Use design research to study the interplay of guidance and discovery, trading methodological control for ecological validity¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 mixed) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends design research (design-based research, design experiments) as the methodological way forward, conjecturing that randomized controlled trials as the gold standard force researchers to dichotomize discovery versus direct instruction. In design research "one loses methodological control but typically gains ecological validity," and generalization takes the form of theoretical generalization and transportation of useful design ideas rather than statistical generalization from sample to population.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Researchers must accept more complex models of causality and change, and work to improve educational practice as a design science.

Constraints¶

• The article warns there seems to be a limit to increasingly large quantitative approaches for investigating interactions between all relevant factors; additional smaller-scale studies are needed to understand mechanisms.

Target Learners¶

• Students in the classroom settings where design researchers iterate interventions

Target Learning Goals¶

• Understanding how guidance and discovery interplay in supporting learning

Claims¶

• Effects of discovery-related approaches are differential, not uniform across students or learning goals [~W]
• Strong guidance and repetition may be needed to discover what cannot be told (Trninic's martial arts case) [~W]

Related Strategies¶

• Use in vivo experimentation: rigorous experimental contrasts embedded in operating courses with real students, real subject matter, and real contexts
• In vivo experimentation: combine design research with controlled experimentation to balance control and ecological validity

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Arthur Bakker. (2018). Discovery learning: zombie, phoenix, or elephant? Instructional Science, 46, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9450-8