Abstract
Design research has been positioned as an important methodological contribution of the learning sciences. Despite the publication of a handbook on the subject, the practice of design research in education remains an eclectic collection of specific approaches implemented by different researchers and research groups. In this paper, I examine the learning sciences as a design science to identify its fundamental goals, methods, affiliations, and assumptions. I argue that inherent tensions arise when attempting to practice design research as an analytic science. Drawing inspiration and insight from Chinese philosophy and the practice of Chinese medicine, I propose that the learning sciences may better attain its claims to science through greater reliance on inductive synthesis rather than linear causal analysis. In so doing, I reposition the endeavor of science making within the metaphysics of process philosophy instead of classical Western philosophy. I suggest that theory building will be strengthened empirically and pragmatically by more careful observation and systematic generalization of the stability patterns of design related phenomena. It also needs to be more situated in its orientation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Bacon, F. (1620). The works of Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (trans: Spidding, J.). vol. VIII Cambridge: Riverside Press.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 23–35.
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.
Campbell, J. (2008). Acupuncture channels and points: An interactive study and reference manual. Chatswood, Australia: Churchill Livingstone.
Chee, Y. S. (2010). Studying learners and assessing learning: A process-relational perspective on the learning sciences. Educational Technology, 50(5), 5–9.
Cheng, C. Y. (2007). On human consciousness in classical Chinese philosophy: Developing onto-hermeneutics of the human person. In K. L. Lai (Ed.), New interdisciplinary perspectives in Chinese philosophy (pp. 9–32). Malden: Blackwell.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.
Cua, A. S. (2007). Virtues of junzi. In K. L. Lai (Ed.), New interdisciplinary perspectives on Chinese philosophy (pp. 125–142). Malden: Blackwell.
Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Dewey, J. (1925/1988). Experience and nature (vol. 1, John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1929/2008). The quest for certainty (vol. 4, Johen Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dilthey, W. (1991). Introduction to the human sciences (vol. 1, Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). On ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: The Free Press.
Elkjaer, B. (2009). Pragmatism: A learning theory for the future. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 74–89). London: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5–14.
Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional “trans-action”: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275–296.
Herfel, W., Rodrigues, D., & Gao, Y. (2007). Chinese medicine and the dynamic conceptions of health and disease. In K. L. Lai (Ed.), New interdisciplinary perspectives in Chinese philosophy (pp. 57–79). Malden: Blackwell.
James, W. (2000). Pragmatism and other writings. London: Penguin.
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Dordrecht: Springer.
Klabbers, J. (2009). The saga of ISAGA. Simulation and Gaming, 40(1), 30–47.
Lai, K. L. (2007a). Introduction: New interdisciplinary perspectives in Chinese philosophy. In K. L. Lai (Ed.), New interdisciplinary perspectives in Chinese philosophy (pp. 3–8). Malden: Blackwell.
Lai, K. L. (2007b). Understanding change: The interdependent self in its environment. In K. L. Lai (Ed.), New interdisciplinary perspectives in Chinese philosophy (pp. 81–99). Malden: Blackwell.
Lai, K. L. (2008). An introduction to Chinese philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laurel, B. (Ed.). (2003). Design research: Methods and perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.
Margolis, V., & Buchanan, R. (Eds.). (1995). The idea of design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding (Revised ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
Mesle, C. R. (2008). Process-relational philosophy: An introduction to Alfred North Whitehead. West Conshohocken: Temple Foundation Press.
Newman, D. (1992). Formative experiments on the co-evolution of technology and the educational environment. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 61–70). Berlin: Springer.
Olson, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 24–26.
Peirce, C. S. (1878/1992). How to make our ideas clear. In Houser, N. & Kloesel C. (Eds.), The essential Peirce, vol. 1, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 124–141.
Porkert, M. (1983). The essentials of Chinese diagnostics. Zurich: Acta Medicinae Sinensis.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rescher, N. (2000). Process philosophy: A survey of basic issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rescher, N. (2008). Process philosophy. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Retrieved Nov 4, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/.
Reynolds, P. D. (2007). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Pearson Education.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Unschuld, P. U. (2009). What is medicine? Western and eastern approaches to healing. Berkely: University of California Press.
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chee, Y.S. Interrogating the Learning Sciences as a Design Science: Leveraging Insights from Chinese Philosophy and Chinese Medicine. Stud Philos Educ 33, 89–103 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-013-9367-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-013-9367-2