Design-Based Research Methods for Studying Learning in Context: Introduction
Design-Based Research Methods for Studying Learning in Context: Introduction
复制标题
研究情境学习的基于设计的研究方法：简介
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Bell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Sandoval;P. Bell
心理学领域与教育的互动有着悠久的历史，教育心理学对如何在教育背景下构建和研究学习问题产生了深远的影响。然而，将理论见解转化为教育实践从来都不是一件容易的事。教育心理学因没有创造“可用的知识”而受到批评（Lagemann, 2002）。目前，教育研究人员通常被要求证明他们的主张是“科学的”和“基于证据的”（国家研究委员会，2002）。一方面是对局部可用知识的渴望，另一方面是对科学合理的、可推广的知识的渴望，这两者之间存在着一种紧张关系。例如，Lagemann认为，传统的心理学范式以牺牲对实际发生的学习的忠诚为代价，努力追求实验控制。因此，尽管这些主张在某种意义上可能是科学的，但它们并不能充分解释或预测它们声称要解决的现象。这一批评扩展了围绕定义明确的心理任务的生态有效性及其与日常环境中发生的心理现象的关系的长期争论（Brunswik, 1943; Lewin, 1943）。作为一个领域，我们仍然缺乏一个适当的方法调和，以兼顾实验控制和生态有效性的问题。与此同时，人们对许多教育研究的“可信度差距”（Levin & O 'Donnell, 1999）感到相当不安，因为它们不是用被认为是科学的方法产生的。从这个角度来看，教育研究的知识可用性有限，因为它不可信。如果教育心理学不直接研究它所希望解释的内在混乱的现象，那么它在实践意义上既可用又在科学上可信的教育心理学就无法进行下去。十多年前，Brown（1992）将她不断发展的“设计实验”方法描述为一种努力，将学习的实验室研究与基于这种见解的复杂教学干预研究联系起来。她展示了实验室的见解在解释或预测课堂学习的能力上是如何受到限制的。正如她所看到的那样，挑战在于开发一种原位干预设计实验的方法，以发展学习（和教学）理论，以解释人们在复杂社会环境中的多重互动。与此同时，Collins（1992）提出了教育研究作为“设计科学”的概念，就像航空航天工程一样，需要一种方法来系统地测试设计变量的有效性。然而，要实现这样的设计科学，需要对复杂社会系统（学校教育）的所有相关层面的潜在变量有充分的了解，而我们还没有这样的理解（Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004）。在过去的12年里，人们越来越多地采用设计实验方法，以至于最近一本关于数学和科学教育研究的手册中充满了这种方法的例子和公式（Kelly & Lesh, 2000）。一般的方法有许多名称。我们已经确定了基于设计的研究，而不是其他常用的短语“设计实验”，这意味着一种特定形式的控制实验，不能捕捉方法的广度，或者“设计研究”，这很容易与研究设计和其他缺乏原位研究组件的设计领域的努力相混淆。本文所描述的研究方法是基于理论的设计。教育心理学家，39(4)，199-201版权所有©2004，Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc。
The field of psychology has a long history of interaction with education, and educational psychology has had a profound impact on how issues of learning have been framed and studied in educational contexts. Still, it has never been simple to translate theoretical insights into educational practice. Educational psychology has been criticized for not creating “usable knowledge” (Lagemann, 2002). Currently, educational researchers generally have been pushed to justify how their claims are “scientific” and “evidence-based” (National Research Council, 2002). There is a tension between the desire for locally usable knowledge on the one hand and scientifically sound, generalizable knowledge on the other. Lagemann, for example, argued that the traditional paradigm of psychology has striven for experimental control at the expense of fidelity to learning as it actually occurs. Thus, although such claims might be scientific in one sense, they do not adequately explain or predict the phenomena they purport to address. This critique extends the long-standing debate surrounding the ecological validity of well-defined psychological tasks and their relation to psychological phenomena as they come to occur in everyday settings (Brunswik, 1943; Lewin, 1943). As a field, we still lack an adequate methodological reconciliation that attends to issues of both experimental control and ecological validity. At the same time, there is considerable unease with the perceived “credibility gap” (Levin & O’Donnell, 1999) of much of educational research because it is not produced with what are considered to be scientific methods. From this perspective, the knowledge from educational research has limited usability because it is not trustworthy. An educational psychology that is both usable in a practical sense and scientifically trustworthy cannot proceed without directly studying the phenomena it hopes to explain in its inherent messiness. A little over a decade ago, Brown (1992) described her evolving approach to “design experimentation” as an effort to bridge laboratory studies of learning with studies of complex instructional interventions based on such insights. She showed how insights from the laboratory were inherently limited in their ability to explain or predict learning in the classroom. The challenge, as she saw it, was to develop a methodology of experimenting with intervention designs in situ to develop theories of learning (and teaching) that accounted for the multiple interactions of people acting in a complex social setting. At the same time, Collins (1992) was putting forth a notion of educational research as a “design science,” like aerospace engineering, that required a methodology to systematically test design variants for effectiveness. Achieving such a design science, however, requires a sufficient understanding of the underlying variables at all relevant layers of a complex social system (schooling)—an understanding that we do not yet have (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). The last 12 years have seen an increasing uptake of the design experimentation methodology, so much so that a recent handbook on research in math and science education is replete with examples and formulations of the approach (Kelly & Lesh, 2000). The general approach has been called by many names. We have settled on the term design-based research over the other commonly used phrases “design experimentation,” which connotes a specific form of controlled experimentation that does not capture the breadth of the approach, or “design research,” which is too easily confused with research design and other efforts in design fields that lack in situ research components. The approach to research described in this issue is design based in that it is theoretiEDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 39(4), 199–201 Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.