View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Design-Based Research in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review of Methodologies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Design-Based Research in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review of Methodologies
Language: English
Authors: Tanya Burr (ORCID 0000-0002-3453-2158), Sheila Degotardi (ORCID 0000-0003-2066-2223)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(7):2795-2810.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Literature Reviews, Early Childhood Education, Educational Research, Research Methodology, Teacher Role, Teacher Participation
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01790-x
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: In recent years the notion of teachers as researchers in their own educational settings has become more prominent and encouraged in research literature. In the context of early childhood education (ECE), the participatory role of teachers is especially suited given its multidisciplinary and practice-based research space. This paper explores this premise and presents a scoping review of ECE studies which have employed a Design-based research (DBR) methodology. The review revealed DBR to be a very recent evolution of participatory methodologies with 25 international studies identified from 2013 to 2023, with differing notions and levels of participation within their phase design and overlapping focus areas and outputs. Implications are discussed in relation to the nature of participants' roles in DBR, and the emergence of DBR as an apt model of research-informed professional learning for early childhood educators.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483171
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHNZsrJAbC1KhMibxoqppQwAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPeJ2U6A96yygdVEkwIBEICBm4o5DQOnHFDb1a2uTcDbD24SdjcdAs35vsVv3v8-L5v9IzY4_nFURvI0AGJkSLl_DgGLNBvWIS1ql2XAcfKoDStQylEy2At--o80fXl6i1j8ZwywdJH_NNSkB3CfTgXCqmNeBjKcBde32CDGF9abUP-Mgadu9Dx0O3ztlTkWiPOUwqlZXBHZuOr8c9NSy68tlCdI-Oa10fxdhlRK
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187863994;5mx01oct.25;2025Sep12.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187863994-1">Design-Based Research in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review of Methodologies </title> <p>In recent years the notion of teachers as researchers in their own educational settings has become more prominent and encouraged in research literature. In the context of early childhood education (ECE), the participatory role of teachers is especially suited given its multidisciplinary and practice-based research space. This paper explores this premise and presents a scoping review of ECE studies which have employed a Design-based research (DBR) methodology. The review revealed DBR to be a very recent evolution of participatory methodologies with 25 international studies identified from 2013 to 2023, with differing notions and levels of participation within their phase design and overlapping focus areas and outputs. Implications are discussed in relation to the nature of participants' roles in DBR, and the emergence of DBR as an apt model of research-informed professional learning for early childhood educators.</p> <p>Keywords: Design-based research; Early childhood education; Early childhood educators; Participatory research; Professional learning; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-2">Introduction</hd> <p>ECE research continues to grow exponentially this century in response to the ever-changing landscape of both national and international political agendas that are increasingly prioritising young children within our society. ECE research has proven essential in promoting and advocating for the professionalism of this sector through demonstrating and driving quality pedagogical approaches and practices (see Clark, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; Wallerstedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref2">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Concurrently, a growing focus has been identified in the research literature on teacher capacity as a driver of high-quality practice (King et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]; Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref4">49</reflink>]), and subsequent conversations have centred on 'teachers as researchers' as a means to build this capacity in context-sensitive ways (McFadden & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]; Oancea et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]). This is an important consideration within ECE contexts which are multidisciplinary and require consideration of a range of settings and contexts. Following their review of literature, McFadden and Williams ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>], p.14) championed participatory research, proposing research across all educational settings can be enhanced by "collaborative communities, and topics of research that are connected to practice and solve real world challenges".</p> <p>The scoping review study presented here provides a review of the extant literature on one such participatory research design—Design-based research. The overarching aim of the study is to identify how DBR has been used in ECE and to determine the meaningful and informed contributions of early childhood educators to contemporary research focused on enhancing of their practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-3">Participatory Research in ECE</hd> <p>Participatory research is a design intending to 'give voice to participants and collaborate with them in shaping the research' (Creswell & Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>], p.230). 'Action research' is often recognised in the literature as a form of participatory research which Kemmis et al., ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>] p.4) identifies with two common features:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "the recognition of the capacity of people living and working in particular settings to participate actively in all aspects of the research process; and</item> <p></p> <item> the research conducted by participants is oriented to making improvements in practices and their settings by the participants themselves".</item> </ulist> <p>Kemmis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]) also further highlights 'critical participatory action research' in the field of education with a focus on social justice, to explore issues such as exclusion and inequities in the classroom.</p> <p>This view of education settings as sites for socially situated research is shared in ECE (Fleer et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]), and the recognition of teachers as "action researchers" is supported by discussions on the intersection of teaching and research in the municipal schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]; Hill-Denee & Aitken, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). More recently, professional learning initiatives of "communities of practice" and "collaborative forums" have further embedded this critical participatory focus into contemporary practice and program initiatives (see Early Childhood Australia, n.d.; Quinones et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another methodology within the participatory paradigm is the Mosaic approach (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>], p. 31), originally developed for research with young children, so named as it represents "the bringing together of different pieces or perspectives in order to create an image of children's worlds, both individual and collective". Clark ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]) has further considered this approach in applying to early childhood educators and the processes they can engage in listening and sharing of experiences and calls for this 'person-centred' methodological approach to remain firmly situated in ECE research.</p> <p>Participatory research approaches have also been identified as valuable for promoting professional learning in ECE. Two Australian studies examined the complexities of professional learning in ECE. Hadley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]) identified practitioner inquiry as a participatory research approach to professional learning—an intentional approach where educators systematically reflect upon and evaluate their own practice. Furthermore, Colmer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) found when professional dialogue and inquiry, as a form of professional learning, is supported by service leaders and contextualised to early childhood settings, it can be beneficial to curriculum reform as it enables educators to "explore new theoretical perspectives, review existing knowledge and beliefs, and examine their current practice"(p.203). While taking different approaches, both studies reveal the positive impact of participatory inquiry and contextual understandings to educator learning and curriculum advancement.</p> <p>While participatory approaches to inquiry and professional learning support contextual knowledge generation, most focus on professional growth and inquiry within one specific ECEC context. These advances can be strengthened further through creation of tangible tools or processes that can be both setting-specific <emph>and</emph> meet the needs of the wider ECE sector.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-4">The Evolution of Design-Based Research</hd> <p>In recent years, the methodology of Design-based research (DBR) has emerged across several 'practice-based' research disciplines, including education (Easterday et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]; Shah et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref20">40</reflink>]). DBR is a relatively new methodology, having been developed in response to the challenges related to increasing teacher capabilities through meaningful, context sensitive professional learning opportunities. As a participatory research method, DBR is defined as:</p> <p> <emph>a systematic but flexible methodology aiming to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually sensitive design principles and theories.</emph> </p> <p>(Wang & Hannafin, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>], p. 6–7).</p> <p>DBR is theoretically oriented through a pragmatic lens, with its focus on real-world problems, responsiveness to context and aim to drive change (Nijhawan, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref22">35</reflink>]). DBR also aligns philosophically with the assertion of pragmatism that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge are interwoven within the concept of action (Juuti et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, researchers have continued to assert that DBR is exactly what the education profession requires to 'bridge the gap' between theory and practice, in order to address current problems and create novel solutions through shared activity between educators and researchers (Juuti et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]; McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]; Nijhawan, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]; Shah et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-5">The Defining Attributes of DBR</hd> <p>In their examination of design research processes in education, McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>]) have outlined five defining and universal features of DBR:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Theoretically Oriented</item> <p></p> <item> DBR is no different than other disciplined research in that it draws upon existing theory to frame an inquiry (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]). However, in DBR, theoretical knowledge is not set before defining an inquiry, rather generated over time as an aim and an implication through the collaborative process of the research design (Shah et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref30">40</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Interventionist</item> <p></p> <item> As the pragmatist paradigm informs, the main goal of DBR is to positively impact practice, and bring about transformation "through the design and use of solutions to real-world problems" (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>], p. 13). In educational design research, McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]) further cite intervention outputs can include educational products, processes, policies or professional learning programs which can bring about "real change on the ground". In addition, DBR as a method can contribute to the professional learning of early childhood educators and support the continuous improvement in practice (Juuti et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]; McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]; Nijhawan, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]; Shah et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]). The main difference between traditional methods of practitioner inquiry in professional learning and DBR as a professional learning intervention is that the former focusses only on individual improvement, whereas DBR focuses on a tangible output that will support ongoing change at a service and/or sector level (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]); for example, an Educator Practice Guide to support the implementation of a broader curriculum framework.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Collaborative</item> <p></p> <item> Nijhawan ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref38">35</reflink>]) asserts that DBR's participatory methodological framework includes practitioners directly into the discourse about educational improvements and reforms. McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref39">32</reflink>]) agree, explaining DBR involves exploration of a problem "together with the problem owners" and that practitioners' "craft wisdom and ground-level instincts are valued, studied, and put to use".</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Responsively Grounded</item> <p></p> <item> Design principles which "reflect the conditions in which they operate" are a key strength of DBR (Anderson & Shattuck, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>], p. 17). In acknowledging the theoretical and practical complexities inherent in education settings, researchers employ DBR design and re-design measures and innovations to best fit contextual variables present.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Iterative</item> <p></p> <item> Iterative cycles of investigation, development, testing, and refinement, which characterise DBR, allow for regular modifications to the design principles, interventions, and the end pedagogical goal to ensure what is created is most responsive and relevant to its real-world context. McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>]) maintain a generic model for DBR in education should comprise of three core phases in a flexible and iterative structure. These core phases of <emph>analysis and exploration</emph>; <emph>design and construction</emph>; and <emph>evaluation and reflection</emph> (see Figure 1).</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>], p.84) Example of single and multiple sub-cycles in one DBR project</p> <p>In summary, what sets DBR apart from other participatory methods is the design of the research study itself. The research design is an integral part of participatory process and knowledge generation of participants and researcher. Through a systematic approach to testing and refinement of practical applications, participants are able to implement tangible solutions to contextual challenges in their educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-6">Aims of the Present Study</hd> <p>DBR has the potential to become an innovative method of professional learning for educators, and a key point of intersection between practitioner inquiry and action research in the field of ECE. However, as it is still an emerging methodology, further understanding of implementation projects in the ECE context so far is needed. This study will provide a scoping review of ECE research studies which have employed a DBR methodology. Scoping reviews provide "a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature [and] aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence" (Grant & Booth, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>] p.101). The aims of this study will be to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Identify the focus of these DBR studies, how they have been implemented and the outputs they have generated for ECE.</item> <p></p> <item> Explore how early childhood teachers and educators in these DBR studies have been involved in the co-construction of knowledge within their profession.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187863994-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863994-8">Search Strategy</hd> <p>The review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Statement (Page et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]) and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]). The academic database <emph>Education Research Complete</emph> was searched in January 2024 using the terms "design-based research" OR "design research" AND "early childhood education or preschool or kindergarten". The search parameters were intentionally restricted to "design-based research" OR "design research" because these terms are the most common used in educational research to describe this specific methodological approach (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref46">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The database search function uncovers both published research and unpublished dissertations, with no dissertations identified in the search. However, the authors had attended an Australian ECE research conference in 2021 and recalled a presentation on a PhD research project using Design-based research. The authors contacted the researcher directly to seek permission to include their unpublished thesis in this review. The same database search was then repeated, this time searching only for unpublished dissertations, no others were found. The search also had no date restrictions as this study is interested in uncovering the complete time-period of DBR in early childhood education research.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-9">Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>The search yielded a total of 73 studies, which were then screened via their abstract to ensure all inclusion criteria were met:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The study employed a DBR methodology</item> <p></p> <item> The study reported empirical data derived from a DBR methodology</item> <p></p> <item> The study included an early childhood education/ prior to school context in their research focus</item> </ulist> <p>At this point 35 of the studies were immediately excluded from the database search as their abstracts did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 27) and/or the full text was not published in English (n = 8). The remaining 38 papers were uploaded to Rayyan for abstract review.</p> <p>Following a full text read, another seven studies were excluded for the same reason, as the term 'design-based research' in the abstract was found to convey a different meaning in their methodology. Another two studies were excluded as one did not include research conducted in an ECE context, and one was found to be a discussion paper and therefore did not report empirical data (see Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 PRISMA Flow Diagram search of early childhood research studies employing a DBR methodology</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-10">Data Extraction</hd> <p>A total of 24 published papers between 2013 and 2023 alongside one unpublished PhD thesis met the inclusion criteria and are included in this review (see Table 1). Data extraction was conducted based on Arksey and OMalley's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>]) methodological framework of scoping studies and included details for: author and year of publication; study location; study focus; participants; and outputs, alongside an outline of the DBR methodological process. The authors met regularly during the period of data extraction process to cross-check the sample for rigor and confirm inclusion and exclusion of studies based on the criteria. A test of inter-rater reliability showed a high-level of agreement between authors (Cohen's kappa = 0.826 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <p>Table 1 Data extraction from each of the included review studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Author/s</p></th><th align="left"><p>Year of Publication</p></th><th align="left"><p>Study Location</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participant Focus group</p></th><th align="left"><p>Study Focus</p></th><th align="left"><p>DBR phases reported in the publication</p></th><th align="left"><p>Output</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Acosta & Alsina</p></td><td align="left"><p>2020</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spain</p></td><td align="left"><p>6 experts in EC mathematics 24 children</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mathematics curricula in EC education</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase A:</italic> Review of the theoretical background</p><p><italic>Phase B:</italic> Analysis of the current legislation</p><p><italic>Phase C:</italic> Construction of the pilot version</p><p><italic>Phase D:</italic> Review based on expert judgement</p><p><italic>Phase E:</italic> Application in a real classroom</p><p><italic>Phase F:</italic> Obtaining the definitive version</p></td><td align="left"><p>A learning trajectory design and teaching itinerary for introducing patterns to children</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Amukune et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2022</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kenya</p></td><td align="left"><p>89 children *No. of teachers not reported</p></td><td align="left"><p>Development of Kenyan version of a game-like assessment tool</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Stage 1 Analysis and exploration:</italic> stakeholder meetings and document analysis</p><p><italic>Stage 2 Design and construction:</italic> scoping review of literature to identify app</p><p><italic>Stage 3 Construction:</italic> analysis of Kenyan curriculum content and stakeholder meetings</p><p><italic>Stage 4 Evaluation and Reflection:</italic> data collection and analysis with IT experts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Support for FOCUS app as school readiness tool</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ata-Aktürk &Demircan</p></td><td align="left"><p>2020</p></td><td align="left"><p>Turkey</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 EC teachers 5 children 5 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool children's STEM learning</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Preliminary Research Phase:</italic> needs and content analysis; design of prototype 1; design of the draft design principles</p><p><italic>Prototyping Phase:</italic> three iterations of expert appraisal, micro-evaluation and field test (prototypes 2 and 3)</p><p><italic>Assessment Phase:</italic> Final prototype 4; final design principles</p></td><td align="left"><p>a STEM-based and parent-involved engineering design curriculum for ECE</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Barman & Kjallander<italic> **</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>2022</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sweden</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Digital mathematics in EC education</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Recommendation for digital tools to be designed and implemented collaboratively</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Boylan</p></td><td align="left"><p>2021</p><p><italic>*unpublished thesis</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td align="left"><p>6 EC teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>EC teachers' perceptions of mindset theory</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase 1:</italic> Analysis—literature review and survey</p><p><italic>Phase 2:</italic> Development—drafting principles</p><p><italic>Phase 3:</italic> Two iterative cycles of testing and refinement with focus group</p><p><italic>Phase 4:</italic> Reflection – producing design principles</p></td><td align="left"><p>a set of design principles to teach mindset theory to children in ECE</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Connor et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2014</p></td><td align="left"><p>U.S.A</p></td><td align="left"><p>19 teachers 3 principals 230 children</p></td><td align="left"><p>Instructional time to support achievement in social studies</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>4 iterations of:</italic></p><p>Team meetings to review literature, make initial design decisions, develop lessons, review lesson plan and materials and implement program</p></td><td align="left"><p>Support for CALI as an instructional program</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dijkstra et al.**</p></td><td align="left"><p>2017</p></td><td align="left"><p>Netherlands</p></td><td align="left"><p>18 principals 35 kindergarten teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing differentiated instruction for children's development</p></td><td align="left"><p>Detailed the first phase of a larger DBR project which involved:</p><p>Screening of children's characteristics</p><p>Development of learning materials framework</p><p>Development of school policy protocol</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reported implications for interventions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Erdoğan et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2022</p></td><td align="left"><p>Turkey</p></td><td align="left"><p>105 preschool teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Professional development of preschool teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Design Stage:</italic> Creation of the contents of the program</p><p><italic>Analysis Stage:</italic> Implementation of the program</p><p><italic>Re-designing Stage:</italic> Re-designing the program</p></td><td align="left"><p>An e-mentoring-based education program for preschool teachers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Flannery & Bers **</p></td><td align="left"><p>2013</p></td><td align="left"><p>U.S.A</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Supporting young children's understanding of programming and robotics</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Support for applying cognitive developmental theory in early technology education</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Francot et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2019</p></td><td align="left"><p>Netherlands</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 preschool teachers 2 parents from a CALD background</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improving educational partnerships in multicultural preschools</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase 1:</italic> Exploration and evaluation of context</p><p><italic>Phase 2 (1st implementation cycle):</italic> Implementation, analyses, evaluation, and redesign for 2nd iteration</p><p><italic>Phase 3 (2nd implementation cycle):</italic> Data collection and analysis</p><p><italic>Phase 4:</italic> Evaluation and reflection to generate design principles</p></td><td align="left"><p>A digital tool for teachers and parents to collaboratively create intercultural content</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Harper et al.**</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>U.S.A</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 preschool coach 3 principals 6 preschool teachers 2 educational assistant 7 parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Impact of parent and teacher voices on culturally relevant learning and computational thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Detailed the first iteration of a 3 stage DBR study:</p><p><italic>Stage 1:</italic> co-development and testing of the program based on a working theory in ECE</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kara & Cagiltay</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Turkey</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 preschool teachers 19 preschool children</p></td><td align="left"><p>educational games and materials that utilise e-textile technology</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Cycle 1:</italic> identifying the characteristics of the e-textiles used, and determining revisions through implementation and interviews</p><p><italic>Cycle 2:</italic> testing the effectiveness of each applied revision</p></td><td align="left"><p>Recommendations for using e-textiles to create interactive materials for preschool children</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kim</p></td><td align="left"><p>2013</p></td><td align="left"><p>Canada</p></td><td align="left"><p>CALD children and parents (numbers not specified)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Affective and social aspects of learning for CALD children and their families</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase 1:</italic> Fostering positive socio-emotional relationships</p><p><italic>Phase 2:</italic> Co-participating in mediated teaching and learning in joint literacy activities</p><p><italic>Phase 3:</italic> Integrating dynamic assessment of teaching and learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Support for technology-mediated collaborative environments for Korean Canadian children</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Laranjeiro</p></td><td align="left"><p>2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Portugal</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 kindergarten teacher 22 children</p></td><td align="left"><p>game-based learning strategies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Phase 1: Preliminary study</p><p>Phase 2: Development of apps</p><p>Phase 3: Evaluation</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 game-based learning apps for preschool children</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>McPake & Stephen</p></td><td align="left"><p>2016</p></td><td align="left"><p>U.K</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 preschool practitioners</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing language-learning opportunities for children in Gaelic-medium preschools</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Pre-intervention discussions:</italic> researchers and practitioners</p><p><italic>1st iteration:</italic> practitioner experimentation</p><p><italic>2nd iteration:</italic> actively involving children</p><p><italic>Post-intervention discussions:</italic> researchers and practitioners</p></td><td align="left"><p>Support for use of the <italic>Our Story</italic> app for children learning and using Gaelic</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Misirli & Komis</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Greece</p></td><td align="left"><p>30 preschool educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>Developing computational thinking ECE</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase 1:</italic> Test and evaluate the program</p><p><italic>Phase 2:</italic> Identify bug and types of errors</p><p><italic>Phase 3–5:</italic> Represent program, locate bug and correct bug</p></td><td align="left"><p>Recommendation for teaching coding and computational thinking to young children</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ralph**</p></td><td align="left"><p>2018</p></td><td align="left"><p>Canada</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Pre-schoolers' prosocial behaviours when using media and technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>Detailed Phase 4 of the wider DBR project: Field study</p></td><td align="left"><p>Recommendation for ECE curriculum and policy on digital integration</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Slamet et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Indonesia</p></td><td align="left"><p>English teachers, regional leaders in Education, and 8 experts in ECE</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quality of English textbooks for English vocabulary development in kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Stage 1:</italic> practical problem analysis stage, the researchers analysed the textbooks used at the kindergarten</p><p><italic>Stage 2:</italic> book development</p><p>1) the compilation of draft integrated thematic textbooks with photo media</p><p>2) expert judgement</p><p>3) revised textbook draft</p></td><td align="left"><p>A textbook prototype</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>St Hilaire & Gallagher</p></td><td align="left"><p>2020</p></td><td align="left"><p>Canada</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 Kindergarten teachers and their 2 ECE teaching partners</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten teachers enacting technology enhanced reading instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Six iterations in which the principal investigator met which each of the two educator dyads:</p><p>1) Initial meeting</p><p>2) Instructional/co-planning meeting</p><p>3) Observation of six lessons</p><p>4) Co-evaluative meeting</p><p>5) Observation of six lessons</p><p>6) Post survey and interview</p></td><td align="left"><p>a model for embedding DBR as professional development in ECE settings</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Taylor et al</p></td><td align="left"><p>2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td align="left"><p>277 EC teachers 5 experts in Autism</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children on the autism spectrum</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Cycle A:</italic> practice generation and design of Prototype 1</p><p><italic>Cycle B:</italic> content validation of these practices</p><p><italic>Cycle C:</italic> practice refinement and redesign to create Prototype 2</p><p><italic>Cycle D:</italic> social validation of these practices</p><p><italic>Cycle E:</italic> Practice refinement and redesign to create Prototype 3 for trial in classrooms</p></td><td align="left"><p>A prototype Early Years Model of Practice</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tippet & Milford**</p></td><td align="left"><p>2016</p></td><td align="left"><p>Taiwan</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>STEM-based learning experiences in ECE</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Support for the inclusion of STEM-based learning experiences</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Aswegen & Pendergast</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td align="left"><p>57 children with parents 1 teacher 1 assistant</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interest development in the early years</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>3 iterative cycles of:</italic></p><p>Program implementation; data collection; program evaluation; program refinement</p></td><td align="left"><p>An emergent model for practice</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wright& Wenk Gotwals</p></td><td align="left"><p>2017</p></td><td align="left"><p>U.S.A</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 kindergarten teachers 147 children</p></td><td align="left"><p>Integrated curriculum for kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Initial design of materials and teacher and child measures</p><p><italic>Iteration 1:</italic> Curriculum implementation</p><p><italic>Iteration 2:</italic> Ongoing implementation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Curriculum materials</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wu & Goff</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td align="left"><p>20 EC educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing mathematics teaching and learning through professional development</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Phase 1:</italic> development of professional development session</p><p><italic>Phase 2:</italic> formulating and introducing participants to examples</p><p><italic>Phase 3:</italic> developing an integrated pedagogical framework</p><p><italic>Phase 4:</italic> refinement of the integrated pedagogical framework</p></td><td align="left"><p>An integrated pedagogical framework for play-based environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Yilmaz-Na & Sonmez</p></td><td align="left"><p>2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Turkey</p></td><td align="left"><p>38 junior pre-service teachers (PSTs)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Promoting critical thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Stage 1:</italic> Identification of practical problems and exploration of possible solutions</p><p><italic>Stage 2:</italic> Design of a set of principles to integrate practices into an online course</p><p><italic>Stage 3:</italic> Reflection on the implementation and refinement for improvement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design principles for using computer-assisted practices for promoting critical thinking in PSTs</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>**</sups>These studies detailed and reported on only a part of a wider study employing a DBR methodology, as such the participants, phases and outcomes were at times not outlined in their entirety</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-11">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863994-12">Study Location and Populations</hd> <p>This scoping review found DBR studies in ECE to be a recent phenomenon. The earliest publications were in 2013, with the large majority (n = 17) published in the last five years. Included studies were primarily spread across seven different European countries (n = 11) with over a third of this group from Turkey. North America represented seven studies, and Australia contributed four studies. The remainder of the sample consisted of two studies from Asia and one from Africa.</p> <p>Where details were provided, all participant populations were early childhood teachers and educators working in collaboration with researchers to undertake the project. Acosta and Alsina ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]) and Kim ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]) were exceptions to this, where the researchers themselves were also participant teachers in the project. Four of the studies (Acosta & Alsina, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]; Slamet et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref53">43</reflink>]) identified subject-matter experts as participants. Four studies involved education leaders (Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]; Dijkstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]; Slamet et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref57">41</reflink>]) and parents were included as participants in five studies (Ata-Aktürk & Demircan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]; Francot et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref60">23</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref61">28</reflink>]; van Aswegen & Pendergast, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref62">46</reflink>]). Interestingly, one third of these studies (Acosta & Alsina, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>]; Amukune et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]; Ata-Aktürk & Demircan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]; Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]; Kara & Cagiltay, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref68">28</reflink>]; Laranjeiro, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]; van Aswegen & Pendergast, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]; Wright & Went Gotwals, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]) identified children as 'participants' in the traditional sense, being that data was collected from children during research activities, as opposed to being collaborators within the DBR phases and output.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-13">Focus and Outputs of the Studies</hd> <p>The review revealed four overlapping focus areas in early childhood education within these studies:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Design principles for integration into ECEcurriculum (n = 10)</item> <p></p> <item> Digital technologies and STEM learning experiences (n = 15)</item> <p></p> <item> Professional development for early childhood teachers (n = 3)</item> <p></p> <item> Tools to support early childhood teachers with diverse culture and languages (n = 5)</item> </ulist> <p>Ten studies designed teaching principles recommended to be integrated into existing ECE curriculums within their respective countries. In Australia, Boylan's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref72">7</reflink>]) doctoral study sought to understand how early childhood teachers can be supported to incorporate mindset theory into their practice and contributed a set of design principles for teaching. Taylor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref73">43</reflink>]) study designed a model of practice for early childhood teachers to support children on the Autism Spectrum. Most recently, Wu and Goff ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref74">51</reflink>]) developed a pedagogical framework for integrating mathematics into play based learning environments, and van Aswegen and Pendergast ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref75">46</reflink>]) developed an emergent model of authentic interest aimed at enhancing children's cognitive and emotional development.</p> <p>In the United States, Connor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]) focused on the implementation of a program to support literacy instructional time in social studies from kindergarten to grade four. Similarly, Wright and Wenk Gotwals ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref77">50</reflink>]) designed materials for an integrated science and literacy curriculum for kindergarten, and in the Netherlands, Dijkstra et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>])[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>]* study focused on enhancing differentiated curriculum in kindergarten. Three of these 10 studies overlapped in focus with digital technology or STEM. In Canada, Ralph ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref80">39</reflink>]) explored preschoolers' prosocial behaviours when using media and technology, with their findings aimed at informing ECE curriculum and policy. Ata-Aktürk and Demircan ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]) developed a STEM-based early childhood curriculum in Turkey. The same year in Spain, Acosta and Alsina ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>]) studied how young children recognise and represent patterns as evidence of early algebraic thinking and created a learning design and teaching itinerary.</p> <p>Inclusion of digital technologies and STEM-based learning experiences in ECE was the sole focus of seven other international studies. Tippet and Milford ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref83">44</reflink>]) contributed support for STEM-based ECE learning experiences in Taiwan. In the United States, Flannery and Bers' ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]) study aimed to support young children's understanding of programming and robotics, while more recently in Greece, Misirli and Komis's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref85">34</reflink>]) study put forward recommendations for teaching coding to young children. Amukune et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>]) focused on development of a Kenyan version of a game-based assessment tool to support school readiness. Similarly, three more European studies also focused on development of digital game-based tools to support learning (Laranjeiro, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]; Barman & Kjallander, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]*; Kara & Cagiltay, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref90">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Three studies focused on the design of professional development and training tools for early childhood teachers. Erdoğan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]) incorporated an overlapping focus on digital technology in developing an e-mentoring based program to support teachers' professional knowledge and practices. The following year in Turkey, Yilmaz-Na and Sonmez ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]) also looked at integrating digital tools into an online training course to support critical thinking and professional learning. Within their Canadian study, St Hilaire and Gallagher ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref93">42</reflink>]) proposed DBR as a model of professional learning in ECE settings, and developed five clear considerations and processes (design principles) for ECE settings: 1) <emph>iterative cycles of professional learning; 2) anticipating and diagnosing educators needs; 3) providing differentiated support; 4) engaging in researcher self-determined problem solving;</emph> and 5) <emph>liaising with administration</emph>.</p> <p>The implementation of tools to support early childhood teachers with diverse cultures and languages was the shared aim and outcome for a further five studies. Slamet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref94">41</reflink>]) developed an improved textbook prototype to support teaching of English vocabulary in Indonesian kindergartens. Harper et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]) study explored the impact of parent and teacher voices for culturally relevant learning in the United States. Again, three of the five studies in this group shared focus with digital technologies. In the Netherlands, Francot et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref96">19</reflink>]) created a digital tool for teacher/parent collaboration on intercultural content, and McPake and Stephen ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref97">33</reflink>]) recommended implementation of an app for children learning Gaelic in U.K. preschool settings. Lastly, Kim's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref98">28</reflink>]) study focused on using technology to meet the challenges of teaching minority-language children in Canada. Kim's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]) sits apart from all other DBR studies discussed here so far in that there was no tangible outcome (i.e., design principles) or prototype developed. This does not align with the DBR attribute of being interventionist (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref100">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-14">Participants as Co-constructors of Knowledge</hd> <p>As shown in Table 1, in keeping with identified attributes of DBR methodology, each of the studies detailed their iterative "phases", "stages" or "cycles", which encompassed differing levels of participation by teachers as co-researchers.</p> <p>Table 2 details the different types and levels of participation from EC educators and teachers as co-constructors of knowledge within the DBR projects reported in full (n = 19) out of the six data collected methods identified across these studies. Classroom observation and testing was the most common in 68%, followed by focus groups and interviews and surveys, both seen in 47% of studies. All studies were seen to employ a minimum of two participatory methods, except for Kim ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref101">28</reflink>]), identified previously as one of the earliest identified studies, and therefore not in alignment with some later established DBR attributes.</p> <p>Table 2 Involvement of EC educators and teachers in reviewed studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Author/s</p></th><th align="left"><p>Focus Group/Planning meetings</p></th><th align="left"><p>Expert validation</p></th><th align="left"><p>PD/workshop</p></th><th align="left"><p>Content/document analysis</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interviews or surveys</p></th><th align="left"><p>Classroom observation/testing of prototypes</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>*Researcher as teacher 'participant'</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Acosta &Alsina (2020)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><italic>x</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Amukune et al. (2022)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ata-Aktürk and Demircan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Boylan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Connor et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Erdoğan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Francot et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2019</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kara and Cagiltay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kim (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2013</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><italic>x</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Laranjeiro (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>McPake and Stephen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Misirli and Komis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Slamet et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>St Hilaire and Gallagher (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Taylor et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Aswegen and Pendergast (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wright and Wenk Gotwals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wu and Goff (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Yilmaz-Na & Sonmez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>x</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187863994-15">Discussion</hd> <p>This scoping review aimed to unearth the collection of ECE studies which have utilised a DBR methodology in line with its defining attributes outlined in research literature. Identification of these 25 studies from 2013 to 2023, supported the claim, purported in research literature that DBR is a relatively new methodology in ECE research (Easterday et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]; McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref103">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The review of these papers revealed four main focus areas of DBR in ECE contexts, which at times was shown to overlap in the same study (Acosta & Alsina, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>]; Ata-Aktürk and Demircan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref105">5</reflink>]) these were: design principles for integration into ECE curriculum; professional development for early childhood teachers; tools to support early childhood teachers with diverse culture and languages; and the most common focus: digital technologies and STEM learning experiences. In their study, Erdoğan et al ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref106">16</reflink>]) claim DBR as a preferred methodology over experimental design methods for studies in e-learning environments because, like technology, DBR lends itself to new educational applications. As new applications require training, it follows that building educator capacity through professional learning would be a valuable topic for inquiry, along with the DBR output of training tools.</p> <p>In line with the defining DBR attribute, an <emph>interventionist</emph> outcome was reported in the majority of papers, being a set of design principles to enhance curriculum or teacher knowledge; or a prototype to implement within teaching and learning experiences (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref107">32</reflink>]). While traditional professional learning offerings have the potential to build individual or service capacity, these tangible training tools developed from DBR can build capacity and effect change at scale as processes are able to be duplicated across the sector as a whole, and/or provide guidance for informed modifications when needed to suit the context (St Hilaire & Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref108">42</reflink>]). The exceptions to this interventionist approach were six papers (Barman & Kjallander, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref109">6</reflink>]; Dijkstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref110">13</reflink>]; Flannery & Bers, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref111">17</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref112">23</reflink>]; Ralph, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]; Tippet & Milford, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref114">44</reflink>]) which detailed one "phase" of a wider study utilising DBR methodology, and therefore only reported recommendations which were likely integrated within the interventionist design or prototype of the wider research study. One other paper (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref115">28</reflink>]) did report on the whole DBR study, though also did not include an intervention outcome. Being one of the earliest studies found in this scoping review, the DBR methodology (and defining attributes) within educational settings was perhaps still evolving at this time.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-16">Implications</hd> <p>In line with the <emph>collaborative</emph> nature of DBR participatory methodological framework (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref116">32</reflink>]; Nijhawan, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref117">35</reflink>]), all identified studies in this review included early childhood teachers and educators as participants, and over 50% of studies also engaged subject-matter experts, educational leaders, and parents as participants. While collectively, the studies adopted diverse notions and levels of participation within their phase design, their commonality was in providing opportunity to educators to contribute to the research design—an attribute unique to DBR. More so than other participatory methodologies, DBR therefore has the potential to empower educator agency and build capacity within the broader ECE sector.</p> <p>These varying types of participant engagement and data collection methods were seen to be suited to the specific research questions and context of the different projects. As multiple methods were employed in the design of most studies, depth in their findings was achieved through triangulation of data sources. A benefit of DBR was also revealed in several studies in drawing upon multiple perspectives including educators, subject-matter experts and families to build shared understandings through opportunities for networking and professional development.</p> <p>Of note also here was the identification of children as "participants" in nine studies. However, the participation of children in these studies differed significantly from identified adult groups, as children were only peripheral and were not provided opportunity for input into the research design. While McKenney and Reeves ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref118">32</reflink>]) identify students as stakeholders with a right to a say in their schools and educational systems, the participatory contributions of young children in ECE research design may require further consideration when defining a collaborative DBR methodology. While children's voices are firmly embedded in all quality ECE curriculums and pedagogy, the positioning of young children as participants in ECE research is still a space of much discussion as elements of ethics, consent and compentency need to be considered (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref119">8</reflink>]; Harcourt & Conroy, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref120">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Also emerging from this scoping review was evidence of DBR incorporating elements of professional learning in their phase methodology (Boylan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref121">7</reflink>]; Misirli & Komis, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref122">34</reflink>]; Wu & Goff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref123">51</reflink>]), using DBR to design a professional learning intervention (Erdoğan et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref124">16</reflink>]; Yilmaz-Na & Sonmez, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]) or to develop design principles for professional learning (St Hilaire and Gallagher ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref126">42</reflink>]). As Shah et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref127">40</reflink>]) stated, theoretical knowledge generation over time is both an aim and an implication of DBR embedded within the process of phase design. It is clear through this review how DBR could naturally lend itself as a new method of professional learning, and brings support to implementation of St Hilaire and Gallagher ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref128">42</reflink>]) five principle approach in ECE contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-17">Limitations and Conclusions</hd> <p>This scoping review has provided a clear picture of how and why DBR methodologies have been implemented in ECE research thus far. As this review was focused exclusively on DBR, the search term parameters were intentionally restricted. This may mean the review missed identifying some studies which employed a DBR methodology but did not define their methodology explicitly as "design-based research" or "design research". However, it is worth noting that of the 35 studies included for the full-text review, seven studies (20%) were subsequently excluded because their reported methodology was not consistent with the definition of DBR methodology reported in this study. As these studies framed their methodology as DBR, this may suggest that some researchers are adopting a looser definition of DBR methodology than that required by this review. Alternatively, it may be that DBR as a methodology may be open to broader methodological interpretations than originally proposed by key methodological writers in this area (see McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref129">32</reflink>]; Nijhawan, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref130">35</reflink>]; Shah et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref131">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Four of the included studies identified provide evidence of further DBR research projects not published in their entirety, or perhaps are yet to be published, suggesting that more research is likely to be published in the future. This scoping review has generated a 'point-in-time' picture of the DBR landscape, as this research methodology may likely increase in use in ECE over coming years. This proposed likelihood stems from the realisation of the diversity of ECE settings and its participatory pedagogy. ECE research studies are thus suited to being practice-based in the field—<emph>responsively grounded</emph> in real-world settings, where knowledge is constructed within the interactions of the educator, the researcher, and the learning environment—a premise supported by earlier studies on DBR methodology and professional learning in ECE (Anderson & Shattuck, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref132">3</reflink>]; Colmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref133">10</reflink>]; Hadley et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref134">21</reflink>]; McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref135">32</reflink>]). This paper has also shown the <emph>collaborative</emph> nature of DBR to promote the meaningful contribution of participants to design solutions or advancments within their own work environments, often within the context of professional learning. In ECE, DBR has the potential to highlight and empower educator voices, bringing to the fore relevant and meaningful solutions which have ecological validity within the sector. This in turn, affords further support for the overarching aims of ECE pedagogy and policy research over recent years, being to embed contemporary quality education and care practices in ECE settings.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Dr. Fiona Boylan for generously sharing her time and research experience in discussion of this paper and providing permission to include her unpublished doctoral thesis within this scoping review.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-19">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Li Kan for her contribution to the data extraction process and the inter-rater reliability test.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863994-21">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0187863994-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187863994-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref48" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acosta Inchaustegui Y, Alsina A. Learning patterns at three years old: Contributions of a learning trajectory and teaching itinerary. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2020; 45; 1: 14-29. 10.1177/1836939119885310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref64" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amukune S, Caplovitz Barrett K, Józsa K. Development and application of FOCUS app for assessment of approaches to learning in 3–8-year-old children in Kenya: A design-based research approach. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2023; 55: 69-87. 10.1007/s13158-022-00324-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-based research. Educational Researcher. 2012; 41; 1: 16-25. 10.3102/0013189x11428813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8; 1: 19-32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref58" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ata-Aktürk A, Demircan HÖ. Supporting Preschool Children's STEM Learning with Parent-Involved Early Engineering Education. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020; 49; 4: 607-621. 10.1007/s10643-020-01100-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref88" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barman L, Kjällander S. Playful and meaningful learning of programming. What does it take to integrate an app based game promoting digital mathematics into early childhood education?. Designs for Learning. 2022; 14; 1: 165-178. 10.16993/dfl.203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref72" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boylan, F. (2021). Mindsets matter: Early childhood teacher perceptions of mindset. PhD Thesis, Edith Cowan University, Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clark AClark A, Kjorholt AT, Moss P. Ways of seeing: Using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children's perspectives. Beyond listening: Children's perspectives on early childhood services. 2005; The Policy Press: 29-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Clark A. Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2011; 19; 3: 321-330. 10.1080/1350293X.2011.597964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colmer K, Waniganayake M, Field L. Implementing curriculum reform: Insights into how Australian early childhood directors view professional development and learning. Professional Development in Education. 2015; 41; 2: 203-221. 10.1080/19415257.2014.986815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor CM, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, Zargar E, Wood T, Petscher Y. Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 3: 301-320. 10.1037/edu0000128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. 20185; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dijkstra EM, Walraven A, Mooij T, Kirschner PA. Factors affecting intervention fidelity of differentiated instruction in kindergarten. Research Papers in Education. 2017; 32; 2: 151-169. 10.1080/02671522.2016.1158856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early Childhood Australia. (n. d). Communities of Practice. Early Childhood Australia: Learning Hub. Available at: https://learninghub.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/communities-of-practice/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterday MW, Rees Lewis DG, Gerber EM. The logic of the theoretical and practical products of design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 32; 4: 125-144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdoğan S, Haktanır G, Kuru N, Parpucu N, Tüylü DK. The effect of the e-mentoring-based education program on professional development of preschool teachers. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27: 1023-1053. 10.1007/s10639-021-10623-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flannery LP, Bers MU. Let's dance the "Robot Hokey-Pokey!" children's programming approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2013; 46; 1: 81-101. 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleer M, Edwards S, Hammer M, Kennedy A, Ridgway A, Robbins J, Surman L. Early childhood learning communities: Sociocultural research in practice. 2006; Pearson Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francot R, Broekhuizen M, Leseman P. The utrecht virtual learning environment project: Improving educational partnerships in multicultural preschools. Orbis Scholae. 2019; 13; 3: 59-83. 10.14712/23363177.2019.22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26: 91-108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadley F, Waniganayake M, Shepherd W. Contemporary practice in professional learning and development of early childhood educators in Australia: Reflections on what works and why. Professional Development in Education. 2015; 41; 2: 187-202. 10.1080/19415257.2014.986818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harcourt D, Conroy HHarcourt D, Perry B, Waller T. Informed consent: Processes and procedures in seeking research partnerships with young children. Researching young children's perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational research with young children. 2011; Routledge: 38-51. 10.4324/9780203830437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper FK, Caudle LA, Flowers CE Jr, Rainwater T, Quinn MF, The CRRAFT, Partnership. Centering teacher and parent voice to realize culturally relevant computational thinking in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 64: 381-393. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill-Denee D, Aitken HDe Gioia K, Fleet A, Patterson C, Papic M. What matters: Participant voices in a year of sustained professional learning. Unlocking practitioner inquiry. 2023; Routledge: 129-143. 10.4324/9781003245827-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juuti K, Lavonen J, Meisalo VPsillos D, Kariotoglou P. Pragmatic design-based research—Designing as a shared activity of teachers and researches. Iterative design of teaching-learning. 2016; Springer: 35-46. 10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kara E, Cagiltay K. Using e-textiles to design and develop educational games for preschool-aged children. Educational Technology and Society. 2023; 26; 2: 19-35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R. The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. 2014; Springer. 10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim MS. Technology-mediated collaborative learning environments for young culturally and linguistically diverse children: Vygotsky revisited. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2013; 61; 2: 221-246. 10.1080/00071005.2012.745480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King B, Smith CP, Park J, Fatima S, Forde E. Using the co-creation of practice-based lessons to build teachers' capacity to facilitate mathematical discussions. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development. 2022; 24; 2: 1-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laranjeiro D. Development of game-based m-learning apps for preschoolers. Education Sciences. 2021; 11; 229: 1-25. 10.3390/educsci11050229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFadden A, Williams KE. Teachers as evaluators: Results from a systematic literature review. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020; 64: 1-17. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenney S, Reeves TC. Conducting Educational Design Research. 20192; Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9780203818183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPake J, Stephen C. New technologies, old dilemmas: Theoretical and practical challenges in preschool immersion playrooms. Language and Education. 2016; 30; 2: 106-125. 10.1080/09500782.2015.1103257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misirli A, Komis V. Computational thinking in early childhood education: The impact of programming a tangible robot on developing debugging knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 65: 139-158. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijhawan S. Bridging the gap between theory and practice with design-based action research. Studia Paedagogica (Brno). 2017; 22; 4: 9-29. 10.5817/SP2017-4-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oancea A, Fancourt N, Robson J, Thompson I, Childs A, Nuseibeh N. Research capacity-building in teacher education. Oxford Review of Education. 2021; 47; 1: 98-119. 10.1080/03054985.2020.1842184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Alk EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372; 71: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quiñones G, Li L, Ridgway A. Collaborative forum: An affective space for infant-toddler educators' collective reflections. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2018; 43; 3: 25-33. 10.23965/AJEC.43.3.03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ralph R. Media and technology in preschool classrooms: Manifesting prosocial sharing behaviours when using ipads. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2018; 23: 199-221. 10.1007/s10758-017-9342-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shah JK, Ensminger DC, Their K. The Time for Design-Based Research Is "Right" and "Right Now" (Akron, Ohio: 1991). Mid-Western Educational Researcher. 2015; 27; 2: 152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slamet S, Nurkamto J, Joyoatmojo S, Rahman A. Integrated thematically english textbook by using photo media for developing children's vocabulary in early childhood education. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice. 2021; 27; 4: 1168-1179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St Hilaire RS, Gallagher TL. Coaching kindergarten educators through design-based research to enact technology-enhanced reading instruction. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education. 2020; 35; 1: 1-29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor A, Beamish W, Tucker M, Paynter J, Walker S. Designing a model of practice for australian teachers of young school-age children on the autism spectrum. The Journal of International Special Needs Education. 2021; 24; 1: 1-13. 10.9782/JISNE-D-18-00017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tippett CD, Milford TM. Findings from a pre-kindergarten classroom: Making the case for STEM in early childhood education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15; 1: 67-86. 10.1007/s10763-017-9812-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Simon L, Christina MG, Marilyn TM, Etienne VL, Karla S-W, Jo M, Tammy C, Özge T, Straus SE. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 169: 467-473. 10.7326/M18-0850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Aswegen EC, Pendergast D. The impact of interest: An emergent model of interest development in the early years. Early Child Development and Care. 2023; 193; 13–14: 1335-1349. 10.1080/03004430.2023.2245575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstedt, C, Brooks, E, Eriksen Ødegaard, E, & Pramling, N. (Eds.). (2023). Methodology for Research with Early Childhood Education and Care Professionals: Example Studies and Theoretical Elaboration. Springer: Open Access</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang F, Hannafin MJ. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2005; 53; 4: 5-23. 10.1007/BF02504682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S, Gibbs K, Hitches E, Regan C. Investigating teachers' beliefs in inclusive education and their levels of teacher self-efficacy: Are teachers constrained in their capacity to implement inclusive teaching practices?. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 280: 1-12. 10.3390/educsci13030280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright TS, Wenk Gotwals A. Supporting kindergartners' science talk in the context of an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal. 2017; 117; 3: 513-537. 10.1086/690273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu B, Goff W. Learning intentions: A missing link to intentional teaching? Towards an integrated pedagogical framework. Early Years. 2023; 43; 2: 411-425. 10.1080/09575146.2021.1965099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yilmaz-Na E, Sönmez E. Having qualified arguments: Promoting pre-service teachers' critical thinking through deliberate computer-assisted argument mapping practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2023; 47: 1-22. 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101216</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187863994-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> *Whilst meeting the inclusion criteria for this scoping review, these studies only reported on one phase/aspect of a larger project employing a DBR methodology. Hence, they did not report on any tangible output.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Whilst meeting the inclusion criteria for this scoping review, these studies only reported on one phase/aspect of a larger project employing a DBR methodology. Hence, they did not report on any tangible output.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tanya Burr and Sheila Degotardi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref120"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483171
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Design-Based Research in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review of Methodologies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tanya+Burr%22">Tanya Burr</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3453-2158">0000-0002-3453-2158</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheila+Degotardi%22">Sheila Degotardi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2066-2223">0000-0003-2066-2223</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(7):2795-2810.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Participation%22">Teacher Participation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01790-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In recent years the notion of teachers as researchers in their own educational settings has become more prominent and encouraged in research literature. In the context of early childhood education (ECE), the participatory role of teachers is especially suited given its multidisciplinary and practice-based research space. This paper explores this premise and presents a scoping review of ECE studies which have employed a Design-based research (DBR) methodology. The review revealed DBR to be a very recent evolution of participatory methodologies with 25 international studies identified from 2013 to 2023, with differing notions and levels of participation within their phase design and overlapping focus areas and outputs. Implications are discussed in relation to the nature of participants' roles in DBR, and the emergence of DBR as an apt model of research-informed professional learning for early childhood educators.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483171
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483171
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01790-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 2795
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Participation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Design-Based Research in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review of Methodologies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tanya Burr
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheila Degotardi
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1