller & A. Egeland (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 12*^{th}*Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC 2013)*(Vol. “Short Papers”, pp. 475–478). New York: The New School & Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar - Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),
*International handbook of research on conceptual change*(2nd ed., pp. 49–70). New York: Routledge Press (Taylor Francis Group).Google Scholar - Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education.
*Review of Educational Research,**77*(3), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Clancey, W. J. (2008). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.),
*Cambridge handbook of situated cognition*(pp. 11–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: A first step in reconsidering Vygotsky’s theory of development in relation to formal education.
*Mind, Culture & Activity,**16*, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual–social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky.
*Human Development,**39*(5), 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Collins, A. (1990).
*Toward a design science of education*—*Technical Report No. 1*. New York: Center for Technology in Education.Google Scholar - Confrey, J. (2005). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),
*The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences*(pp. 135–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Davis, G. E. (Ed.). (2003). Fractions, ratio, and proportional reasoning (special issue).
*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior*, 22(2&3).Google Scholar - de Hevia, M. D., Izard, V., Coubart, A., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2014). Representations of space, time, and number in neonates.
*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,**111*(13), 4809–4813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2014). The origins of probabilistic inference in human infants.
*Cognition,**130*(3), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003).
*On becoming aware: A pragmatics of experiencing*. New York: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dewey, J. (1938).
*Experience & education*. NY: Collier MacMillan.Google Scholar - Dickinson, P., & Eade, R. (2004). Using the number line to investigate solving linear equations.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**24*(2), 41–47.Google Scholar - diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments.
*The Journal of the Learning Sciences,**13*(1), 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of world making.
*Foundations of Science,**6*(4), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Freudenthal, H. (1983).
*Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures*. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Froebel, F. (2005).
*The education of man (W.N. Hailmann, Trans.)*. New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885).Google Scholar - Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor theory.
*Discourse Processes,**48*(8), 529–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),
*Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology*(pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision.
*American Anthropologist,**96*(3), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.
*American Psychologist,**53*(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
*The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues*(pp. 195–220). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar - Jaworski, B. (2012). Mathematics teaching development as a human practice: Identifying and drawing the threads.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**44*(5), 613–625. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0437-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Job, P., & Schneider, M. (2014). Empirical positivism, an epistemological obstacle in the learning of calculus.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**46*(4), 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 909–955). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice.
*American Psychologist,**58*(9), 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kamii, C. K., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1–4. In L. J. Morrow & M. J. Kenney (Eds.),
*The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics, 1998 yearbook*(pp. 130–140). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar - Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math.
*Cognitive Science,**38*(5), 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 707–762). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design.
*ACM Transactions on Human*–*Computer Interaction, 20*(1), Article #3 (30 pages).Google Scholar - Lakatos, I. (1976).
*Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery*. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality.
*Educational Researcher,**42*(8), 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lobato, J., Walters, C.D., Diamond, J.M., Gruver, J., & Hohensee, C. (2015). Capitalizing on failures in design-based research.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education*, 47(6).Google Scholar - Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning.
*Child Development Perspectives,**3*(3), 140–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mauks-Koepke, K.P., Buchanan, K., Relaford-Doyle, J., Souchkova, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2009
*). The double-edged sword of constructivist design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego*, April 13–17.Google Scholar - Melser, D. (2004).
*The act of thinking*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005).
*Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.)*. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1945).Google Scholar - Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education.
*Educational Psychologist,**47*(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Negrete, A.G., Lee, R.G., & Abrahamson, D. (2013). Facilitating discovery learning in the tablet era: Rethinking activity sequences vis-à-vis digital practices. In M. Martinez & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.),
*“Broadening Perspectives on Mathematics Thinking and Learning”*—*Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North*-*American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME*-*NA 35)*(Vol. 10: “Technology” pp. 1205). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar - Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.),
*Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control*(pp. 341–361). Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).
*The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school*. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Papert, S. (1980).
*Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),
*Constructionism*(pp. 1–12). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar - Piaget, J. (1970).
*Structuralism*. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Piaget, J. (1971).
*Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes*. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it?
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**26*, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2014). Towards an embodied, cultural, and material conception of mathematics cognition.
*ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**46*(3), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schiphorst, T. (2011). Self-evidence: Applying somatic connoisseurship to experience design. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W.A. Kellogg & D. Tan (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the annual meeting of The Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction: “Human Factors in Computing Systems” (CHI 2011), Vancouver, May 7*–*12, 2011*(Vol. “Session: Sex & Bodies”, pp. 145–160). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar - Schön, D.A. (1981).
*Intuitive thinking? A metaphor underlying some ideas of educational reform (working paper 8).*Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge: Division for Study and Research in Education, MIT.Google Scholar - Schön, D. A. (1983).
*The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action*. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**11*(2&3), 319–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**3*(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Spackman, J. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2013). Embodied cognition, representationalism, and mechanism: A review and analysis.
*Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,**44*(1), 46–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Streefland, L. (1993). The design of a mathematics course: A theoretical reflection.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**25*(1), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction.
*Educational Researcher,**41*(5), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994).
*A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the absence of meaning…. In K. Leatham (Ed.),
*Vital directions for mathematics education research*(pp. 57–94). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories.
*Topoi,**28*(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tracey, M., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection.
*Educational Technology Research and Development*. doi: 10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9. - Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),
*Constructionism*(pp. 161–192). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar - Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
*Science,**185*(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Vagle, M. D. (2010). Re-framing Schön’s call for a phenomenology of practice: A post-intentional approach.
*Reflective Practice,**11*(3), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience.
*Design Studies,**26*(4), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991).
*The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity.
*European Journal of Psychology of Education,**10*(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.),
*Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics*(pp. 3–18). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Vygotsky, L. (1926/1997).
*Educational psychology*(R. H. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar - White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments.
*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,**13*(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,**27*(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Yanchar, S. C. (2011). Participational agency.
*Review of General Psychology,**15*(3), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar