Disciplined inquiry and research in computer-supported learning

摘要

The "proper study of instructional technology" has been debated for some time (see, for example, Heinich, 1994, p. 67). Despite decades of experience in conducting research and publishing findings in scholarly journal, disagreements exist as to our questions, methods, findings and interpretations. Reeves (1993) describes much of the existing research in the instructional technology field as "pseudoscience" - the mistaken adoption and application of methods from the basic sciences, where measures of experimental control afford precision in measurement unavailable in learning and technology research. Others, however, have lauded many of the same paradigms and methods as "scientifically-valid" (NCLB, 2002), and the means through which research could lead to genuine advances. Clearly, differences of opinion exist as to the proper study of technology and learning. The issues have been well-documented. While Clark (1983) and other methodol-ogists have characterized comparative research questions and methods as fundamentally misguided, the clamor for "proof of the effectiveness of technology-enhanced instruction is often comparative in nature. The very questions and findings disdained by researchers tend to be popular among policymakers who allocate resources to support both research and practice. Perhaps disagreements simply reflect diversity in the disciplines wherein inquiry related to technology and learning is advanced. What kinds of questions might be appropriate in research in technology and learning? What assumptions underlie them? The purpose of this analysis is to classify and characterize the studies contained in this issue, underscoring the relationships between and among the methods employed as they reflect foundation, theory-building, and/or application research goals.