Final Reflection - EdTech 541

Part I 

Edtech 541, Integrating Technology into the Classroom Curriculum, has given me the opportunity to think again about technology from the perspective of the classroom teacher. As an administrator, it is valuable for me to not only consider classroom integration, but to actually create lessons and plans to be utilized in the classroom. For several years i have presented to teachers about research on effective classroom practices; in this class I struggled to ensure that my lessons contained strategies and activities reflect research-based understanding of what works to improve student achievement (Hattie, 2011; Marzano, 2001).

There are so many new tools and resources available every year that it is tremendously valuable to take a strategic look at what the relative advantages are. It’s important to look not only at the relative advantage compared to non-digital methods, but to other digital tools that may already be familiar. It’s a constant comparison, and it takes a lot of time and energy. This class forced me to spend the time on those comparisons, and learn about some new tools and resources available. I would have really liked greater interaction around my classmates’ content, rather than the blog posts. I’m very interested to see some of the science resources shared by secondary teachers in the group, because I know I will learn a lot from them.

I plan to use my project website with my upper elementary teachers, as a resource and a way to stimulate conversation. “Relative Advantage” is an important term, and one that will inform many conversations I have with staff. There are so many sacred cows in elementary education, where teachers teach a specific project in a specific way because that’s the way it’s always been done. By talking about the relative advantage of various tools, maybe we can find a better way to teach geographic concepts than a bean map, for example! 

Part II 

I felt that, overall, I posted strong blog entries and responded well to my classmates. I think the content of my reflections was outstanding. It reflected thoughtful effort, insight, and clear connections to prior content and real-life situations. My use of readings and resources was somewhere between proficient and outstanding. I used APA citation in every post, but sometimes had only one or two references. In general I did an outstanding job of posting by midweek in order to give my classmates plenty of time to respond,. However I had one posting which was late, which meant that I had no replies to that particular post. I consistently replied to 3 classmates, with at least two substantial responses. Overall, I would rate my blog at about an A-, or 132 out of 140 points.
Content - 70/70
Readings and Resources - 15/20 (limited citations)
Timeliness - 17/20 (1 late post)
Responses to Others - 30/30


Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge: UK.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Assistive Technology

I am a big believer in Universal Design for Learning. According to the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2003), “Barriers to learning are not, in fact, inherent in the capabilities of learners, but instead arise in learners’ interactions with inflexible educational goals, materials, methods, and assessments.” I believe that whole-heartedly. As educators, our job is to serve ALL students to allow them to reach their full potential, and assistive technology may be required to do that job. Tight budgets are no excuse for failing to serve a segment of the population.

Licensed image from PresenterMedia

If we agree that technology should be integrated as a tool to promote and enhance student learning as a part of the regular curriculum, then it is our moral imperative to ensure that all students have access to technology tools that work for them. There is also a legal imperative. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require schools to provide services and educational opportunities for students with disabilities. While limited funding is routinely an issue in education, the way we choose to allocate resources cannot exclude certain segments of the population. If assistive or adaptive technology is required for a student to access the curriculum, then our priority must be providing the tool that allows that access.

The Common Core State Standards require the use of technology for research, consumption of content, and production of content. For some students, traditional technology simply doesn’t work. Whether it’s because of visual acuity issues that make screens impossible to read, auditory issues that make videos impossible to hear, or physical issues that make a standard keyboard impossible to manipulate, students are not able to access those particular standards using traditional technology tools. Students have the right to have modifications that allow them to participate meaningfully in the standards, which means educators need to be aware of what modifications are available, and which is most appropriate in what situations. In California, a state budget line item provides reimbursement for uncommon assistive technology needs in K-14 education, such as screen readers, braille printers, and adaptive keyboards. (California Education Code). Awareness of the process and requirements for such a program can help educators support their students while limiting the fiscal impact on the budget as a whole.

• CAST (2003). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD: Alexandria, VA. 
• Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 104 Stat. 1142 
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394.29 U.S.C. § 701 
• California Education Code: Low incidence funding, EC § 56345(b)(5)

Elementary Science: Challenges and a Solution

Integrating technology into science seems, at first glance, to be without major obstacles. After all, science requires research, measurement strategies, data collection and analysis tools, and publication. Clearly, the use of technology in the field of science is pedagogically sound, as well as providing significant affordances in terms of time involved in various activities and ability to document both micro- and macro-processes. But that characterization is not necessarily accurate, because it doesn’t consider the human element in science instruction.

Licensed image from PresenterMedia

 In elementary schools, science is usually taught by a “regular education” teacher who has likely had limited exposure to scientific concepts and research. Davis (2008) notes that many elementary teachers lack science subject matter knowledge, may have unsophisticated understandings or misconceptions about science, or may even avoid teaching science altogether. This lack of comfort with teaching science would naturally make it more difficult for a teacher to integrate technology, potentially adding a layer of complexity to an already fragile structure.

Another common obstacle in elementary school science instruction is access to appropriate technology. While digital probeware is common in industry, college labs, and even in high school science classrooms, it is uncommon to find probeware in the elementary setting (Trotter, 2008). As computers and other digital technologies become more readily available, however, there is a need to ensure that teachers are prepared to use these devices to support scientific inquiry.

Professional development is a solution to both issues identified above. High-quality professional development would model effective instruction with technology tools while simultaneously building teachers’ content knowledge and addressing common misconceptions. Hands-on activities using technology allow teachers, as much as their students, to develop accurate understandings of scientific concepts. Improving the scientific literacy of elemen
tary teachers is important, but doing it in a way that can immediately be transferred to their instructional practice is even more critical. By embedding the use of digital tools for science into professional development, teachers will walk away with improved scientific understanding, and a clear path to share that knowledge with students.

Davis, E.A. (2008) Elementary teachers' ideas about effective science teaching: a longitudinal study. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences - Volume 1. Utrecht, The Netherlands

Trotter, A. (2008). "Probeware" on increase in schools' science labs. Education Week, 27(29).

Knocking Down Garden Walls

Please see our presentation below about the walled garden. Add your voice to the discussion!

Internet Safety and Internet Safety Resources

“Internet safety” is a nebulous term that encompasses a wide variety of skills and strategies that teachers and school districts are required to address with students. Sadly, the term is sometimes misinterpreted as a mandate for limiting what students can do, rather than a requirement to educate students so that they can be safe online both at school and at home. I compare it to a swimming pool - one way to keep children safe from swimming pool accidents is to not allow them in. Of course, that means that these children will want to break into the swimming pool to play around without knowing how to swim, or will grow up afraid of swimming pools, or both. I think some of our younger teachers fall into this category - they were banned from the internet or not taught how to use it when they were in K-12 schools, so they have no idea what to do with their students to teach them to be safe. In fact, they have no idea how to keep themselves safe online!

One of my favorite resources for teaching students about safe and responsible use of the internet is Common Sense Media. This site has a collection of grade-level appropriate lessons on eight different themes, with parent letters and student activities for each. One of the most eye-opening lessons for upper elementary and middle school kids (and often their teachers) is Trillion Dollar Footprint. I think it provides an excellent starting point for a conversation about responsible behavior online.

I’m not a big fan of scare tactics with kids, but it is important that they are aware that who they are chatting with online may or may not be who they say they are. Childnet out of the UK, and Enough is Enough do a good job of providing parent resources so that parents can understand the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks. NetSmartz, which works in collaboration with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has some powerful presentations and other resources that teachers or administrators might use with at-risk student groups.

I really appreciate internet use policies that support responsible behavior, rather than listing things a student should NOT do. This is the philosophy of our district, as well. I think that emphasizing responsibility helps to eliminate the loopholes that even the most stringent Acceptable Use Policies create by omission.

These are the simple guidelines I try to help instill in our students:

• Only share your password with your parents. No one else needs to log in as you.
• Keep your private information private. Not everyone is who they say they are on the Internet.
• Be a responsible digital citizen. Post only things that are positive reflections of yourself.
• Report cyberbullying to an adult. Do not repost or share unkind comments
• Use your technology to engage in classroom assignments and school-related activities.

Multimedia as a Critical Skill

Ljubojevic, M., Vaskovic, V., Stankovic, S., & Vaskovic, J. (2014). Using supplementary video in multimedia instruction as a teaching tool to increase efficiency of learning and quality of experience. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 15(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1825

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon

The Evolving "Basic Suite"

Productivity tools such as word processors and spreadsheets, were some of the earliest software packages to be adopted. Their benefit was that they made many tasks that people were already doing easier, allowing them to be more productive. The big producers of productivity software began to package the tools together, often including a database program in the early days, and then a presentation program as the graphical capabilities of computers and printers progressed. Now, these packages of tools might be knows as a “Basic Suite,” with the “Basic Three” software tools of word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation application (Roblyer, 2016). Most adults in the modern world consider a basic suite to be a necessity for work, and quite possibly for life. Personally, I can’t imagine dealing with budgets without a spreadsheet, writing a paper without a word processor, or standing up in front of a large group without a presentation to back me up. While we don’t know what the future of technology will hold with certainty, it is reasonable to assume that productivity tools similar to what currently exists will still be used. Therefore, these are tools we want to ensure our students are comfortable and competent with.

Licensed image from PresenterMedia

Word processors create editable pages of text and graphics. Some basic suites, such as Microsoft 360 and Google Docs, allow these documents to be stored in the cloud, accessible from any web-connected computer. In addition, these cloud-based documents can be shared, so a collaborator can view, comment or edit, according to the document owner’s preferences. For students, this can be a game changer. When students conduct research for a science report, they are working with a lot of information. It is difficult to know what information will go where early in the writing process. A word processor allows students to write coherent paragraphs as they synthesize information, then move that paragraph around and add linking sentences for the final product, without the manual chore of rewriting. In addition, the document can be edited digitally by the teacher or other students, and clarifying clauses and sentences can be added without requiring an entire rewrite. Word processing software is increasingly good at incorporating graphic elements, blurring the lines with desktop and web publishing software. Experience with design and layout will likely help current students with necessary tasks in the future, as well.

Spreadsheets put numbers into rows and columns, where those numbers can be placed into formulas and calculations, or sorted to improve understanding. The use of a spreadsheet can help to build understanding from data and other information, because it can be manipulated and charted. For students working with data about scientific phenomena, a spreadsheet can be a way to quickly make and test hypotheses about relationships. For example, using a spreadsheet that contains data about the length of gestation, life span, and average number of offspring for various animals can help students explore concepts about how those elements may be related. Students can also use spreadsheets to easily perform complex calculations, which removes computation errors as a factor leading to misunderstanding. Spreadsheet software can accept data from a variety of sources, including survey exports, complex data sets, and even geo-tagged elements. As spreadsheets continue to become more powerful, it will be important that students understand the relationship between data and display, so that they can be informed consumers of information.

Presentation software places text, audio, and visual elements into a slideshow format that can be displayed in a variety of formats for a variety of audiences. In our increasingly graphic-intensive world, students must understand the impact of visual presentations, not just be the passive recipients of them. Elements of design can be used to manipulate emotions; when students are aware of design elements, hopefully they will be less likely to make decisions solely on the visual. Like word processing and spreadsheets, many presentation tools are cloud-based and collaborative, allowing students to effectively work together in the development of presentations. Ideally, students use presentation software as a storyboarding tool, planning the text, audio, and visual elements that will best convey their message to their audience. In all content areas, including science, the standards ask students to make an argument based on evidence. Creating that argument in a presentation format and sharing it to an authentic audience gives students a real-world experience, imitating the presentations required by scientists around the world as they share their results with their colleagues and the public.

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Educational Software - Choices

Choices. The volume of apps and software available to support student learning is mind boggling. As a school administrator, I’m bombarded by emails and phone calls from software companies asking me to look at their product and believe their claims that they have the *best* solution for my students and teachers. I’m sure some of them are good, but with limited resources (including time), it’s hard to take a careful look at all of them. I guess that’s what summer is for!

Historically, instructional software and apps could be broken into five types: drill and practice, tutorials, simulations, instructional games, and problem-solving software. Each type fit a particular need for teachers and students. Increasingly, software developers are creating programs that blur the lines between the types, or claim one type while actually serving the function of another. Below is some clarification of what these types of instructional software represent, as well as some examples. 

Drill and Practice
Drill and practice are the repetitive activities that cement new information into a learner’s mind. It should take place after instruction as a reinforcing activity (Roblyer, 2016). Most drill and practice programs provide immediate feedback in the form of either a simple right/wrong indication, or more detailed information about the correct and incorrect answers. SpellingCity is a drill and practice program that allows teachers to create lists of vocabulary words for students to study. There are a variety of games that can be used to test vocabulary definitions and spelling. SpellingCity has both free and paid versions.

Tutorials
Tutorials provide step by step instruction, usually in a linear manner. One benefit of tutorials is that provide the learner with the ability to pause, review, or skip ahead, according to their needs (Roblyer, 2016). Tutorials can be as simple as a video of someone explaining as they solve a problem on a whiteboard, or as complex as a detailed animation of a process taking place at a cellular level. Increasingly, drill and practice software includes elements of tutorial, when it provides a “how to” video after incorrect answers. The Make Me Genius video channel on YouTube provides direct instruction on scientific concepts for elementary age students. These videos have a distinct accent from India, but contain exceptional information with high level academic vocabulary.

Simulations
A computer simulation is a digital model of a phenomena or environment that allows the user to interact with various components to change the outcome. A simulation is often used when access to physical manipulatives is inappropriate, expensive, or dangerous. Simulations may be used as a follow up to a “wet lab” in order to provide students with additional experiences, without the need for additional lab supplies. PhET from Colorado University has many HTML5 simulations that model a variety of processes, mostly physical science, appropriate for elementary school. The simulations give students an opportunity to explore relationships such as between gravity and orbits, or forces and motion. 

Instructional Games
Instructional games have specific rules and competitive elements designed to engage and motivate students. In elementary science, there is a great deal of overlap between simulations and games. Many games simulate specific experiences, while building in scoring, badging, or competitive elements. Other games, such as the Magic School Bus games, provide an element of gamification while reviewing some basic science concepts, in what is essentially an online worksheet activity. 

Problem-Solving Software 
Problem-solving software is that which engages students in critical thinking, decision-making, hypothesis testing, and ultimately generation of a solution. Most problem solving software includes elements of tutorial and simulation, and may include a game-style interface as well. In elementary science, robotics tools such as Logo, Lego Mindstorms, and Sphero provide a problem-solving environment.

Regardless of the type of software being considered, the most important question for educators needs to be whether the software, program or app will deliver on its promise to improve learning. Not every software is appropriate for all students at all times: a program like Quizlet is an excellent way for students to practice their vocabulary in a collaborative environment, with elements of gamification to keep students’ interest, but won’t teach or reinforce concepts. National Geographic videos provide outstanding instruction in scientific topics, but in isolation won’t build higher order thinking skills. The right tool at the right point in a lesson is crucial, and teacher must always keep the “end game” in mind when selecting instructional software.


Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Vision Statement for Use of Technology

Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies - it happens when society adopts new behaviors. - Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, p. 160

Licensed image from PresenterMedia

With educational technology, I believe we have passed the tipping point - technology is no longer simply a tool, or even a process, but an environment. It’s ubiquitous, pervasive, and is happening with or without educator consent. It enables things never before possible, and students are doing those things, again with or without us. “Any time, any place” learning is no longer just a catchphrase for the few students enrolled in online courses, but an apt description of what our students’ lives are like. Schools must embrace educational technology, using it to its fullest potential in order to generate enthusiasm, optimize resources, remove barriers to learning, and develop ICT skills (Roblyer, 2016). 

I believe that the use of technology tools has the potential to improve learning. This is not to say that inserting a piece of technology into a classroom, or even into students’ hands, will somehow transform learning. It is important, therefore, to note the shift in the way we define technology. From being an add-on, to a tool, to being “integrated” into the curriculum - up until now technology has been a thing apart, and something that teachers chose whether or not to use. But the Common Core State Standards cannot be accomplished without integrated technology use. The projects, activities, and expectations for students are riddled with outcomes that are best accomplished through the use of technology. Selecting the right technology for the problem requires an analysis of affordances, and choosing the tool with the greatest relative advantage. Different strategies and different tools can be the “best fit” for different students at different times. I think that instruction is most effective when a teacher has a wide variety of tools in their arsenal that all facilitate research-based strategies. It makes no more sense to say that an iPad improves learning than it does to say that a pencil improves learning.

Richard Clark (1986) looked at dozens of studies that compared teaching with technology with teaching in the traditional manner, and found that use of technology had no effect on student learning, if everything else remained the same. Kozma (2001) notes that “Whether or not a medium’s capabilities make a difference in learning depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation - the tasks and learners involved - and the way the medium’s capabilities are used by the instructional design” (p 107). The Clark-Kozma debate is one of tool vs. process; if we use technology as a replacement for other tools there is likely to be no significant difference in learning, while if we take advantage of the affordances of the tool we may change instruction and learning. And thus the research on instructional strategies and learning experiences should be the driving force behind technology integration.

I believe that instruction should be judged not by the use of technology, but by the content and the interaction it facilitates. Technology isn’t a strategy or a pedagogy or an instructional behavior, it is a powerful tool that allows us to change the way we teach and has affordances that can potentially improve educational outcomes for a wide range of students. 

Clark, R. E. & Salomon (1986). Why should we expect media to teach anyone anything? In Clark, R. E. (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Kozma, R. (2001). Robert Kozma’s counterpoint theory of “learning with media”. In Clark, R. E. (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Final Analysis

During my class this semester, I feel like I have gained an understanding of and appreciation for Educational Design Research (EDR). while I still find it similar to action research, it is clearly much more involved and rigorous. As I preview educational programs in my role as site administrator, I will be keeping EDR in mind, and looking for evidence that the program I’m reviewing has gone through an iterative process that used a variety of data to inform the final product.

I’m unlikely to use EDR for my dissertation. As an administrator in a school district, I’m in an awkward power position with practitioners. In addition to the time commitment that I think EDR takes to “do it right”, there is an element of embedded access that I find problematic when looking at my personal goals for a dissertation completion schedule. Conducting multiple iterations during a single school year requires one to be very closely linked to the research situation, and it’s both impractical and unethical to conduct this sort of research at my school site with teachers that I evaluate! While I have an appreciation for EDR/DBR as a research methodology, I don’t see it as being a practical choice for my dissertation.

 I believe that peer review is a very powerful tool. As a recipient of peer feedback, I tend to quickly scan for things I agree with or recognize as easy corrections. I then go back and think through the revisions suggested by reviewers, and either keep them if I think they require more thought, or delete them if I feel like the suggestion is misguided or answered elsewhere. For the most part, I find that the comments are thoughtful and fairly accurate, and I very much appreciate having another set of eyes on my work. When I provide peer feedback, first and foremost I enjoy reading what other students are learning. I am picky about whose work to review, looking for those that match my background or work situation, at least in some way. There have been few peer review activities that haven’t taught me something of value, often outside of the topic of the class! When adding comments, I think carefully about my choice of words, since I know and respect the others in my cohort and don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But I’m honest as well, again because I respect my colleagues and want my feedback to be meaningful. I also tend to double check my technical suggestions - I’m more likely to verify in the APA style manual when correcting someone else than when I’m doing my own writing!

Peer review does require a bit of trust, and a bit of knowing each others' style. In a class that contains a majority of students who have been together for 3 years, mixed with 2 newcomers who do not have the same history and are not at the same point in their educational career, there were some challenges. I suspect all of us tried to be inclusive, but it was more difficult to relate in some ways. It's a lesson I will keep in mind with my own students.

It's Not "Whether" It Works, But "How"

As my understanding of design-based research (DBR) grows, so does my appreciation of how well it fits my philosophy of teaching and learning. The readings in this module helped my understand that "design" in DBR is used in 2 different ways - the researcher creates (designs) an intervention or learning phenomenon, and then collects data that allows them to create a model (design) or guidelines (design principles) that can be used to generalize the intervention into other environments. I think this is how good teaching works, when the teacher has sufficient time and ability to collect the data needed. It s a more rigorous version of piloting an intervention or program, and then making changes to the program based on what actually happens in the classroom. This is how I've designed model lessons in the past, and it's how my district has developed units of study that are disseminated across schools.

licensed image by PresenterMedia

Data collection is the challenge in any type of research. Dr. William Sandoval notes that there is a tendency among researchers, particularly novice ones, to collect everything possible and then try to figure out what is needed later. Since there is as much a need for thick description in DBR as there is in case study research, this can end up being a huge amount of data! Sandoval says that, instead, a researcher should have a clear plan of data collection, and should have a reason for collecting every piece of data that is collected. While that makes perfect sense, I think it probably takes a fair amount of experience to know what data will be relevant and which will be extraneous. My fear, as I'm sure is true for most novice researchers, is that I will begin writing my results and realize there's a gap in my data! I'm not sure how one overcomes the challenge of too much data, though I suspect that working in close communication with experienced researchers who can make recommendations.

More about DBR

As I continue my course in design-based research (DBR), I still struggle with how it might actually fit into the repertoire of doctoral students. The iterative nature of DBR seems to take quite a long time, and might not have a fixed end point. It seems difficult to predict the exact number of iterations it will take to get to generalizable design principles. One thought I had is about the possibility of doing an informal version of DBR as a school site leader; the team of researcher/practitioners would be the teachers in a grade level, and their PLC meetings would be the format for hypothesizing design principles and determining how to test those principles. Minor iterations would probably occur every 2-3 weeks, and the teachers implement and revise. While I’m sure they wouldn’t consider their conclusions to be design principles, I think the strategies and recommended practices teams come up with might indeed fall into that category.

 In the readings over the past month, Joseph (2004) helped me to better understand the ways in which other research approaches also study real-world learning situations, and the difference in philosophies that might make a researcher select design-based research. It seems that it’s all about the outcome; if a researcher wants design principles, they might select DBR. If they want to simply examine a phenomenon, or determine the effectiveness of a strategy without necessarily modifying the design, they would likely choose another research approach. Obrenović (2011) describes a process of DBR that I found very similar to what we learned in our Project Management class, but also talks about how DBR might use a selection of quantitative and qualitative approaches in the various stages of design in order to inform changes. As I read Anderson and Shattuck (2012), I began to wonder if the Response to Intervention (RtI) programs that we use in my district were created using design-based research. I know the interventions have been extensively tested, and I know they all have significant bodies of research about their reliability and validity, but I wonder about their genesis. As I reflected on the issues Anderson and Shattuck raise about researchers who are also the designers and implementers, it makes me think that programs such as Read 180 were probably developed by one group of people, and then validated by others. I don’t know that’s the case, but I would predict that getting a reliable rating from the What Works Clearinghouse probably precludes the designer being the researcher.

Design-Based Research

I am currently taking a class in design-based research (DBR), which holds great appeal for me. In design-based research, the researcher proposes a strategy, tool, process or curriculum (the design), and then tests and refines it within a real-world context. Through repeating iterations, the researcher is able to refine the design, and then hopefully generate some principles or theories about best practice. To me, it seems that this is the way interventions and curriculum should be designed. Sometimes programs adopted in schools are "research-based" but they have never been tested with diverse groups of 34 kids with a single teacher who is learning the program on the fly. Unfortunately, that's the implementation reality for most K-12 public schools. Sometimes interventions and curriculum make that transition to the real world, and sometimes they do not. I believe that a rigorous design-based research process would probably make programs more capable of being implemented by real teachers in real schools.
I am still a little confused about the different possible outcomes of DBR. In general, the intent is to develop a set of design principles. I am not clear on exactly what a design principle is, and how well it will correlate to other situations. In many of the DBR studies I reviewed or read reviews of, it seems that the outcome was a very narrow set of guidelines that were applicable to that particular intervention or program. I can imagine a study in which broad design principles are generated, but I would think it would take several years in several contexts in order to create generalizable principles.

I created the flowchart concept map above to show my understanding of design-based research. As with any research, the first step is to determine what the topic is to be studied, and determine what prior research has been conducted. In DBR, the next phase is design, which is followed by implementation. During implementation, data is collected and analyzed, and then the design is "tweaked" to make it stronger. The design is implemented again until it is a perfect solution, or the researcher has either completed enough iterations to develop design principles or has run out of time or money! The process is complete when the researcher publishes their findings in the form of a generalizable theory or design principles. Although the wording on my concept map in the redesign phase is a little tongue in cheek, I suspect those are the actual questions a researcher asks of themselves as they progress through the process.