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