interconnection is a complex and cyclical process in which the principles of general
education are applied to the teaching of specific subjects in specific contexts (Lijnse
2004). At each stage of development there are opportunities to test conjectures about
student learning and to refine those conjectures based on experience, as well as to
redesign the SEA proposal. As a consequence, researchers have defined development frameworks, to be used by designers, as interfaces between major theories and
the needs associated with developing the SEA on specific topics. The improvement
obtained in research based on the use of TLSs has been shown in some cases to be
significant, even for teachers with little experience in using TLSs (Ametller et al.
2007; Savall-Alemany et al. 2019; Savinainen et al. 2017).
A broad coherence between theoretical or methodological efforts in experimental
design approaches could be expected, but as we have seen in the literature this is not
the case. Partly due to the great breadth of research covering a wide variety of school
interventions with different specific aspects (cognition, cognitive development,
teaching strategies, classroom interactions). DBR approaches have involved improving existing material by designing research-based teaching activities. Therefore, the
teaching materials are designed based on the results of the research and can be
evaluated accordingly. Most of these approaches share some common characteristics. They are generally informed by empirical evidence of students’ previous
conceptions, an epistemological analysis of objectives, theoretical perspectives on
learning that are aligned with the cognitive constructivist approach and the specific
educational context. Articles, such as those cited above, generally present evidence
of student learning. However, less frequently it is discussed how the above considerations informed the design, implementation, and evaluation of TLS. Therefore,
there are still significant gaps in this field of study. In particular, many articles on
TLS design lack: (a) a detailed explanation of the implicit and explicit decisions
made regarding design and implementation; (b) a detailed specification of teaching
strategies, which are often implicitly addressed under the label of “active teaching”
or “active learning”; (c) a comprehensive assessment procedure (that is, one that
goes beyond the learning achieved); and (d) a detailed description of the iterative
refinement process. The lack of such explicit descriptions makes it difficult for the
science education community to interpret the results presented, propose a systematic
design improvement, and build on the findings.
Although research based on DBR design has the potential to offer a useful set of
methodological tools to deal with the above mentioned problems, there are issues
that must be addressed in order for this methodology to be credible for the community. Questions such as: what are the key elements that define design-based research
and what differentiates it from other types of research, or what evidence is offered to
support the achievements of this type of research should be addressed. In this
chapter, we intend to present the key elements of the DBR methodology that have
been agreed by the community and that characterize this methodology. Second, we
will present an example of the application of the DBR methodology focusing on the
topic of “Fundamentals circuits” for introductory physics courses in the area of
Mechanics. In this contribution we will show the part of the design of the TLS. In
particular, examples will be given on three aspects: (a) to justify the contents of TLS;
164
J. Guisasola et al.
education are applied to the teaching of specific subjects in specific contexts (Lijnse
2004). At each stage of development there are opportunities to test conjectures about
student learning and to refine those conjectures based on experience, as well as to
redesign the SEA proposal. As a consequence, researchers have defined development frameworks, to be used by designers, as interfaces between major theories and
the needs associated with developing the SEA on specific topics. The improvement
obtained in research based on the use of TLSs has been shown in some cases to be
significant, even for teachers with little experience in using TLSs (Ametller et al.
2007; Savall-Alemany et al. 2019; Savinainen et al. 2017).
A broad coherence between theoretical or methodological efforts in experimental
design approaches could be expected, but as we have seen in the literature this is not
the case. Partly due to the great breadth of research covering a wide variety of school
interventions with different specific aspects (cognition, cognitive development,
teaching strategies, classroom interactions). DBR approaches have involved improving existing material by designing research-based teaching activities. Therefore, the
teaching materials are designed based on the results of the research and can be
evaluated accordingly. Most of these approaches share some common characteristics. They are generally informed by empirical evidence of students’ previous
conceptions, an epistemological analysis of objectives, theoretical perspectives on
learning that are aligned with the cognitive constructivist approach and the specific
educational context. Articles, such as those cited above, generally present evidence
of student learning. However, less frequently it is discussed how the above considerations informed the design, implementation, and evaluation of TLS. Therefore,
there are still significant gaps in this field of study. In particular, many articles on
TLS design lack: (a) a detailed explanation of the implicit and explicit decisions
made regarding design and implementation; (b) a detailed specification of teaching
strategies, which are often implicitly addressed under the label of “active teaching”
or “active learning”; (c) a comprehensive assessment procedure (that is, one that
goes beyond the learning achieved); and (d) a detailed description of the iterative
refinement process. The lack of such explicit descriptions makes it difficult for the
science education community to interpret the results presented, propose a systematic
design improvement, and build on the findings.
Although research based on DBR design has the potential to offer a useful set of
methodological tools to deal with the above mentioned problems, there are issues
that must be addressed in order for this methodology to be credible for the community. Questions such as: what are the key elements that define design-based research
and what differentiates it from other types of research, or what evidence is offered to
support the achievements of this type of research should be addressed. In this
chapter, we intend to present the key elements of the DBR methodology that have
been agreed by the community and that characterize this methodology. Second, we
will present an example of the application of the DBR methodology focusing on the
topic of “Fundamentals circuits” for introductory physics courses in the area of
Mechanics. In this contribution we will show the part of the design of the TLS. In
particular, examples will be given on three aspects: (a) to justify the contents of TLS;
164
J. Guisasola et al.