logo

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2020): Debating the status of 'theory' in technology enhanced learning research

A tale of two studies: TEL research and the theory-practice nexus

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/jhwpw010
Submitted
27 July 2026
Published
25-06-2020

Abstract

This paper explores the role of theory in two research studies conducted through a design-based methodological lens. Rejecting the binary distinction between interpretivist and positivist positions characterised by the paradigm wars, the authors ensured both that practical interventions were guided by relevant theoretical perspectives, and that the evaluation of these interventions subsequently informed the development of theory. In the first of these cases, a series of interventions introducing video-enhanced practice to two cohorts of undergraduate students was situated against a backdrop of both social and cognitive constructivist theories of learning, leading to the development of an integrated model of video-enhanced assessment and feedback. In the second case, a broad range of theoretical developments in the fields of social-constructivist, constructionist, contextualised, experiential and place-based learning informed the design of a series of outdoor mobile learning activities intended to enhance learner engagement of children with science topic work, leading to theoretical developments around digital capital and the digital disconnect. The paper argues that through embracing a pragmatist epistemology, design-based research offers a methodological approach underpinned by a symbiotic relationship between theory and practice in technology-enhanced learning research.

References

  1. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65-83.
  2. Attwood, T. (2000). Asperger’s syndrome: A Guide for parents and professionals. Jessica Kingsley: London and Philadelphia.
  3. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
  4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
  5. Belfer, K., & Morgan, T. (2005). Enhancing teaching presence and reducing distance using voice technologies. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vol. 2005, No. 1, pp. 537-542).
  6. Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing assessment in higher education. Open University Press.
  7. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61-72.
  8. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1997). The Forms of Capital. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A. Stuart-Wells (Eds), Education: Culture, Economy, Society (pp. 46–58). Oxford University Press.
  10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
  12. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
  13. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2009). Digital video for fostering self‐reflection in an ePortfolio environment. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 337-350.
  14. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
  15. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer.
  16. Collins, J. L., Cook-Cottone, C. P., Robinson, J. S., & Sullivan, R. R. (2005). Technology and new directions in professional development: Applications of digital video, peer review, and self-reflection. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(2), 131-146.
  17. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S., & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386-396.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper-Perennial.
  19. Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 17-25.
  20. Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23-46.
  21. Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum in England: Framework for key stages 1 to 4. London: HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office). Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4
  22. Design Based Research Collective. (2003). Design based research: An emerging paradigm in educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  23. Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. Journal of the National Educational Association, 18(9), 291 – 295.
  24. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  25. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
  26. Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Digital disconnect? The ‘digital learner’ and the school. In O. Erstad & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, community and learning lives in the digital age (pp. 87-106). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Fischer, G. (2003). Distributed cognition: A conceptual framework for design-for-all. In Proceedings of HCI International, Crete (Vol. 4, pp. 78-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  28. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  29. Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
  30. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.
  31. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  32. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.
  33. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
  34. Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using asynchronous video in online classes: Results from a pilot study. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(3), 65-76.
  35. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25.
  36. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med, 2(8), 696-701.
  37. Jordan, L. (2012). Video for peer feedback and reflection: embedding mainstream engagement into learning and teaching practice. Research in Learning Technology, 20.
  38. Kearney, M. (2011). A learning design for student‐generated digital storytelling. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 169-188.
  39. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189-208.
  40. Kerr, W., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). The benefit of screen recorded summaries in feedback for work submitted electronically. In F. Khandia (Ed.), Proceedings of the CAA International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference (pp. 153-168). Loughborough University.
  41. Knez, I., Thorsson, S., Eliasson, I., & Lindberg, F. (2009). Psychological mechanisms in outdoor place and weather assessment: towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Biometeorology, 53(1), 101-111.
  42. Knight, P., & Saunders, M. (1999). Understanding teachers' professional cultures through interview: A constructivist approach. Evaluation & Research in Education, 13(3), 144-156.
  43. Koumi, J. (2006). Designing video and multimedia for open and flexible learning. Routledge.
  44. Kucirkova, N. (2017). iRPD-A framework for guiding design-based research for iPad apps. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 598-610.
  45. Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of college student development, 37(2), 135-48.
  46. Lagemann, E. C., & Shulman, L. S. (Eds.). (1999). Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  47. Lai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337.
  48. Lai, H. C., Chang, C. Y., Wen Shiane, L., Fan, Y. L., & Wu, Y. T. (2013). The implementation of mobile learning in outdoor education: Application of QR codes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 57–62.
  49. Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 229-255.
  50. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
  51. Laurillard, D. (1996). Rethinking university teaching. Routledge.
  52. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
  53. Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5, 177-229.
  54. Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269-287.
  55. Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screencasting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156.
  56. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press.
  57. Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.
  58. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
  59. McDowell, J. (2018). The whole world in their hands: An investigation of the influence of mobile technologies on learner engagement of primary school children in outdoor settings. Lancaster University, UK.
  60. McDowell, J. (2019a). The student experience of video-enhanced learning, assessment and feedback. In C.E Dann & S. O'Neill (Eds.), Technology-enhanced formative assessment practices in higher education (pp. 20-40). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch002
  61. McDowell, J. (2019b). Towards a Dialogic Model of Video-Enhanced Learning, Assessment, and Feedback. In C.E Dann & S. O'Neill (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 127-154). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch007
  62. McDowell, J. B. (2014). An investigation of the influence of asynchronous video on the learner experience of assessment and feedback. Lancaster University, UK.
  63. Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.
  64. Nouri, J., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Rossitto, C., & Ramberg, R. (2014). Learning with or without mobile devices? A comparison of traditional school field trips and inquiry-based mLearning activities. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(2), 241-262.
  65. O’Donoghue, M., & Cochrane, T. (2010). The role of live video capture production in the development of student communication skills. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 323-335.
  66. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press, USA.
  67. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  68. Park, S. (2017). Digital Capital. Palgrave Macmillan.
  69. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition and learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  70. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, 11, 47-87.
  71. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
  72. Pruet, P., Ang, C. S., & Farzin, D. (2016). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1131-1144.
  73. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through “Design Experiments” and Other Development Research Strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 27th April 2000. Retrieved from http://treeves.coe.uga.edu/AERA2000Reeves.pdf
  74. Reiser, B.J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.), (pp. 44-62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Rikala, J., & Kankaanranta, M. (2012). The Use of Quick Response Codes in the Classroom. In M. Specht, J. Multisilta & M. Sharples (Eds.) mLearn 2012 Mobile and Contextual Learning. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning 2012 (pp. 148–155). Helsinki, Finland: CELSTEC & CICERO Learning.
  76. Séror, J. (2013). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116.
  77. Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.), (pp. 501–521). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  78. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education (pp. 475-494). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
  79. Stannard, R. (2007). Using screen capture software in student feedback. Retrieved from http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications /casestudies/technology/camtasia.php
  80. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  81. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
  82. Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1979). Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 11-29.
  83. Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364-2381.
  84. Woodfine, B. P., Nunes, M. B., & Wright, D. J. (2008). Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! Computers & Education, 50(3), 703-717.
  85. Wyeth, P., Fitzpatrick, G., Good, J., Smith, H., Luckin, R., Underwood, J., Kher, H.N., Walker, K., & Benford, S. (2008). Learning through treasure hunting: the role of mobile devices. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Learning (pp. 27–34), Algarve, Portugal.
  86. Yin, R. K., (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
  87. Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58(1), 77-83.