You are here:

A Case Study of Design-Based Research for Creating a Vision Prototype of a Technology-Based Innovative Learning Environment
Article

, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, United States ; , Georgia State University, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Design-based research is a burgeoning research paradigm holding the promise of introducing more socially responsible studies to transform education. However, there is a lack of methodological standards and established research processes to inform this type of study. Although there are general principles and procedures on design-based research, little guidance is available to researchers with regard to how to conduct design-based research at the individual iteration level when creating technology-based innovative learning environments. In this article, we describe a case study of design-based research in a single iteration, illustrate a research and development process evolved from this study, and present several guidelines on how to conduct design-based research.

Citation

Ma, Y. & Harmon, S.W. (2009). A Case Study of Design-Based Research for Creating a Vision Prototype of a Technology-Based Innovative Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 75-93. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 31, 2024 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  2. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  4. Carnevale, D. (2000, Feburary 21). Indiana University scholar says distance education requires new approach to teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, P. A44.
  5. Chandler, T. N. (1994). The science education advisor: Applying a user centered design approach to the development of an interactive case-based advising system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(3), 283-318.
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46.
  7. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  9. Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2002). Instructional technology in higher education. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 256-268). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  10. 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.
  11. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  12. Erickson, T. (1995). Notes on design practice: Stories and prototypes as catalysts for communication. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development (pp. 37-58). New York: Wiley.
  13. Fletcher, J. J., & Patrick, S. K. (1998). Not just workshops any more: The role of faculty development in reframing academic priorities. International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 39-47.
  14. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The condition of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Hagner, P. R. (2000). Faculty engagement and support in the new learning environment. Educause Review, 35(5), 37-37.
  15. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Frustrations with a Web-based distance education course: A taboo topic in the discourse. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp99_01.html
  16. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
  17. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N., & Guzdial, M. (2003). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 829-861). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Krueger, K., Boboc, M., & Cornish, Y. (2003). InTime: Online video resources for teacher educators featuring technology integration in preK-12 classrooms. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 28, 183-197.
  19. Laga, E., & Elen, J. (2001). Characteristics of support initiatives to stimulate professional evelopment on ICT. In B. Gillan & K. McFerrin (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 692-697). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  20. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing & Interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
  21. Leone, P., Gillihan, D., & Rauch, T. (2000). Web-based prototyping for user sessions: Mediumfidelity prototyping. Paper presented at the Society for Technical Communications 44th Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada. Ludolph, F.
  22. Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The usability engineering lifecycle: A practitioner's handbook for user interface design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  23. Meacham, J. (2002). Our doctoral programs are failing our undergraduate students. Liberal Education, 88(3), 22-27.
  24. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and the case method in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722-744). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Murray, J. P.
  25. NEA Higher Education Research Center. (2002). The promise and the reality of distance education. NEA Higher Education Research Center Update, 8(3).
  26. O'Donnell, A. M. (2004). A commentary on design research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 255-260.
  27. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  28. Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69-77.
  29. Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Anaheim, CA.
  30. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  31. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53–65. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Richey, R. C. (1998). The pursuit of useable knowledge in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 7-22.
  33. Russell, T. L. (2003). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved July 5, 2004, from http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
  34. Schmertzing, R., & Schmertzing, L. (2001). Student expectations of distance education: Instructor roles in an interactive television classroom. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2001(1), 739-745.
  35. 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.
  36. Thomas, J. R. (1997). Vision and leadership for selecting and mentoring new faculty in higher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(5), 41-46.
  37. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
  38. Wang, F., Moore, J. L., Wedman, J., & Shyu, C. (2003). Developing a case-based reasoning knowledge repository to support a learning community - An example from the technology integration community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 45-62. Weinschenk, S., Jamar, P., & Yeo, S. C. (1997). GUI design essentials. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

  • Effective online learning in New Zealand secondary schools

    Keryn Pratt & Sandra Williamson-Leadley, University of Otago, New Zealand

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (Mar 05, 2017) pp. 692–695

  • Epistemological Foundations of Educational Design Research

    Rebecca J. Hogue, University of Ottawa, Canada

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (Oct 21, 2013) pp. 1915–1922

  • The Concurrent E-Learning Design Method

    Knut Arne Strand, Faculty of Informatics and e-learning - Sør-Trøndelag University College, Norway; Arvid Staupe, Department of Computer and Information Science - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

    Global Learn 2010 (May 17, 2010) pp. 4067–4076

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections