Abstract
The interoperability, interactivity and mobility of technology create new opportunities and potential to enhance learning, teaching and assessment (e.g. Hall. Quest, 64(2): 105–115, 2012; Sharples et al. J Learn Sci, 24(2), 308–341, 2015; Flanagan. Digital ensemble: exploring the design of technology-enhanced learning to mobilise and augment students’ engagement with English literature, 2015; Thompson Long and Hall, Aust J Educ Technol, 31(5), 572–596, 2015; Hall et al. Int J Mobile Blend Learn, 8(2), 2016). Importantly, the emergence of increasingly sophisticated digital devices and applications can potentially enable pupils to engage in learning that is more constructionist and interactive, where the predominant focus is on their being creative with technology (Robinson. RSA animate—Changing education paradigms, 2010; Resnick. Let’s teach kids to code, 2012).
But how do we effectively design digital learning in schools, taking account of the rapid changes and innovations in educational technology and emerging, best educational practice and research? Moreover, how do we systematise this important activity, in order that it might serve to enhance digital learning in schools, through the alignment and synthesis of academic educational research and teacher professional practice? How do we intentionally effect educational change, informed by the exigencies of our practice contexts yet at the same time inspired by relevant philosophy and theory? One methodology that can help to enable and support this type of educational technology research and development is design-based research (DBR) (Reeves et al. J Comput High Educ, 16(2), 96–115, 2005).
This chapter explores concepts and principles of DBR in education, and how DBR—as a practitioner-oriented, interventionist methodology—can help with the systematisation of the design of digital learning in schools. After setting the context and outlining the contemporary challenges of technology-enhanced learning in educational contexts, the chapter discusses key features and principles of design-based research methodology. It outlines the main contributions and limitations of DBR, and how it might be applied—over time—to scale and optimise the impact of bespoke, principled design for digital learning in schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. Kolodner, J., Barab, S., & Eisenberg, M. (Eds.). Special Issue: Design-based research: Clarifying the terms.
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. Kolodner, J., Barab, S., & Eisenberg, M. (Eds.).
Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, J., & Corbeil, R. (2007). Using a low-threshold application to reduce teacher anxiety toward computers. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007, San Antonio, TX.
Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. (2003). Learning from museum visits: Shaping design sensitivities. Proceedings of HCI International 2003, June 2003, Crete.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. Kolodner, J., Barab, S., & Eisenberg, M. (Eds.). Special Issue: Design-based research: Clarifying the terms.
Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2015). The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109–116. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9214-2.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J. (1925). Volume I: 1925. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey, the later works (Electronicth ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103. Kolodner, J., Barab, S., & Eisenberg, M. (Eds.). Special Issue: Design-based research: Clarifying the terms.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as story telling: An alternative approach to teaching and curriculum in the elementary school. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Flanagan, E. (2015). Digital ensemble: Exploring the design of technology-enhanced learning to mobilise and augment students’ engagement with English literature. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.
Flynn, P., & Hall, T. (2015). Towards a teaching and learning model for transition in the pre-service teaching community. In Linwall, O., Häkkinen, P., Koschmann, T., Tchounikine, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (Eds.). Exploring the material conditions of learning: The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (Vol. 2, pp. 733–734), Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.isls.org/cscl2015/papers/CSCL2015ProceedingsVolume2.pdf.
Gerard, G., & Sleeth, R. G. (1996). Technology-assisted instruction and instructor cyberphobia: Recognizing the ways to effect change. Education, 116(42), 604.
Gilbert, S. W. (2002). The beauty of low-threshold applications. Campus technology, December 2, 2002. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2002/02/the-beauty-of-low-threshold-applications.aspx.
Hall, T. (2011). ICT: Inspiring and creative technology. Education matters. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.educationmatters.ie/em_news/ict-inspiring-and-creative-technology/.
Hall, T. (2012). Employment, embodiment, engagement: Narrative technology in support of physical education, sport and physical activity. Quest, 64(2), 105–115.
Hall, T., & Bannon, L. (2006). Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children’s learning in museums. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 22(4), 231–243.
Hall, T., Ó Grádaigh, S., & Ní Ghuidhir, S. (Eds). (2016). Special Issue: Mobile Learning in Teacher Education. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 8(2).
Hanrahan, D. C. (2009). The Philosopher King, the gentleman of leisure and the challenge of modernity: An education to serve the needs of the state and an education to serve the needs of the individual. Unpublished M. Litt. Thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.
Heppell, S. (2016). Keynote address: Designing learning environments. MiTE 2016: Mobile Learning in Teacher Education Conference, 15th–16th January, 2016, Galway, Ireland.
Hoadley, C. M. (2005). Design-based research methods and theory building: A case study of research with SpeakEasy. Educational Technology, 2005, January–February. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from http://www.tophe.net/papers/Hoadley-EdTech05.pdf.
Hoadley, C. M. (2006). The unique attributes of design-based research. AERA International Convention 2006. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://dbr.coe.uga.edu/expertinterview.htm.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H. U., & Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19(2), 186–194. Special issue on Children and New Technologies.
Luckin, R., Connolly, D., Plowman, L., & Airey, S. (2003). Children’s interactions with interactive toy technology. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19(2), 165–176. Special issue on Children and New Technologies.
Marti, P., Moderini, C., Petroni, L., Rizzo, A., Saudelli, B., Save, L., & Tozzi, G. (2000). Scenario based methodology for user testing in learning environment. i3 Spring Days 2000, workshop on Interactive Learning Environments for Children, 1–3 March, 2000, Athens, Greece.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (2003). You and your action research project. London: Routledge Falmer.
Morrison, K., & van der Werf, G. (2012). Editorial. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(5), 399–401.
Norman, D. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D. (2005). Emotional design. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 96–115.
Resnick, M. (2012). Let’s teach kids to code. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from https://www.ted.com/talks/mitch_resnick_let_s_teach_kids_to_code?language=en.
Robinson, K. (2010). RSA animate—Changing education paradigms. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U.
Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., … O’Malley, C. (2015). Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 308–341.
Stahl, G. (2015). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In The learning sciences: Mapping the terrain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ls.pdf.
Stanton, D., & Neale, H. (2003). The effects of multiple mice on children’s talk and interaction. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19(2), 229–238. Special issue on Children and New Technologies.
Stevens, R. (2002). Keeping it complex in an era of big education. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 269–273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stevens, R., Cherry, G., & Fournier, J. (2002). VideoTraces: Rich media annotations for learning and teaching. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Foundations for a CSCL community - Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference 2002 (pp. 525–526). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Thompson Long, B., & Hall, T. (2015). R-NEST: Design-based research for technology-enhanced reflective practice in initial teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5), 572–596.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hall, T., Long, B.T., Flanagan, E., Flynn, P., Lenaghan, J. (2017). Design-Based Research as Intelligent Experimentation: Towards Systematising the Conceptualisation, Development and Evaluation of Digital Learning in Schools. In: Marcus-Quinn, A., Hourigan, T. (eds) Handbook on Digital Learning for K-12 Schools. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33808-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33808-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33806-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33808-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)