Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education

  • Thomas C. Reeves
  • Jan Herrington
  • Ron Oliver


DESIGN RESEARCH has grown in importance since it was first conceptualized in the early 90s, but it has not been adopted for research in instructional technology in higher education to any great extent. Many researchers continue to conduct studies that principally seek to determine the effectiveness of the delivery medium, rather than the instructional strategies and tasks. This article explores the various incentives for conducting research on the impact of computing and other technologies in higher education, examines the social relevance of that research, and recommends design research as a particularly appropriate approach to socially responsible inquiry. A description of the characteristics of design research is given, together with an argument for the more widespread adoption of this approach to enhance the quality and usefulness of research in computers and other technologies in education.


design research design experiments development research research methods instructional technology research socially responsible research 


  1. Allen K.L., Galvis, D.L., & Katz R.V. (2004)Evaluation of CDs and chewing gum in teaching dental anatomy. Paper presented at the International Association for Dental Research 82nd General Session and Exhibition. Retrieved June 17, 2004, from Scholar
  2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, E.L. (1990).Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000).How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J.B. (1973). Basic and applied research in education: Definitions, distinctions, and implications. In H. S. Broudy, R. H. Ennis, & L. I. Krimerman (Eds.),Philosophy of educational research (pp. 108–121). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Casti, J.L. (1989).Paradigms lost: Images of man in the mirror of science. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E. (Ed.). (2001).Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schäuble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990a). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  11. Corey, S. (1953).Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J.W. (2003).Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 30, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Desforges, C. (2001, August).Familiar challenges and new approaches: Necessary advances in theory and methods in research on teaching and learning. The Desmond Nuttall/Carfax Memorial Lecture, British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, Cardiff. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from acadpub/Desforges2000a.pdfGoogle Scholar
  16. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learning comprehension, control and style.Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.Google Scholar
  19. Exploratorium. (1998).A description of inquiry. Retrieved August 19, 2004, from Scholar
  20. Fabos, B., & Young, M.D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality.Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217–259.Google Scholar
  21. Farley, F.H. (1982). The future of educational research.Educational Researcher, 11(8), 11–19.Google Scholar
  22. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R.J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorard, S., Roberts, K., & Taylor, C. (2004). What kind of creature is a design experiment?British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelly, A.E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lagemann, E.C. (2000).An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGrath, B. (2004, February 9). Chew on.New Yorker [Electronic version. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from ?040209ta_talk_mcgrathGoogle Scholar
  29. Moxley, J.M. (1992).Publish, don’t perish: The scholar’s guide to academic writing and publishing. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (1999).Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers.Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.Google Scholar
  32. Noble, D.F. (2001).Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  33. Olson, D.R. (2004). The triumph of home over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin.Educational Researcher, 33(1), 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reason P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001).Handbook of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Reeves, T.C. (2003). Storm clouds on the digital education horizon.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reeves, T.C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39–46.Google Scholar
  37. Richey, R.C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G.R., & Lowther, D.L. (2005). Using experimental methods in higher education research,Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, T.L. (1999).The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center.Google Scholar
  40. Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  41. Shulman, L. (2001). Inventing the future. In P. Hutchings (Ed).Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Silverman, F. (1999).Publishing for tenure and beyond. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. E. (2002) Evidence-based educational policies: Transforming educational practice and research.Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thyer, B. (1994).Successful publishing in scholarly journals — Survival skills for scholars. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Zemsky, R., & Massy, W.F. (2004).Thwarted innovation: What happened to eleaming and why. Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http:// Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C. Reeves
    • 1
  • Jan Herrington
    • 2
  • Ron Oliver
    • 3
  1. 1.The University of GeorgiaUSA
  2. 2.University of WollongongUSA
  3. 3.Edith Cowan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations