Context matters: The value of analyzing human factors within educational contexts as a way of informing technology-related decisions within design research



While design research can be useful for designing effective technology integrations within complex social settings, it currently fails to provide concrete methodological guidelines for gathering and organizing information about the research context, or for determining how such analyses ought to guide the iterative design and innovation process. A case is described, in which the author explores one way that researchers might go about systematizing the analysis of contextual influences within a design research study. It borrows a method from engineering called “Cognitive Work Analysis” (CWA) (Vicente 1999), to methodically study the impact of political, organizational, team, psychological, and physical factors within an initial teacher education setting. The study illustrates how a modified CWA was helpful in making contextual information more explicit and organized. Important information in the form of human factors “constraints” were identified through the CWA, providing valuable details about context that might otherwise be overlooked during design research cycles or within the reporting process.


Design research Technology integration CSCL Human factors 


  1. Baek, J. Y., Hjalmarson, M. A., & Banna-Ritland, B. (2008). Design research on a diet: A methodological framework called design assessment. New York: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers’ Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321–327.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289–298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. Information Research, 10(1), paper 210. Retrieved from
  10. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
  14. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. MacKinnon, K. (2006). Identification of potential constraints associated with accessing and participating in Knowledge Forum® using handheld computers: A pre-service education context. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Institute for Knowledge, Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. MacKinnon K (2008) A human-tech perspective on technology infusion in the context of teacher education. In C. Brett (Chair), Principled use of technology in higher education: Are there global commonalities? Paper symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. MacKinnon, K. & Woodruff, E. (2008a). Examining the potential of constraint-based technological design in supporting idea development in the context of a two-year teacher education program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute for Knowledge, Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. MacKinnon, K. & Woodruff, E. (2008b). Examining the use of cognitive work analysis to inform the educational design of technology in the context of a two-year, research-based pre-service program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers’ Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  21. MacKinnon, K. & Woodruff, E. (2008c). Understanding the use and misuse of technology in pre-service education through cognitive work analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education (pp. 217–228), Hawaii: HICE 2008.Google Scholar
  22. Naikar, N., Hopcroft, R., & Moylan, A. (2005). Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology [Report No. DSTO-TR-1665]. Edinburgh: DSTO Systems Sciences Laboratory.Google Scholar
  23. Nirula, L. (2008). Designing constraint informed handheld-supported literacy innovations for struggling readers. Toronto: Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Nirula, L., & Woodruff, E. (2008). Innovations using handheld computers to scaffold reciprocal teaching among struggling readers. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education (pp. 6321–6333), Hawaii: HICE 2008.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  27. Reichardt, C. S. & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (SAGE Research Progress Series, Vol. 1, pp. 7–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers’ confidence in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rowley, J., Dysard, G., & Arnold, J. (2005). Developing a new technology infusion program for preparing tomorrow’s teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  30. Vicente, K. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Vicente, K. (2003). The human factor: Revolutionizing the way people live with technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Woodruff, E. & Nirula, L. (2005). Design research in the elementary school classroom. In: C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice and K. Schenk (Eds.) Encyclopedia of online learning and technology (Vol. II, pp. 510–517). Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE, UT)TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations