Design-based research (DBR) systematically investigates and develops innovative solutions to complex educational problems. We argue that DBR intervention studies intrinsically employ mixed methods to collect, analyze, and interpret data. Drawing on a 3-year DBR project (2015–2018) implementing a social studies/history curriculum in self-contained special education classrooms, we conceptualize Transformative Mixed Methods Design-Based Research (Transformative MM-DBR). The central contribution of this methodological article is to articulate Transformative MM-DBR as an equity-oriented mixed methods typology that systematizes multi-phase integration of qualitative and quantitative strands. We outline the rationale for mixed methods in special education, illustrate the design of a disciplinary literacy intervention for students with learning differences, and offer core tenets for researchers adopting this paradigm.
AndersonT.ShattuckJ. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
2.
BarnesD. (2018). Social justice and inclusive design in education: Principles and practice. Educational Studies, 54(3), 234–251.
BulgrenJ. A.GranerP. S.DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12003
5.
ClaravallE. B. (2017). Thinking like a historian: Developing disciplinary literacy in history among middle school struggling readers. Literacy Today, 35(1), 32–33.
6.
ClaravallE. B.IreyR. (2020). Historical thinking in the middle school classroom: Integration of authentic curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In StackoS.CaskeyM.MertensS. (Eds.), Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: Intersecting new needs and new approaches (pp. 31–53). Information Age Publishing.
7.
ClaravallE. B.IreyR. (2022). Fostering historical thinking: The use of document-based instruction for students with learning differences. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 46(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2021.08.001
8.
ClaravallE. B.IsidroE.IreyR. (2024). Historical reasoning among students with learning differences: Exploring the use of multiple sources in writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 40(1), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023
9.
ClaravallE. B.ShenM. (2024 April). Designing expository writing intervention for students with learning differences using multiple historical sources. Philadelphia: American Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (2009). Teacher research as stance. In NoffkeS.SomekhB. (Eds.), The sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 39–49). Sage.
12.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.LoveH.ScottI. M.KimJ.AndrewsL. (2021). Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924030
13.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
14.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
15.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage Publications.
16.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
17.
FishmanB.MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP.KrajcikJ.SolowayE. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systematic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_3
18.
GillespieA.GrahamS. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238
19.
GirouxH. A. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values. In Challenging the assaults on teachers, students, & public education. Peter Lang.
20.
GoldmanS. R.BrittM. A.BrownW.CribbG.GeorgeM. A.GreenleafC.LeeC.ShanahanC.ProjectREADI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychology, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
21.
GomezK.GomezL. M.RodelaK. C.HortonE. S.CunninghamJ.AmbrocioR. (2015). Embedding language support in developmental mathematics lessons: Exploring the value of design as professional development for community college mathematics instructors. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602127
22.
GrahamS.CaoY.KimY. S. G.LeeJ.TateT.CollinsP.ChoM.MoonY.ChungH. Q.OlsonC. B. (2025). Effective writing instruction for students in grades 6 to 12: A best evidence meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 38(4), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10539-2
23.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
24.
HuijgenT.HolthuisP.van BoxtelC.van de GriftW. (2018). Promoting historical contextualisation in classrooms: An observational study. Educational Studies, 45(4), 456–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1509785
25.
IvankovaN.WingoN. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772673
26.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G. (2011). Addressing the “research gap” in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559
27.
KutscherE.PareyB. (2022). A scoping review of mixed methods rigor in inclusive education: Application of the rigorous mixed methods framework. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(14), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2100491
28.
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2022). Quality indicators for mixed methods research. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031
29.
LoveH. R.CookB. G.CookL. (2022). Mixed–methods approaches in special education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(4), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12300
30.
MaxwellJ. A. (2015). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132
31.
MaxwellJ. A. (2018). The “silo problem” in mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a20
32.
McKenneyS.ReevesT. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
MertensD. M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433797
35.
National Reading Panel (NRP), National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
36.
NewmanI.HouchinsD. E. (2018). Conceptualizing mixed methods questions in special education research. Research in the Schools, 25(2), 23–33.
37.
Ong-DeanC.HofstetterC. H.StrickB. R. (2011). Challenges and dilemmas in implementing random assignment in educational research. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010376532
38.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CorriganJ. A. (2018). What is happening now? An overview of mixed methods applications in special education. Research in the Schools, 25(2), 1–22.
39.
PatelL. (2016). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. Routledge.
40.
PhilippakosZ. A.HowellE.PellegrinoA. (2021). Design-based research in education: Theory and applications. The Guilford Press.
41.
PothC. A. (2012). Exploring the role of the mixed methods practitioner within educational research teams: A cross-case comparison of the research planning process. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 314–331. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.314
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
44.
Selcen GuzeyS.HarwellM.MorenoM.PeraltaY.MooreT. J. (2017). The impact of design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in engineering, science, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9673-x
45.
ShulmanL. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. Jossey-Bass.
46.
WineburgS. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003495
47.
WineburgS. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press.
