Keywords

Mixed-methods, e-research, technologies, learning design, educational research, case study, literature review, Delphi study

Abstract

Nowadays, technologies play a key role in educational research processes, especially in the context of complex designs or integrative perspectives (qualitative and quantitative). Affordances provided by new tools and technological devices are constantly impacting the way educational research is carried out. Consequently, this growing importance (and dependence on) technology for educational research calls for a deeper reflection, not only about its clear benefits, but also about its potential drawbacks and limitations. This paper explores this tension in a specific mixed-methods research design aimed at understanding the barriers preventing the adoption of Learning Design (LD) tools/methods, a significant problem in the research field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). Different actors (teachers and researchers) were involved in the research design, which included a systematic literature review, a Delphi study and a case study. Such an articulated design required the adoption of technologies to support the process in all its phases. The paper describes the main methodological implications of the employed technologies in the different methods applied and in the overall research. The conclusions of the paper highlight that while technologies definitely support a higher level of complexity and articulation of the research design, they might also lead to superficial or biased results.

View infography

References

Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y., Pozzi, F., Hernández-Leo, D., Prieto, L.P., Persico, D., & Villagrá-Sobrino, S.L. (2017). Towards teaching as design: Exploring the interplay between full-lifecycle learning design tooling and teacher professional development. Computers & Education, 114, 92-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.011

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de-Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (2009). Technology- enhanced learning: Principles and products. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2017). The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bottino, R.M., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2011). Scaffolding pedagogical planning and the design of learning activities: An on-line system. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research, 2(1), 84-97. https://doi.org/10.4018/jksr.2011010107

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Cole, Z.D., Donohoe, H.M., & Stellefson, M.L. (2013). Internet-based Delphi research: Case based discussion. Environmental Management, 51(3), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-0005-5

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p40

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dagnino, F.M., Dimitriadis, Y.A., Pozzi, F., Asensio?Pérez, J.I., & Rubia?Avi, B. (2018). Exploring teachers’ needs and the existing barriers to the adoption of Learning Design methods and tools: A literature survey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 998-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12695

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, Y., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Forward-oriented design for learning: Illustrating the approach. Research in Learning Technology Supplement, 21, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20290

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Duca, D., & Metzler, K. (2019). The ecosystem of technologies for social science research (White paper). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/wp191101

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Duval, E., Sharples, M., & Sutherland, R. (2017). Technology enhanced learning: Research themes. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fielding, N.G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460910623

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons. https://bit.ly/2Whl3Cq

Link Google Scholar

Hai-Jew, S. (2015). Enhancing qualitative and mixed methods research with technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science reference. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6493-7

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Derntl, M., Pozzi, F., Chacón-Pérez, J., Prieto, L.P., & Persico, D. (2018). An integrated environment for learning design. Frontiers in ICT, 5, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00009

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hernández-Leo, D., Chacón, J., Prieto, L.P., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., & Derntl, M. (2013) Towards an Integrated Learning Design Environment. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact. EC-TEL 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 448–453). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_37

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hesse-Biber, S., & Griffin, A.J. (2013). Internet-mediated technologies and mixed methods research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812451791

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Katsamani, M., & Retalis, S. (2013). Orchestrating learning activities using the CADMOS learning design tool. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.18051

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature reviews in Software Engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. University of Durham. https://bit.ly/2LdFTMG

Link Google Scholar

Landeta, J., (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B (2009). Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues applications and technologies. Hershey. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-861-1

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Mor, Y., Craft, B., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2013). The art and science of learning design. Research in Learning Technology, 21(22513), pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22513

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Neumann, S., Klebl, M., Griffiths, D., Hernández-Leo, D., De-la-Fuente-Valentín, L., Hummel, H., Brouns, F., Derntl, M., & Oberhuemer, P (2010). Report of the results of an IMS learning design expert workshop. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(1), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v5i1.1045p

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W.J., & Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209687.n4

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Persico, D., Pozzi, F., Anastopoulou, S., Conole, G., Craft, B., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernández-Leo, D., Kali, Y., Mor, Y., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Walmsley, H. (2013). Learning design Rashomon I – Supporting the design of one lesson through different approaches. Research in Learning Technology, 21. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20224

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pozzi, F., Asensio-Perez, J.I., Ceregini, A., Dagnino, F.M., Dimitriadis, Y., & Earp, J. (2020). Supporting and representing Learning Design with digital tools: In between guidance and flexibility. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1714708

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Roztocki, N. (2001). Using internet-based surveys for academic research: Opportunities and problems. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society of Engineering Management (ASEM) National Conference. Huntsville, AL, October 11-13, 2001. (pp. 290-295). https://bit.ly/3chRJ51

Link Google Scholar

Rubia-Avi, B., & Guitert-Catasús, M. (2014). Revolution in education: Computer support for collaborative learning. [¿La revolución de la enseñanza? El aprendizaje colaborativo en entornos virtuales (CSCL)]. Comunicar, 42, 10-14. https://doi.org/10.3916/C42-2014-a2

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Stake, R.E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. https://bit.ly/3fBGfuv

Link Google Scholar

Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201-213. https://bit.ly/2LbHBhT

Link Google Scholar

Crossmark

Technical information

Received: 28-02-2020

Revised: 16-03-2020

Accepted: 27-04-2020

OnlineFirst: 15-06-2020

Publication date: 01-10-2020

Article revision time: 17 days | Average time revision issue 65: 36 days

Article acceptance time: 58 days | Average time of acceptance issue 65: 78 days

Preprint editing time: 170 days | Average editing time preprint issue 65: 190 days

Article editing time: 215 days | Average editing time issue 65: 235 days

Metrics

Metrics of this article

Views: 21981

Abstract readings: 19806

PDF downloads: 2175

Full metrics of Comunicar 65

Views: 251247

Abstract readings: 215607

PDF downloads: 35640

Cited by

Cites in Web of Science

Palominos Bastias, Marcelo; Marcelo Garcia, Carlos;. Use of digital technologies to meet special educational needs in the teaching training of differential teachers PIXEL-BIT- REVISTA DE MEDIOS Y EDUCACION , 2021.

https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.78020

Cites in Scopus

Bastias, M.P., García, C.M. . Use of digital technologies to meet special educational needs in the teaching training of differential teachers | [Uso de tecnologías digitales para atender Necesidades Educativas Especiales en la Formación docente del educador Diferencial]), Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educacion, .

https://doi.org/10.12795/PIXELBIT.78020

Cites in Google Scholar

Bastias, M. R. P., & García, C. M. (2021). Uso de tecnologías digitales para atender necesidades educativas especiales en la formación docente del educador diferencial. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 231-256.

https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/pixel/article/view/78020

Download

Alternative metrics

How to cite

Dagnino, F., Dimitriadis, Y., Pozzi, F., Rubia-Avi, B., & Asensio-Pérez, J. (2020). The role of supporting technologies in a mixed methods research design. [El rol de las tecnologías de apoyo en un diseño de investigación de métodos mixtos]. Comunicar, 65, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-05

Share

           

Post Office Box 527

21080 Huelva (Spain)

Administration

Editorial office

Creative Commons

This website uses cookies to obtain statistical data on the navigation of its users. If you continue to browse we consider that you accept its use. +info X