MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132242306 · doi:10.3102/0013189x11428813

Design-Based Research

2012· article· en· W2132242306 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Anderson, Julie Shattuck

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Researcher · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsOptimismContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionBridge (graph theory)Research methodologyDesign-based researchSociologyPsychologyMathematics educationMedicineSocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design-based research (DBR) evolved near the beginning of the 21st century and was heralded as a practical research methodology that could effectively bridge the chasm between research and practice in formal education. In this article, the authors review the characteristics of DBR and analyze the five most cited DBR articles from each year of this past decade. They illustrate the context, publications, and most popular interventions utilized. They conclude that interest in DBR is increasing and that results provide limited evidence for guarded optimism that the methodology is meeting its promised benefits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.731
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.088 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2,040
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational ResearcherSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207