You are on page 1of 22

Methods for the Research of Arts

Education Practices in Schools


tom.ollieuz@arteveldehs.be
EXPERTISE NETWORK FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS, GHENT UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION, BELGIUM
ARTEVELDE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, BELGIUM
QUEST CENTRE FOR RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SERVICE, BELGIUM
In this presentation
Why (not) use Educational Design Research?
Situational map of Educational Design
Research in schools
Metaphorical understanding of the position of
the researcher, the practice, the funder and
the methodology when conducting EDR in
schools


Educational Design Research

Educational: in settings where education is
pursued
Design: development with iterative trial
versions
Research: investigating a topical question

a nascent research genre (cfr. Brown & Collins
1992)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
needs & cont ext
analysis
design, development & format ive evaluation
semi-summative
evaluation
literature
review &
concept
validation
site
visits
prototype
1
prototype
2
cycle width is proportional to time
scale: = circa 6 months
prototype
3
prototype
4
final
evaluation
query
Process display of a design study. Source: McKenney and van den Akker, 2005
McKenney and Reeves (2012)
Research in which the iterative development
of solutions to practical and complex
educational problems also provides the
context for empirical investigation, which
yields theoretical understanding that can
inform the work of others.
Goals and methods rooted in complex
variation of the real world
Pro and Contra EDR
Why? Why not?
Potentially very powerful
(McKenney & Reeves, 2012)
Extremely ambitious (Phillips &
Dolle, 2006)
Use-inspired (Stokes, 1997) Contributes little to
understanding or to use
(Reeves, 2000)
Theory through design (Wright
brothers) (Schoenfeld 2006):
Innovative design ill-specified
(Van den Akker, 1999)
New perspectives, refreshing
(McKenney & Reeves, 2012)
May not align to standard
criteria (Kelly, 2004)
Situational Map of EDR in schools
Conjecture model explaining the relationship
between the research perspective and the
practice perspective

How do the major elements relate to each
other?

Engagement
The teacher or practitioner can reflect,
research and design from outside the practice
The teacher or practitioner can reflect,
research and design from inside the practice
Communication
Professionalization
DEFINITION
Professional growth of teacher expertise
Any amelioration of competence in educational setting

IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH
Changeable factors related to research problem
(McKenney & Reeves, 2012)
Usable knowledge (Lagemann, 2002)
Cfr. action research: quality of action (Schostak, 2006)

Concern with the quality, relevance and significance
of contents and methods of practice, structures and
communication within educational settings.







The intervention
To research practice

In-service training=
to change custom practice

2 Orientations
(McKenney & Reeves, 2012)
Research on intervention
Research through intervention



The intervention as a designed tool for
research
(direct or indirect) professional development
Practice of Arts Education
In educational settings (schools)
In practice: in regular interaction between
teacher(s) and pupil(s)
Arts taught as an objective or as a means to
achieve other objectives (De commissie
Onderwijs en Cultuur, 2008)
Including cultural education, heritage
education and media education (Bamford,
2007)
Perspectives
Points of view (Constructivist approach)
Not strictly opposite perspectives
Teacher (Practice Perspective)
Researcher (Research Perspective)
Involvement
EDR
Research Perspective
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

Expectations
Meeting points
Expectations
Meeting points
EDR
Research Perspective
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

Expectations
Meeting points
Expectations
Meeting points
EDR:
Developing
together
Professional-
ization
Teaching
Practice
(Arts
Education)
Engagement
EDR:
Developing
together
Professional-
ization
Teaching
Practice
(Arts
Education)
Engagement
Tools
Practical
situation
Involvement
Needs
EDR
Research Perspective
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

Expectations
Meeting points
Expectations
Meeting points
EDR:
Developing
together
Professional-
ization
Teaching
Practice
(Arts
Education)
Engagement
Tools
Practical
situation
Involvement
Needs
EDR
Research Perspective
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

Expectations
Meeting points
Expectations
Meeting points
The river metaphor
Metaphorical understanding of the position of
the researcher, the practice, the funder and the
methodology when conducting EDR in schools
River
habitual flow, intentional direction, custom practice
Deepens with time or sometimes opposite
Sometimes fills with rubble or gets clogged
Stakeholders: can be funders as well as teachers
PRACTICE
Elements
From the
Research
Project
Intentional
direction
Teachers view
Indirect cocern
RESEARCH PROJECT
Elements
From
Practice
Intentional
direction
Funders view
PRACTICE
Elements
From the
Research
Project
RESEARCH PROJECT
Elements
From
Practice
Intentional
direction
Funders view Teachers view
Researcher
EDR
methodology
Indirect concern direct concern
References
Bamford, A . (2007) Kwaliteit en consistentie. Kunst- en cultuureducatie in Vlaanderen. Brussel: Agentschap voor
onderwijscommunicatie.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theorethical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in
classroom settings. Journal of the learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
De commissie Onderwijs en Cultuur (2008). Gedeeld/Verbeeld. Eindrapport van de commissie Onderwijs en Cultuur. Brussel:
Agentschap voor onderwijscommunicatie.
Hake, R. R. (2008) Design-based research in physics education research: A review. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh & J. Y. Baek (Eds.),
Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 493-508). New York: Routledge
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-
128.
Lagemann, E. C. (2002). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London and New York: Routledge.
McKenney, S. and van den Akker, J. (2005) Computer-based support for curriculum designers: A case of developmental
research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 41-66
Phillips, 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. Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 277-292). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), 19-28.
Schoenfeld , A. H. (2006). Design experiments. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Ellmore & A. Skukauskaite (Eds.) , Handbook of
complementary methods in educational research (pp.193-206). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Schostak, J. (2006). Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institutions
Press.
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N.
Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.) Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp.1-14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Thank you
Concepts without experiences are empty,
experiences without concepts are blind.
(Immanuel Kant, 1781, p.129)