Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal
Design-based research is a rather interesting framework for TEL research project,which although not new (the seminal papers go back to the early 90s) does not seem to have deserved all the attention it should in the European research area. Taking as an indicator the references of the EduTech wiki from TECFA (*), one may conjecture that it reached us in the early 2000, but since then I have not the feeling that it has spread very much within our research community. I don't see clear reasons for that. In my opinion we must spend some efforts, especially in a network like Stellar to consider this approach. From the presentation of Wang and Hannafin (ETR&D 53/4 2005), design-based research seems to be especially adapted to multidisciplinary research as well as to research which must be carried out in close connection to the field it explores. It may be the case that some researchers think that they are working in this paradigm while actually they do not, since there are at least two occasions of misunderstanding. The first source of misunderstanding is the emphasis of design-based research on iteration, an emphasis which is reminiscent of the life cycle of technology design. But here iteration is not only aiming at the improvement of the design, but also at critically revisiting theories to develop or refine them. What is valued is the practical use of theories (p.13), and the fact that theoretical and practical issues are tightly related. The second source of misunderstanding is that because of its close relationship to the field, design-based research may be confounded with action-research. This is missing the priority of design-based research, while acknowledging its situatedness, to transcend the particularities of the context in which the experiment is been carried out. This difficulty is very well identified in this paper, and addresses directly the main concern of our field which is of understanding what results we produce which could be of a general value beyond the specific project in which it has been obtained: "Generalizability […] must be verified according to the theory goals of the design and discipline requirements of the research. Researchers need to optimize a local design without decreasing its generalizability […]" (p.19). So design-based research is not a sophisticated conceptualisation of the life cycle of a technology, it is of a different nature and objective than action-research. To some extend it can be seen as a proposal for a new discipline with original problems of methods and rigour.
Design-based research is a rather interesting framework for TEL research project,which although not new (the seminal papers go back to the early 90s) does not seem to have deserved all the attention it should in the European research area. Taking as an indicator the references of the EduTech wiki from TECFA (*), one may conjecture that it reached us in the early 2000, but since then I have not the feeling that it has spread very much within our research community. I don't see clear reasons for that. In my opinion we must spend some efforts, especially in a network like Stellar to consider this approach. From the presentation of Wang and Hannafin (ETR&D 53/4 2005), design-based research seems to be especially adapted to multidisciplinary research as well as to research which must be carried out in close connection to the field it explores. It may be the case that some researchers think that they are working in this paradigm while actually they do not, since there are at least two occasions of misunderstanding. The first source of misunderstanding is the emphasis of design-based research on iteration, an emphasis which is reminiscent of the life cycle of technology design. But here iteration is not only aiming at the improvement of the design, but also at critically revisiting theories to develop or refine them. What is valued is the practical use of theories (p.13), and the fact that theoretical and practical issues are tightly related. The second source of misunderstanding is that because of its close relationship to the field, design-based research may be confounded with action-research. This is missing the priority of design-based research, while acknowledging its situatedness, to transcend the particularities of the context in which the experiment is been carried out. This difficulty is very well identified in this paper, and addresses directly the main concern of our field which is of understanding what results we produce which could be of a general value beyond the specific project in which it has been obtained: "Generalizability […] must be verified according to the theory goals of the design and discipline requirements of the research. Researchers need to optimize a local design without decreasing its generalizability […]" (p.19). So design-based research is not a sophisticated conceptualisation of the life cycle of a technology, it is of a different nature and objective than action-research. To some extend it can be seen as a proposal for a new discipline with original problems of methods and rigour.
There is one point on which this paper passes a bit too fast. It is the meaning of "real", what could count as "real-word context". Any experiment or observation carried out in a classroom changes what it is as opposed to its normal functioning. This is well-known but as a common sense fact and scientifically not enough documented. The authors acknowledge the complexity of reality, but do not catch the need to model it in an explicit way (with all the constraints of something which is out of reach of an exhaustive description, indeed). Any experimental science is faced to this need including natural science. The place where an experiment is carried out is an experimental apparatus, it has to be described as such even if it is embedded in a so called real context. (it means a context which is largely out of control but if which many features have no impact). This is a condition to be later on able to discriminate between generalizable results and "idiosyncratic" (p.19) adaptations or observations, and to sort out which of the data are relevant for further analysis. This dimension of design-research may well be the missing element to succeed in becoming the scientific standard it is ambitions.
Blog post based on the reading of: Wang F., Hannafin M.J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 53 (4) 5-23, DOI: 10.1007/BF02504682
Blog post based on the reading of: Wang F., Hannafin M.J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 53 (4) 5-23, DOI: 10.1007/BF02504682
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire