, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 877–891 | Cite as

Design research with a focus on learning processes: an overview on achievements and challenges

  • Susanne PredigerEmail author
  • Koeno Gravemeijer
  • Jere Confrey
Survey Paper


Design research continues to gain prominence as a significant methodology in the mathematics education research community. This overview summarizes the origins and the current 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.


Design Research Mathematics Education Background Theory Student Thinking Instruction Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abrahamson, D. (2015). Reinventing learning: A design-research odyssey. ZDM Mathematics Education,. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0646-3. (this issue).Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (1992). Didactical engineering. In R. Douady & A. Mercier (Eds.), Recherches en didactique des mathématiques. Selected papers (pp. 41–70). Grenoble: La Pensèe Sauvage.Google Scholar
  4. 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: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 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: Accessed 26 April 2015.
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brousseau, G. (1983). Les obstacles épistémologique et les problèmes en mathématiques. Revue Internationale de Philosophie Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 4, 165–198.Google Scholar
  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2015). Supporting teachers’ use of research-based instructional sequences. ZDM Mathematics Education,. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0692-5. (this issue).Google Scholar
  17. 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 (3rd ed.) (pp. 481–503). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3–56.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Confrey, J., & Kazak, S. (2006). A thirty-year reflection on constructivism in mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 305–345). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. 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. 231–266). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. 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).Google Scholar
  27. 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. Accessed 12 Dec 2013.
  28. de Beer, H., Gravemeijer, K., & van Eijck, M. (2015). Discrete and continuous reasoning about change in primary school classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0684-5 (this issue).Google Scholar
  29. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Design Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duckworth, E. (1996). The Having of Wonderful Ideas. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1–2), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gould, S. J. (2004). The hedgehog, the fox, and the magister’s pox. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  39. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: Cd-ß Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (An ICMI Study) (pp. 277–295). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  41. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. 45–85). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Gravemeijer, K. & Cobb, P. (2013). Design research from the learning design perspective. In: T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research Part A: An introduction (pp. 72–113), Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
  44. Gravemeijer, K., & Koster, K. (Eds.). (1988). Onderzoek, ontwikkeling en ontwikkelingsonderzoek. Utrecht: Vakgroep OW&OC.Google Scholar
  45. Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2002). Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Gresalfi, M. (2015). Designing to support critical engagement with statistics. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0690-7 (this issue).Google Scholar
  47. Grouws, D. H., et al. (2010). COSMIC: Comparing options in secondary mathematics: investigating curriculum. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.
  48. Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2015). A computational lens on design research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6) (this issue).Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huntley, M. A. (2009). Brief report: Measuring curriculum implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 355–362.Google Scholar
  51. Janvier, C. (Ed.). (1987). Problems of representation in the learning of mathematics. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kaput, J. (1987). Representation and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the learning of mathematics (pp. 19–26). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Kelly, A. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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). doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0726-z (this issue).
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. 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 (pp. 1–26). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  61. 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).Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Margolinas, C., & Drijvers, P. (2015). Didactical engineering in France; an insider’s and an outsider’s view on its foundations, its practice and its impact. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0698-z (this issue).Google Scholar
  64. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  66. Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students’ thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research. Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prediger, S., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2010). Networking of theories—An approach for exploiting the diversity of theoretical approaches. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education (pp. 483–506). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Prediger, S., & Krägeloh, 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).Google Scholar
  74. Prediger, S., Link, M., Hinz, R., Hußmann, 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 naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 65(8), 452–457.Google Scholar
  75. 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 term-long term distinction. In E. J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic thinking: presenting plural perspectives (pp. 533–558). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.Google Scholar
  77. Rasmussen, C. (2001). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), 19–28.Google Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002). Building Blocks for young children’s mathematical development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1–2), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.Google Scholar
  83. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  84. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.Google Scholar
  86. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smaling, A. (1992). Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity—the relations with qualitative and quantitative research, and with objectivity. Quality & Quantity, 26, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.Google Scholar
  91. Stephan, M. L. (2015). Conducting classroom design research with teachers. ZDM Mathematics Education,  47(6). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0651-6. (this issue).Google Scholar
  92. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: Brooking Institution Press.Google Scholar
  93. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chávez, Ó., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.Google Scholar
  96. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction—the wiskobas project. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Usiskin, Z. (1986). Translating grades 7–12 mathematics recommendations into reality. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 30–35.Google Scholar
  98. van den Akker, J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. van den Akker, J. (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.Google Scholar
  100. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  101. Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 219–239). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  102. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Researches en Didactique de Mathématiques, 6, 69–118.Google Scholar
  103. Watson, A. & Ohtani, M. (2015). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design: ICMI study (vol. 22). New York: Springer (in press).Google Scholar
  104. Wittmann, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a “design science”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Development and Research in Mathematics EducationTU DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven School of EducationEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.SUDDS, College of EducationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations