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.
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.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.
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.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
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.
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.
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.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSeassa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
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.
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.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997).The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Cuban, L. (1986).Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Designbased research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
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.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.
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.
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.
Fullan, M. (2001).The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hewitt, J. (1996).Progress toward a knowledge-building community. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes.Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 75–96.
Hutchinson, S. A. (1990). Education and grounded theory. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.),Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. London: Falmer.
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.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 3–4.
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.
Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999).Will technology really change education: From blackboard to Web. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 61–78.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration.Science Education, 87 (4), 517–538.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004).Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000).Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, P. (1998). Why do educational research? Rethinking our roles and identities, our texts and contexts.Educational Researcher, 27 (3), 4–10.
Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003).Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap.Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 17–27.
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.
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.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265–283.
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.
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.
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.
Shapiro, W. L. & Roskos, K. (1995). Technology-enhanced learning environments.Change, 27 (6), 67–69.
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.
Stringer, E. (1999).Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
Walker, D. F. (1992). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In P. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 98–118). New York: Macmillan.
Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology.Educational Technology, January–February, 34–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
More informationa about their work can be found at: http://lpsl.coe.uga.edu.
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682