Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 5-23

  Wang, Feng ^a,b   Hannafin, Michael J ^a,b  

^a Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144475788     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02504682     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. 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.
2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
3. 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.
4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based 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.
9. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 18-20.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
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.
15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
22. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. 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.
25. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
26. Sessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
27. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
28. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D.M., & 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.
29. 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.
30. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Hannafin, M. J., Hannaftn, 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Hewitt, J. (1996). Progress toward a knowledge-building community. Unpublished dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
37. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 75-96.
38. Hutchinson, S. A. (1990). Education and grounded theory. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. London: Falmer.
39. 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.
40. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
41. 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.
42. Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will technology really change education: From blackboard to Web. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.
44. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
45. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
50. Peterson, P. (1998). Why do educational research? Rethinking our roles and identities, our texts and contexts. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 4-10.
51. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
52. Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, January-February, 42-47.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 17-27.
58. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1998). Iterative design of a technology-supported biological inquiry curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
59. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
60. 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.
61. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Shapiro, W. L., & Roskos, K. (1995). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Change, 27(6), 67-69.
66. 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.
67. Stringer, E. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
68. 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.
69. Walker, D. F. (1992). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 98-118). New York: Macmillan.
70. Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology. Educational Technology, January-February, 34-41.