1. Leveraging Design-Based Research to Support IT Professional Development in Higher Education
Jeffrey Burgazzoli Jr.

2. introduction Positionality
I deliver professional development to higher education IT administrators around the world. This research specifically looks to examine and potentially improve these same development initiatives. I am a researcher-participant, whereas I’m engaged with participants in the same setting that is of interest.
Purpose
Simply put, I am looking for ways to improve the quality of professional development in this space.

3. Background
Examining learning and instructional design in real-world settings can be challenging. Yet, learning and professional development is critical in the workplace. The private sector and other arenas such as public education (K-12) have invested resources into the evaluation of professional development  (Butler, 2012; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Gomes, 2011; Lam, Kruger & Tennant, 2014; Zueger, Katz & Popovich, 2014). The emergence of education administration as a field has also prompted attention to be paid towards professional development in higher education (Altbach, 2014; Dressel & Mayhew, 1974).  Challengesin professional development have been widely documented. And, while this setting may share some of these same challenges, the nature of its content and participants led me to believe that further examination is warranted.

4. Problem statement
Considering the broader challenges of professional development, an inquiry was conducted to examine a professional development session. The inquiry helped reaffirm the following:
There is no clearly defined audience (functional and technical stakeholders with misc. titles).
It's often times unclear who will perform such tasks until they are needed (but participants did hone in on areas that impacted themselves).
Participants have varied degrees of prior knowledge.
Participants have a need for future recollection of important content during very particular “scenarios”.
But what are these? Who are these learners, and how can we come to know them better? What prior knowledge do they bring to the table? What scenarios are they likely to encounter, and what content (knowledge) will they need in the future? Moreover, all of the above routinely changes, so what can we do?

5. Research Questions Beginning
How can we best examine professional development in higher education information technology settings
Inquiry
What is of specific interest that will help improve professional development in higher education information technology settings
Present
RQ1: Who are (title, role, prior knowledge) the participants of these PD sessions?
RQ2: What scenarios are participants likely to encounter where content from PD will be needed?
Future

6. goals
Objectives
Adequately respond to RQ1 and RQ2 for a professional development case study
Subsequently design a learning system that:
a) Assists with identifying participants, their roles, prior knowledge, title, etc.
b) Assists participants when they encounter particular scenarios and eventually need to apply PD content
Outcome
Initial State: There is no clearly defined audience.
Goal:  Collect who participants are (role, title).
Initial State: It’s often times unclear who will perform tasks until they are needed.
Goal:  Establish who is assigned to specific tasks.
Initial State: Participants have varied degrees of prior knowledge.
Goal:  Better understand who learners are, and what prior knowledge they bring.
Initial State: Participants often need to recall PD content for very particular “scenarios”.
Goal: Align these scenarios with existing knowledge repository and content that is needed.

7. Theoretical perspective
Positivism
Close bond and loyalty to science (Crotty, 1998, p. 27)
Interpretivism
Symbolic Interactionism
Crotty introduces the theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism, one which has “informed many methodologies for social research (Crotty, 1998, p. 75).” He asserts that “role taking is a symbolic interaction,” one that is composed of various mediums such as “languages”, tools, etc. (Crotty, 1998, p. 75). This sort of thinking has informed different types of research that includes the “viewing of social life” through the lens of “theatre, games, negotiated-order” and other perspectives (Crotty, 1998, p ).

8. methodology
Crotty reminds us that "many methods and methodologies exist", and that "scaffolding" helps provide stability to make informed decisions in the process of conducting research.
Design-Based Research
A merger of positivist and interpretivist paradigms that combines empirical research with theory and design.
Originally depicted by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992).
"Series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts, and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings (Barab & Squire, 2004)."
More characteristics p. 4

9. methods
Interaction Analysis / Participant Observation to deconstruct PD in these settings, review recordings, codify transcripts, and dialectically craft scenarios.
Embed scenarios in PD content to facilitate think-aloud protocols, further analysis.
Survey to identify participant profile – level of education, prior knowledge, role, etc.
Design..?
Design 
Scenario-based design is an extension of DBR, and suggests that we design in accordance with scenarios the learner will encounter.
Scenarios are used to keep people designing, reflecting, and re-designing (Shambaugh, 2009).”
Scenarios are typically used as written case studies, simulations, or a set of options developed by others to serve as teaching or decision-making tools (Schwartz, 1996).
Carroll (2000) characterizes scenarios as “condensed descriptions” of proposed solutions to instructional needs.
Developing with rapid prototyping, ADDIE+M, or…?
Construct the learning system that combats aforementioned challenges and assists with the subsequent examination of PD.
Other considerations: usability? validity?