The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On the Science of Education Design Studies
Abstract
The authors argue that design studies, like all scientific work, must comport with guiding scientific principles and provide adequate warrants for their knowledge claims. The issue is whether their knowledge claims can be warranted. By their very nature, design studies are complex, multivariate, multilevel, and interventionist, making warrants particularly difficult to establish. Moreover, many of these studies, intended or not, rely on narrative accounts to communicate and justify their findings. Although narratives often purport to be true, there is nothing in narrative form that guarantees veracity. The authors provide a framework that links design-study research questions as they evolve over time with corresponding research methods. In this way, an integration can be seen of research methods focused on discovery with methods focused on validation of claims.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rethinking dropout in online higher education: The case of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Grau-Valldosera, J., & Minguillón, J. (2014) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1628 · Cited by 71
Comments on Slavin : Synthesizing Causal Inferences
Briggs, D. C. (2008) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x08314286 · Cited by 45
Characteristics of Meaningful Chemistry Education
Westbroek, H., Klaassen, K., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2005) · Research and the Quality of Science Education · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_6 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-28
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-102X
- OpenAlex
- W2162951660
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 123.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.