%0 Journal Article %1 citeulike:478628 %A Disessa, Andrea A. %A Cobb, Paul %D 2004 %J Journal of the Learning Sciences %K CERME-6-patterns CiHB CnE07 ERC-CSL KalDesignResearch asld-book asld2011 cal09-patterns cerme6 dbr design designapproaches designresearch eLPBookMor education jls10 ldg learning learningdesigngrid mathgamespatterns mythesis postdocapplication research %N 1 %P 77-103 %R 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4 %T Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments %U http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4?journalCode=jls %V 13 %X (doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4) Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments Andrea A. diSessa​‌ Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley Paul Cobb​‌ Peabody College, Vanderbilt University The motivation for this article is our belief that theory is critically important but currently underplayed in design research studies. We seek to characterize and illustrate a genre of theorizing that seems to us strongly synergistic with design-based research. We begin by drawing contrasts with kinds of theory that are relevant but, we contend, by themselves inadequate. A central element of the type of productive design-based theorizing on which we focus is öntological innovation," hypothesizing and developing explanatory constructs, new categories of things in the world that help explain how it works. A key criterion to which we adhere when discussing ontological innovations is that theory must do real design work in generating, selecting and validating design alternatives at the level at which they are consequential for learning. Developing and refining an ontological innovation is challenging and requires the kind of extensive, iterative work that characterizes design experiments more generally. However, the pay-off in terms of clarity of focus and explanatory power can be great. We present two case studies that illustrate the development, refinement, extension, and instructional application of ontological innovations.

@article{citeulike:478628, abstract = {(doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4) Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments Andrea A. diSessa​‌ Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley Paul Cobb​‌ Peabody College, Vanderbilt University The motivation for this article is our belief that theory is critically important but currently underplayed in design research studies. We seek to characterize and illustrate a genre of theorizing that seems to us strongly synergistic with design-based research. We begin by drawing contrasts with kinds of theory that are relevant but, we contend, by themselves inadequate. A central element of the type of productive design-based theorizing on which we focus is "ontological innovation," hypothesizing and developing explanatory constructs, new categories of things in the world that help explain how it works. A key criterion to which we adhere when discussing ontological innovations is that theory must do real design work in generating, selecting and validating design alternatives at the level at which they are consequential for learning. Developing and refining an ontological innovation is challenging and requires the kind of extensive, iterative work that characterizes design experiments more generally. However, the pay-off in terms of clarity of focus and explanatory power can be great. We present two case studies that illustrate the development, refinement, extension, and instructional application of ontological innovations.}, added-at = {2008-05-30T00:57:07.000+0200}, author = {Disessa, Andrea A. and Cobb, Paul}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2faa6dabe886ca9955948c5b72a88ce25/yish}, citeulike-article-id = {478628}, comment = {"Design studies, or design experiments, are iterative, situated, and theory-based attempts simultaneously to understand and improve educational processes (Brown, 1992; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, \& Schauble, 2003; Collins, 1992; Edelson, 2002)." (p. 80) --- "Instead, we aim only to accomplish the following: We will argue briefly that theory is important. Then, our principal thrust will be to characterize roughly elements of a genre of theory that has been underplayed in design experiments but that can, we believe, be productively developed, tested, revised, and elaborated while conducting such studies." (p 79) --- Provide a classification of theories: Grand Theories, e.g. "Piaget’s theory of intellectual development (Gruber \& Voneche, 1977), Skinner’s behaviorist theory of learning (Skinner, 1974), or Newell’s “unified theories of cognition” (Newell, 1990)." (p 81) Orienting Frameworks: such as ""Constructivist theory" or "cultural-historical theory" are often appealed to as the basis for instructional design. " ... "Yet, much that is involved in developing specific designs does not follow from these orientations. What happens when “building on student ideas” seems to fail to work? How, exactly, should one build on student ideas?" (p 82) Frameworks for Action: more or less general prescriptions of pedagogical strategies. Examples include Papert’s “constructionism” (Papert \& Harel, 1991), Ann Brown and Joe Campione’s “fostering a community of learners” (Brown \& Campione, 1996) and Ann-Marie Palincsar’s “reciprocal teaching” (Palincsar \& Brown, 1984). Marcia Linn talks about “scaffolded knowledge integration” (Linn \& Hsi, 2000). In some of our own work (diSessa, 1992) we advocate “learning by designing” as a powerful framework for instruction." (p 83) Domain specific instructional theories --- Raise the fundemental issue of the gap between theory and practice, and suggest that design studies can help to "manage the gap" by describing it and offering Onthological inovations (p 83) --- "The idea behind ontological innovation is deceptively simple. Science needs its own set of terms or categories to pursue its work. Again, this has always been true of developed sciences: “force,” “gene,” “natural selection,” “molecule,” “element,” “catalyst.” The process of creating such categories, however, is far more complicated than writing downa definition, or finding a relevant meaning in a dictionary. Instead, defining the technical terms of science is more like finding and validating a new category of existence in the world; hence we use the term ontological innovation. The essential challenge can be expressed simply enough. Scientific terms must “cut nature at its joints.” That is, they must make distinctions that really make a difference, ignore the ones that prove to be inconsequential, and enable us to deepen our explanations of the phenomena of interest.We must develop theoretical constructs that empower us to see order, pattern, and regularity in the complex settings in which weconduct design experiments. Ontological innovations are attributions we make to the world that necessarily participate in our deepest explanatory frameworks." (p 84) --- Present two case studies, indicative both of the practice of design experniments and of the kind of onthological inovations it may generate. The first describes the formulation of the concept of "meta-representational competence": students' substantial expertise in inventing, evaluating, and refining a variety of representational forms. The second regards the concept of socio-mathemtical norms. --- Conclussions: "We have attempted to illustrate the role of a particular class of theories in design experiments—those involving ontological innovation.4 We argued that although grand theory, orienting frameworks, frameworks for pedagogical action, and domain specific instructional theories are useful to the conduct of design studies, they do not provide an adequate theoretical basis for design research in the long term. Ontological innovation illustrates a kind of theory building that has been underplayed in design research but that is, we believe, well suited to being developed in and to contributing to design studies. Of course, we do not mean to imply that all theories involving ontological innovation are “good” or useful, nor that useful theories that do not involve ontological innovation are impossible." (p 98) "design experiments 1. Promote grounding of theoretical constructs in real-world experiences. 2. Foster the development of useful constructs. 3. Provide multiple exposures to empirical test that aid in the difficult and extended work of refinement. 4. By the same token, help develop constructs that are robust in their application across variations in context." (p 99) "We have taken pains to acknowledge that an ontological innovation stands at some distance from many elements of instructional design. “Managing the gap” between theory and what we must do to teach is an essential part of the task. It does not advance either science or instruction to pretend that theories are encompassing and highly prescriptive of instruction. As we have argued, theory development in general, and ontological innovations in particular, are nonetheless critical for the long-term scientific health and practical power of design-related educational research." (p 99)}, doi = {10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4}, interhash = {63519bd9909957ab15b9f8e1873b022b}, intrahash = {faa6dabe886ca9955948c5b72a88ce25}, journal = {Journal of the Learning Sciences}, keywords = {CERME-6-patterns CiHB CnE07 ERC-CSL KalDesignResearch asld-book asld2011 cal09-patterns cerme6 dbr design designapproaches designresearch eLPBookMor education jls10 ldg learning learningdesigngrid mathgamespatterns mythesis postdocapplication research}, number = 1, pages = {77-103}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2015-10-10T15:27:54.000+0200}, title = {Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}, url = {http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4?journalCode=jls}, volume = 13, year = 2004 }