In the doctoral seminar I am taking right now we are discussing, 'design research' and "whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research."
Having read both Edelson and Friedman, I believe that what I have been recently engaged in would constitute design research as outlined by Edelson. While I was conducting my study on the design and evaluation of the pharmacology learning object, I was not aware of the term 'design research' or the steps involved. My colleague, Celynn Klemenchuk has kindly agreed to share her mindmap which effectively illustrates the relationships Edelson identifies in his approch to design research (you may have to expand the image to its original size in your browser).
Upon reflection, I think we should "begin with the theory and judge the design reseach based on how well it conforms".
As the instructional designer involved in the development of the pharmacology learning object, I became interested in the implications of using a design methodology specifically prescribed for learning objects.
The purpose of my study was to contribute to a better understanding of how instructional designers make decisions about developing learning objects. The examination was expected to reveal issues and challenges that instructional designers face when engaging in this type of activity. The goal was to develop an "outcome theory" in which I would characterize the problems and the results of implementing a specific theory of design.
This is consistent with Edelson's notion of research design which "explicitly exploits the design process as an opportunity to advance the researchers understanding of teaching, learning, and educational systems."
My design research also consisted of the four features identified by Edelson.
Research Driven
My research was informed by existing theories of instructional design and I had identified a specific goal.
I was curious to find out if subsequently applying Wiley's Learning Object Design and Sequencing (LODAS) theory to the development of the pharmacology learning object would reveal different design decisions about the scope and sequence of the learning resources that were created.
Systematic Documentation
The process of applying the prescribed steps of the chosen theory was documented. The steps for the principled skill decomposition and work model synthesis were explicity illustrated and shared for critical reflection and discussion.
Formative Evaluation
A peer review of our learning object was undertaken in order to identify "gaps in understanding of the design context".
Three main strategies were used to assess the quality of the learning object and to collect formative date for improving the resource. Early in the design stage the instructional designer conducted usability testing with a third year pharmacy student to obtain feedback on design and navigation issues. This informal meeting was conducted as a 'think-aloud session' where the instructional designer recorded the reflections of the student as she interacted with the learning object. Secondly, peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the quality of the learning object using an established rating instrument and to provide feedback for improvement using an instructor survey. Thirdly, questionnaires were distributed to students in order to carry out a learning impact study based on their use of the learning object.
Generalization
In my discussion of the research results, I attempted to generalize the implications of applying the theory to the practice of instructional design and the quality of learning resources developed.
As it was an illustrative case study, no statistically significant results were generated. However, it still has potential value to many educational practitioners. To my knowledge, this research was the only example of a practical application of the Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory (LODAS) developed by Wiley (2000) to a medical context. The results from this research could be used to inform educators about some of the serious challenges involved in designing a learning object that can be reused and repurposed. An examination of the process and instruments used for evaluation could provide valuable insights about methods that could be employed for the peer review of learning objects.
Having thought about it some more, the example I provided above, about Edelson's approach to design research, complements what Friedman outlined in his paper on theory construction.
Wiley, the author of the design methodlogy that I was applying had combined a number of existing instructional design theories; Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999), Work Model Synthesis (Gibbons, et al., 1995), Domain Theory (Bunderson, Newby, &Wiley, 2000), and the Four-Component Instructional Design model (van Merriënboer, 1997) in an attempt to extend these theories in order to address two fundamental issues in the design of learning objects: scope and sequencing. The end result was the creation of his own Learning Object Design and Sequencing theory (LODAS).
This is consistent with Simon's quote (as cited in Friedman) "...design as the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones."
The theory developed by Wiley provided me with an opportunity to apply an existing model and derive lessons which I could use to develop theories that are generalizeable in other contexts.
So.... in response to the question, whether or not we should begin with the theory and judge the design research based on how well it conforms to the theory we are studying or whether the theory itself should emerge from the design research I would have to say that there appears to be a natural complement between the two.
REFERENCES
Edelson, Daniel C. (2002) Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Friedman, K. (2003) Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies Vol 24 No. 6
No comments:
Post a Comment