Advertisement

Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments

  • Feng Wang
  • Michael J. Hannafin
Research

Abstract

During the past decade, design-based research has demonstrated its potential as a methodology suitable to both research and design of technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs). In this paper, we define and identify characteristics of design-based research, describe the importance of design-based research for the development of TELEs, propose principles for implementing design-based research with TELEs, and discuss future challenges of using this methodology.

Keywords

Learning Environment Design Principle Instructional Design Educational Researcher Multiple Research Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments.Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.Google Scholar
  2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. E. (2001). Guest Editors' introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (2000). Mathematics curriculum development as a scientific endeavor. In R. A. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.),Research on design in mathematics and science education (pp. 737–760). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, E., & Bell, P. (2002).What will we do with design principles? Design principles and principled design practice. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE.International Journal of Science Education, Special Issue (22), 797–817.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Designbased research in education. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.),Internet environments for science education (pp. 73–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.Google Scholar
  10. Brophy, S. P. (1998).Sequencing problem solving and hands on activities: Does it matter? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.),Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise.Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.Google Scholar
  14. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.),Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 455–478). Cambridge, MA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSeassa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992b). The Jasper Series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data.Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997).The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.),Issues in education research (pp. 289–298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cuban, L. (1986).Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Designbased research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  26. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Creating a framework for research on sys temic technology innovations.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fullan, M. (2001).The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Gustafson, K. L. (2002). The future of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 333–343). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Glazer, E. M. (in press). Designing grounded learning environments: The value of multiple perspectives in design practice. In G. Anglin (Ed.),Critical issues in instructional technology: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  35. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Student-centered learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Hewitt, J. (1996).Progress toward a knowledge-building community. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes.Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutchinson, S. A. (1990). Education and grounded theory. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.),Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  39. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 3–4.Google Scholar
  41. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999).Will technology really change education: From blackboard to Web. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  43. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration.Science Education, 87 (4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004).Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000).Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. McCandliss, B. D., Kalchman, M., & Bryant, P. (2003). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange.Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 14–16.Google Scholar
  48. Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. M. (2003). Disciplined inquiry and the study of emerging technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 335–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Peterson, P. (1998). Why do educational research? Rethinking our roles and identities, our texts and contexts.Educational Researcher, 27 (3), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003).Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections.Educational Technology, January–February, 42–47.Google Scholar
  53. Reigeluth, C.M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 633–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.),Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Nelson, W. A. (2003). Development research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Richey, R. C., & Nelson, W. A. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1213–1245). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap.Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1998).Interative design of a technology-supported biological inquiry curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry.Science Education, 88 (3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its Constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database.Interactive Learning Environments, 2 (1), 45–71.Google Scholar
  63. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goal-based scenarios.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (4), 305–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibility adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Shapiro, W. L. & Roskos, K. (1995). Technology-enhanced learning environments.Change, 27 (6), 67–69.Google Scholar
  66. Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies.Educational Researcher 32 (1), 25–28.Google Scholar
  67. Stringer, E. (1999).Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  68. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson & T. Plomp (Eds.),Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Walker, D. F. (1992). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In P. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 98–118). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  70. Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology.Educational Technology, January–February, 34–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feng Wang
    • 1
  • Michael J. Hannafin
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning & Performance Support Laboratory at The University of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations