O papel das tecnologias de apoio em um projeto de pesquisa de métodos mistos

 Francesca-M. Dagnino, National Research Council (Itália)

 Yannis Dimitriadis, University of Valladolid (Espanha)

 Francesca Pozzi, National Research Council (Itália)

 Bartolomé Rubia-Avi, University of Valladolid (Espanha)

 Juan-I. Asensio-Pérez, University of Valladolid (Espanha)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-05

Palavras chave

Métodos mistos, e-pesquisa, tecnologias, design de aprendizagem, pesquisa educacional, estudo de caso, revisão de literatura, técnica Delphi

Resumo

Atualmente, as tecnologias desempenham um papel fundamental nos processos de pesquisa educacional, especialmente quando são realizados projetos complexos ou a partir de perspectivas integradoras (quantitativas e qualitativas). As facilidades oferecidas por novas ferramentas e dispositivos tecnológicos influenciam constantemente a forma como a pesquisa educativa é levada a cabo. Por conseguinte, essa crescente importância da tecnologia para a pesquisa educacional exige uma reflexão mais profunda, não apenas sobre seus benefícios evidentes, mas também sobre seus possíveis inconvenientes e limitações. Neste artigo, explora-se essa tensão em um projeto de pesquisa a partir de uma estratégia mista centrada na identificação e compreensão das barreiras que impedem a adoção de ferramentas/métodos de Design de Aprendizagem, um problema importante no campo da aprendizagem aprimorada pela tecnologia [Technology Enhanced Learning]. Diferentes atores (professores e pesquisadores) participaram de um projeto de pesquisa que inclui uma revisão sistemática de literatura, técnica Delphi e um estudo de caso, gerando um projeto muito articulado com tecnologias para cada fase. No documento descrevem-se as principais repercussões metodológicas das tecnologias empregadas nos diferentes métodos aplicados e na pesquisa em geral. As conclusões do documento destacam que, embora as tecnologias sustentem em grande medida um alto nível de complexidade e ajudem a articular o próprio desenho, também podem dar lugar a resultados superficiais ou tendenciosos.

Referências

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

Fundref

Crossmark

Technical information

Recebido: 28-02-2020

Revisado: 16-03-2020

Aceite: 27-04-2020

OnlineFirst: 15-06-2020

Data de publicação: 01-10-2020

Tempo de revisão do artigo: 17 dias | Tempo médio de revisão do número 65: 36 dias

Tempo de aceitação do artigo: 59 dias | Tempo médio de aceitação do número 65: 79 dias

Tempo de edição da pré-impressão: 171 dias | Tempo médio de edição pré-impressão do número 65: 191 dias

Tempo de processamento do artigo: 216 dias | Tempo médio de processamento do número 65: 236 dias

Métricas

Métricas deste artigo

Vistas: 46281

Leituras dos resumos: 41377

Descargas em PDF: 4904

Métricas completas do Comunicar 65

Vistas: 544888

Leituras dos resumos: 470232

Descargas em PDF: 74656

Citado por