The role of supporting technologies in a mixed methods research design

Dagnino, Francesca-M. and Dimitriadis, Yannis and Pozzi, Francesca and Rubia-Avi, Bartolomé The role of supporting technologies in a mixed methods research design. Comunicar, 2020, vol. 28, n. 65, pp. 53-63. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Text (Research article (English))
c6505en.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (486kB) | Preview
Text (Research article (Español))
c6505es.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (507kB) | Preview

English 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.

Spanish abstract

En la actualidad las tecnologías desempeñan un papel fundamental en los procesos de investigación educativa, especialmente cuando se realizan diseños complejos o desde perspectivas integradoras (Cuantitativas y Cualitativas). Las facilidades ofrecidas por nuevas herramientas y dispositivos tecnológicos influyen constantemente en la forma en que se lleva a cabo la investigación educativa. Por consiguiente, esta creciente importancia de la tecnología para la investigación educativa exige una reflexión más profunda, no sólo sobre sus evidentes beneficios, sino también sobre sus posibles inconvenientes y limitaciones. En este artículo se explora esa tensión en un diseño de investigación desde una estrategia mixta centrada en la identificación y comprensión de las barreras que impiden la adopción de herramientas/métodos de Diseño de Aprendizaje, un problema importante en el campo del aprendizaje mejorado por tecnología (Technology Enhanced Learning). Diferentes actores (profesores e investigadores) han participado en el diseño de la investigación, que incluye una revisión sistemática de la literatura, un estudio Delphi y un estudio de caso, generando un diseño muy articulado con tecnologías para cada fase. En el documento se describen las principales repercusiones metodológicas de las tecnologías empleadas en los diferentes métodos aplicados y en la investigación en general. Las conclusiones del documento ponen de relieve que, si bien las tecnologías apoyan en gran medida un nivel alto de complejidad y ayudan a articular el propio diseño, también pueden dar lugar a resultados superficiales o sesgados.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Mixed-methods; e-research; technologies; learning design; educational research; case study; literature review; Delphi study; Métodos mixtos; e-investigación; tecnologías; diseño de aprendizaje; investigación educativa; estudio de casos; revisión de literatura; estudio Delphi
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 09 Jan 2021 06:45
Last modified: 09 Jan 2021 06:45


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.

Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de-Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (2009). Technology- enhanced learning: Principles and products. Springer.

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.

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.

Cole, Z.D., Donohoe, H.M., & Stellefson, M.L. (2013). Internet-based Delphi research: Case based discussion. Environmental Management, 51(3), 511-523.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

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.

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.

Dimitriadis, Y., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Forward-oriented design for learning: Illustrating the approach. Research in Learning Technology Supplement, 21, 1-13.

Duca, D., & Metzler, K. (2019). The ecosystem of technologies for social science research (White paper). Sage.

Duval, E., Sharples, M., & Sutherland, R. (2017). Technology enhanced learning: Research themes. Springer.

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.

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

Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Sense Publishers.

Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.

Hai-Jew, S. (2015). Enhancing qualitative and mixed methods research with technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science reference. IGI Global.

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.

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.

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.

Katsamani, M., & Retalis, S. (2013). Orchestrating learning activities using the CADMOS learning design tool. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-12.

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature reviews in Software Engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. University of Durham.

Landeta, J., (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467-482.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.

Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B (2009). Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues applications and technologies. Hershey.

Mor, Y., Craft, B., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2013). The art and science of learning design. Research in Learning Technology, 21(22513), pp. 1-8.

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.

Orlikowski, W.J., & Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Stake, R.E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.

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


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item