Purpose: Many faculty transition from clinic to teaching with no formal training in educational design or pedagogy.1 Design-based research provides an opportunity to use an iterative educational design process.2 The iterative and reflective nature of engaging in design-based research also provides opportunities for new faculty to develop their knowledge and skills for teaching.2,3 The recent calls for reform in physical therapy education emphasize the need for faculty development grounded in the learning sciences alongside a focus on practice-based education.4 The purpose of this poster is to describe how the process of design-based research can be used to develop and enhance a neurology course while supporting a new faculty member in developing teaching and educational design skills.Methods/Description: Design-based research uses an iterative process of educational design, assessment, redesign, and further testing.5 The authors identified two educational problems: 1) How to teach clinical reasoning within a classroom course and 2) How to foster faculty development of teaching. The initial educational design was grounded in the cognitive apprenticeship model of learning.6,7 Key components of the cognitive apprenticeship model include sequencing of content (moving from big picture to details) and making thinking visible (modeling, coaching, and scaffolding).6-8 Specifically the course used patient cases (written and video) with guidelines to support students in their problem solving. Following each iteration of the course, the following artifacts were collected: student projects, student test scores, student survey data. Over the 3 iterations, artifacts were collected from a total of 106 students. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative coding.Results/Outcomes: Student perceptions of the class effectiveness increased from midterm to end of course in the first iteration, remained at the same level through the second iteration, and rose again during the third iteration. The students demonstrated limited connections between selection of clinical tests and patient specific needs in their projects during the first iteration. The instructor revised the classroom activities and project rubric to better highlight the need for connections during the second iteration, resulting in greater attention to specific connections in clinical decision-making.Conclusions/Relevance to the conference theme: Our Leadership Landscape: Perspectives from the Ground Level to 30,000 Feet: An iterative design and assessment process can lead to the development of more effective teaching and assessment for clinical reasoning. Patient simulations provide representations of practice influencing what PT students learn to see in physical therapy practice.9 Assessment provides feedback to the instructor and drives student learning.10 The review of the project rubrics demonstrated the importance of designing assessments and rubrics that align with course objectives.11 The process of design-based research provides an innovative avenue for new faculty development while enhancing teaching and assessment for clinical reasoning.References: 1. Bond MA, Lockee BB. Evaluating the effectiveness of faculty inquiry groups as communities of practice for faculty professional development. Journal of Formative Design in Learning. 2018;2:ePub ahead of print. 2. Penuel WR, Fishman B, Cheng BH, Sabelli N. Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educ Researcher. 2011;40(7):331-337. 3. Horn IS, Little JW. Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal. 2010;47(1):181-217. 4. Jensen GM, Hack LM, Nordstrom T, Gwyer J, Mostrom E. National Study of Excellence and Innovation in Physical Therapist Education: Part 2-A Call to Reform. Phys Ther. 2017;97(9):875-888. 5. Easterday MW, Lewis DR, Gerber EM. Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. Paper presented at: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences; 2014; Boulder, CO. 6. Collins A. Cognitive apprenticeship. In: Sawyer RK, ed. The Cambridge handbook of learning science. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006:47-60. 7. Stalmeijer RE. When I say ... cognitive apprenticeship. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):355-356. 8. Delany C, Golding C. Teaching clinical reasoning by making thinking visible: an action research project with allied health clinical educators. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:20. 9. Grossman PL, Compton C, Igra D, Ronfeldt M, Shahan E, Williamson PW. Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teach Coll Rec. 2009;111(9):2055-2100. 10. Ferris H, O'Flynn D. Assessment in medical education; What are we trying to achieve? International Journal of Higher Education. 2015;4(2):139-144. 11. Thomas A, Saroyan A, Dauphinee WD. Evidence-based practice: a review of theoretical assumptions and effectiveness of teaching and assessment interventions in health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011;16(2):253-276. 12. May S, Withers S, Reeve S, Greasley A. Limited clinical reasoning skills used by novice physiotherapists when involved in the assessment and management of patients with shoulder problems: a qualitative study. J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18(2):84-88.