Control in traditional research in my previous message (note that I quoted someone else) is almost set up as a straw man, i.e., " But this kind of information has been seldom shown to be sufficient for teachers and administrators to effectively adopt a new approach." Design experimentalists neither believe they do, nor expect to control everything. But there is something missing between the quoted sentence and the one about control just prior. While a critique of traditional research in terms of ecological validity might seem to be forthcoming, it doesn't appear in the design experiment literature that I know. The prior sentence has me puzzled:
"Documenting that a particular set of materials can lead to better learning-in conditions designed to control for all variables other than the technology resources themselves-provides initial evidence that the technology is worth trying."
This is not a critique of traditional research, except to say that it shows technology provides moderate gains in traditional classrooms. Design experiment is promoted, in the texts I know, with the argument that technology offers new sets of actions possible in a classroom, and that much better gains can be achieved if allowed to do so.
This concerns me for two reasons. First is the conspicuous absence of discussion of the prior development of ecological and activity approaches. Second is the absence of a theoretical framework treating the complexity of classrooms, that the first would contribute. Consequently, there does not appear to be a consistent treatment of how technology and people come together in a classroom to enable new sets of actions, and what is the role of everything "outside" the classroom.
more later. long day today.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:00:58 PDT