Why not LS DBR methodology notes
Two versions of it, sequential mm and then pragmatism
Methodology AI
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the research design adopted for the study and provides a critical justification for rejecting commonly used (previously considered) collaborative, intervention-based methodologies—namely Lesson Study and Educational Design-Based Research (DBR). Although both approaches offer value in teacher professional development and curriculum innovation, their effective implementation depends on a set of conditions that are not met in the context of this study. In light of these constraints, Sequential Mixed Methods design is proposed as a more appropriate and methodologically sound alternative. The chapter outlines the rationale for this decision, describes the phases of the mixed methods approach, and explains how each phase contributes to answering the overarching research questions.
3.2 Inappropriateness of Lesson Study for This Context
Lesson Study (LS) is a collaborative, cyclical process where teachers jointly plan, observe, and refine a “research lesson” (Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2009). While LS has been effective in fostering teacher learning and improving instructional practices, its success hinges on the participating teachers’ subject-matter competence and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986).
In this study, participating teachers are inexperienced in the target subject area, which undermines the foundational assumption of LS—that practitioners can engage in informed co-design, interpret student responses insightfully, and iterate on lesson delivery effectively (Fernandez, 2002). The lack of content knowledge restricts their capacity to make evidence-based pedagogical decisions or contribute productively to collaborative reflection. As a result, lesson observations risk being misdirected, and post-lesson reflections may lack the analytical depth required for iterative refinement, threatening both the internal validity and utility of findings.
3.3 Limitations of Educational Design-Based Research (DBR)
Similarly, Educational Design-Based Research (DBR) was considered but ultimately deemed unsuitable. DBR is premised on iterative design cycles conducted in authentic classroom contexts, with the dual aim of producing practical interventions and refining theoretical understanding (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2012). DBR assumes a partnership between researchers and knowledgeable practitioners who can co-construct educational innovations and reflect meaningfully on outcomes (Barab & Squire, 2004).
However, the teachers in this study lack the subject-specific expertise necessary to participate in principled design and reflective processes. Without foundational content knowledge, teachers may misinterpret design principles, misapply interventions, or be unable to analyze learner responses in theoretically meaningful ways (Cobb et al., 2003). This not only threatens fidelity of implementation but also reduces the validity of the research outcomes. The potential for theory-building is thus severely compromised.
3.4 Justification for a Sequential Mixed Methods Design
Given the limitations of LS and DBR in the present context, a Sequential Mixed Methods Design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) is proposed. This approach is better aligned with the realities of the research environment and the research objectives. It allows the study to be broken into three manageable and logically ordered phases, each addressing a specific research question and progressively informing the next.
Phase 1: Quantitative Survey of Teachers’ Prior Knowledge
The first phase will use a structured survey instrument to assess the baseline subject knowledge and pedagogical readiness of participating teachers. This phase acknowledges that teacher knowledge is a critical precondition for effective curriculum implementation (Shulman, 1986). The findings will inform which aspects of the subject matter need further support or reconfiguration to be integrated effectively into existing practices.
Phase 2: Qualitative Curriculum Mapping and Interviews
The second phase involves semi-structured interviews with curriculum coordinators and selected teachers to explore where and how the target subject area can be integrated into the current curriculum. This qualitative component will yield contextual insights that cannot be captured through quantitative methods alone (Maxwell, 2013). Curriculum documents will also be analyzed to identify thematic and structural entry points for integration.
Phase 3: Pilot Lesson Observation and Reflective Analysis
In the third phase, a small-scale pilot lesson will be implemented with a subset of learners and observed by the researcher and additional teacher participants. Unlike Lesson Study or DBR, this will not be a collaborative intervention cycle but rather a researcher-led trial, designed using insights from Phases 1 and 2. The pilot will be used to evaluate the feasibility and learner responsiveness to the content, informing future scaled implementations or professional development strategies.
3.5 Benefits of the Chosen Approach
The sequential mixed methods design offers several advantages:
Validity and Triangulation: Each phase builds on and validates the previous one, enhancing overall credibility and internal validity (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
Practicality: The approach respects the professional limitations of participants and avoids overburdening them with unfamiliar design or collaborative responsibilities.
Flexibility: It allows for responsive research design, where emerging insights from earlier phases inform subsequent data collection and analysis.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
This research design minimizes ethical concerns associated with teacher overreach or misimplementation by ensuring that all intervention or design responsibility lies primarily with the researcher. Informed consent will be obtained for all phases, and participants will be given the opportunity to review and comment on interpretations of their contributions, particularly during the qualitative phase.
3.7 Conclusion
In summary, although Lesson Study and Design-Based Research are powerful methodologies in educational settings, their effectiveness depends heavily on practitioner competence and collaborative design capacity—conditions not met in this study. A Sequential Mixed Methods design provides a methodologically robust, ethically sound, and practically feasible alternative. It supports the staged development of actionable insights regarding teacher readiness, curriculum integration, and learner response to new content areas.
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This study adopts a pragmatist research paradigm, which emphasizes methodological flexibility, practical problem-solving, and the value of using "what works" to address specific research questions in real-world contexts (Biesta, 2010; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Rather than committing rigidly to a single methodological tradition from the outset, the research approach evolved in response to early findings, contextual realities, and the capabilities of participants.
Originally, Lesson Study and Educational Design-Based Research (DBR) were considered as potential frameworks for designing and implementing teaching interventions. However, initial data from Phase 1 of the study revealed significant gaps in teacher content knowledge, necessitating a methodological shift. In light of this, a Sequential Mixed Methods Design was adopted as a more suitable and pragmatic alternative—allowing the study to proceed in a staged, responsive manner while maintaining coherence and academic rigor.
Pragmatism and an evolving Research Design
Pragmatism recognizes that knowledge is not fixed but is generated through experience, interaction, and inquiry in dynamic contexts (Dewey, 1938). This orientation supports methodological pluralism and values approaches that are adaptable and responsive to research contexts as they unfold (Biesta & Burbules, 2003). In this study, pragmatic decision-making was central to the redesign of the research after the first data collection phase.
Initially, both Lesson Study and Design-Based Research were identified as theoretically strong, practice-oriented methodologies with the potential to support collaborative curriculum innovation and professional learning. However, Phase 1, which assessed teachers’ prior knowledge of the subject matter through surveys and diagnostic tasks, demonstrated that most participants lacked sufficient subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—key prerequisites for participating in either of these methodologies effectively.
3.3 Why Lesson Study Was Discarded
Lesson Study is predicated on teachers working collaboratively to design, observe, and refine research lessons (Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2009). It assumes that participants bring a meaningful level of expertise that enables them to analyze lesson structure, anticipate student thinking, and reflect critically on teaching practices (Shulman, 1986).
However, the findings from Phase 1 highlighted that the teachers involved were not confident in the content area and lacked both the conceptual understanding and pedagogical strategies required to engage in such collaborative cycles meaningfully. Attempting to implement Lesson Study under these conditions would have resulted in shallow pedagogical discussions, misaligned lesson design, and a risk of attributing observed challenges to the method rather than the underlying issue of teacher readiness.
3.4 Why Educational Design-Based Research Was Discarded
Educational Design-Based Research (DBR) also relies heavily on teacher-researcher partnerships and iterative refinement of designs in authentic educational settings (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2012). It is especially suitable when both researchers and practitioners contribute theoretically grounded insights into instructional design and jointly interpret implementation outcomes.
Again, the pragmatic issue arose: the lack of teacher subject knowledge posed a serious threat to fidelity of implementation, validity of interpretation, and the collaborative nature of the design process itself.
Teachers unfamiliar with the content could not be expected to reliably co-develop, enact, or reflect on theoretically informed interventions. Therefore, continuing with DBR would not have been methodologically or ethically appropriate, as it risked yielding invalid findings and overburdening participants beyond their zone of professional competence.
3.5 Shift to a Sequential Mixed Methods Design
Following these findings, the research design shifted pragmatically to a Sequential Mixed Methods Design, structured in three interrelated phases. This approach aligns with the pragmatist emphasis on adapting methods to research questions and the context in which the inquiry occurs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
Phase 1: Surveying Teacher Knowledge
This initial phase involved a quantitative diagnostic survey aimed at establishing a baseline understanding of teacher readiness in terms of subject knowledge and pedagogical approaches. The results from this phase were critical in revealing the lack of preparedness among teachers, prompting the need to re-evaluate the methodological approach.
Phase 2: Qualitative Curriculum Analysis and Interviews
In Phase 2, the research focused on understanding the curricular landscape, exploring where and how the new subject area could be feasibly integrated into the existing curriculum. Semi-structured interviews with teachers, curriculum leaders, and school administrators were conducted to gather insights into institutional constraints and opportunities for integration.
Phase 3: Pilot Lesson Trial and Observations
The final phase involved designing and implementing a small-scale pilot lesson, led by the researcher rather than the teachers. This decision ensured that the lesson design was aligned with the subject content and pedagogical principles while allowing teachers to observe rather than lead. Data from classroom observations and informal learner feedback informed the feasibility and responsiveness of the intervention, setting the stage for future professional development initiatives.
Pragmatic Benefits of the Mixed Methods Approach
The shift to a mixed methods design provided several practical advantages:
Responsiveness: The design evolved based on evidence gathered from participants, consistent with a pragmatist focus on "what works" in context (Biesta, 2010).
Rigor through Triangulation: Quantitative and qualitative phases informed one another, offering a richer, more nuanced understanding of the problem.
Participant Appropriateness: The research respected the capacities of participants by not expecting them to engage in complex design or collaborative instructional cycles they were not prepared for.
Foundational Groundwork: The findings from the mixed methods phases laid the groundwork for future intervention studies by establishing teacher needs, curriculum entry points, and learner engagement potential.
3.7 Ethical and Practical Considerations
This pragmatic reconfiguration of the methodology also ensured greater ethical alignment. It avoided placing teachers in situations where they might feel inadequate or exposed due to their limited content knowledge. Moreover, by adapting the methodology to what participants could reasonably engage with, the research honored their professional identities and fostered a more supportive and developmental approach to innovation.
3.8 Conclusion
In conclusion, this study demonstrates the value of a pragmatic, flexible research design.
While theoretically robust methodologies like Lesson Study and DBR offer significant benefits, they must be matched to the context and capacities of participants. Initial findings revealed that the foundational conditions for these methodologies were not present. Responding pragmatically, the research shifted to a Sequential Mixed Methods Design, which provided a more appropriate and ethically sound framework for investigating teacher knowledge, curriculum integration, and the initial feasibility of a new subject area in practice.
đź“Ś Summary of Recommendation
Sequential Mixed Methods is the most appropriate design for an emergent educational topic like digital accessibility awareness in primary schools. It offers flexibility, builds foundational knowledge, and enables application without overburdening teachers. Lesson Study and DBR, while valuable, are better suited for later stages of research once teacher confidence, conceptual clarity, and curricular models are more developed.
Justification for Mixed Methods over Lesson Study or Design-Based Research
The choice of a sequential mixed methods design (QUAN → QUAL → QUAL) over a singular lesson study or design-based research (DBR) approach is grounded in both theoretical appropriateness and practical feasibility for investigating the integration of digital accessibility awareness into the primary school curriculum. This decision is supported by a review of the literature, which reveals significant gaps in teacher knowledge, pedagogical resources, and existing research in this area.
Responding to a Nascent Field with Limited Foundations
The topic of digital accessibility awareness in primary education is underexplored. Current literature highlights:
A lack of teacher confidence and training in this area (Seale, 2014);
The absence of structured curriculum materials or lesson plans tailored to primary settings;
No established pedagogical models or empirical studies in primary education addressing digital accessibility in a structured way.
In contrast to this nascent state of the field, both lesson study and design-based research approaches typically assume:
A minimum baseline of practitioner knowledge;
A clear conceptual or theoretical foundation to guide iterative design and refinement of pedagogical interventions;
A level of professional collaboration and practitioner-led inquiry that presupposes some familiarity with the topic being explored.
✅ Thus, using lesson study or DBR prematurely could overburden teachers, particularly in a subject they may not yet understand deeply, and might risk generating surface-level or disconnected interventions.
2. Sequential Mixed Methods Allows for Foundational Exploration
A sequential mixed methods approach offers a more developmentally appropriate and epistemologically grounded pathway for addressing an emerging topic:
QUAN (Survey): Establishes the current level of teacher knowledge, readiness, and confidence—laying the groundwork for understanding the scope of the challenge (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
QUAL (Focus Group): Facilitates collaborative exploration of where and how digital accessibility could be integrated into the curriculum—supporting co-construction of ideas with teachers, without presuming expert-level knowledge.
QUAL (Pilot Intervention): Tests teaching approaches in a low-stakes, exploratory context with careful observation and feedback collection—without requiring full co-design or iterative refinement as in DBR or lesson study.
✅ This progressive logic allows the researcher to scaffold knowledge development and pedagogical application gradually, ensuring that each stage is responsive to the data and context, rather than imposing an innovation prematurely.
3. Lesson Study May Be Too Demanding in This Context
Lesson study, while powerful in fostering collaborative professional development, relies heavily on:
Teachers’ deep engagement with content;
Their ability to hypothesise about learning outcomes;
Iterative refinement based on pupil response and peer critique.
In the context of low digital accessibility awareness, this model is likely to place an unrealistic cognitive and professional burden on teachers:
Teachers may struggle to develop or revise lessons without prior understanding;
The lack of existing examples or resources increases the risk of misconceptions being taught or reinforced;
It may inadvertently produce tokenistic or superficial outcomes, rather than promoting meaningful pedagogical transformation.
✅ Therefore, lesson study may be more appropriate as a follow-up method after foundational awareness, confidence, and pedagogical strategies have been established through mixed methods research.
4. DBR Requires Sustained Engagement and Theoretical Anchoring
Design-based research is a powerful methodology for theory-building through iterative educational interventions (Barab & Squire, 2004), but it assumes:
A collaborative design partnership between researchers and practitioners;
Iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign;
A theoretical or conceptual starting point for design hypotheses.
In the current case:
There is no widely accepted model for teaching digital accessibility in primary schools;
Teachers have not yet been introduced to key concepts;
The absence of prior empirical work makes it difficult to ground design cycles in theory.
✅ As such, a DBR approach risks being premature and could fail to deliver meaningful iteration if it begins without a well-informed first cycle or practitioner base.
5. Mixed Methods Provides a Scaffold for Future DBR or Lesson Study
Importantly, a sequential mixed methods study does not exclude DBR or lesson study in the longer term. Instead, it provides:
Baseline data and professional insights to inform future co-design efforts;
Conceptual groundwork for DBR hypotheses;
Teacher input and curriculum positioning needed to develop lesson study cycles meaningfully.
✅ Thus, the mixed methods design lays the research infrastructure for later, more complex participatory research designs, while also generating early actionable insights for policy and curriculum development.
Conclusion
While both lesson study and design-based research are valuable approaches for pedagogical development and innovation, their demands in terms of teacher expertise, curricular clarity, and iterative design capacity make them less suitable for initial inquiry into an emerging and underdeveloped area such as digital accessibility in primary education. The chosen sequential mixed methods design offers a more appropriate, scalable, and phased approach that builds foundational understanding before attempting more intensive forms of teacher-led pedagogical innovation.
References
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
Seale, J. (2014). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage.
References
Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 95–118). SAGE.
Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and Educational Research. Rowman & Littlefield.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving Mathematics Instruction through Lesson Study: A Theoretical Model and North American Case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
References
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese Approaches to Professional Development: The Case of Lesson Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–405.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving Mathematics Instruction through Lesson Study: A Theoretical Model and North American Case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Comments
Post a Comment