Skip to main content
Log in

Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSeassa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997).The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1986).Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Designbased research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001).The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Hewitt, J. (1996).Progress toward a knowledge-building community. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes.Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999).Will technology really change education: From blackboard to Web. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration.Science Education, 87 (4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004).Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000).Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. (1998). Why do educational research? Rethinking our roles and identities, our texts and contexts.Educational Researcher, 27 (3), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003).Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections.Educational Technology, January–February, 42–47.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap.Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry.Science Education, 88 (3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shapiro, W. L. & Roskos, K. (1995). Technology-enhanced learning environments.Change, 27 (6), 67–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stringer, E. (1999).Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology.Educational Technology, January–February, 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

More informationa about their work can be found at: http://lpsl.coe.uga.edu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, F., Hannafin, M.J. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. ETR&D 53, 5–23 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682

Keywords

Navigation