21 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 In this article, a general model is proposed for design research in ed- ucation that grows out of the author���s research and work in related design fields. The model emphasizes the stage sensitivity of (a) re- search questions, (b) data and methods, and (c) the need for re- searchers to design artifacts, processes, and analyses at earlier stages in their research that can then be profitably used (perhaps by differ- ent researchers) in later stages. Ia n psychological research, the juxtaposition of the words de- sign and experimentation usually connotes efforts to construct well-defined experimental study. Since the early 1990s in educational research, however, the use of the word design has taken on a different meaning and assumed center stage in emerging forms of educational research labeled by some as design experi- ments or design research. Design and related processes, informed by Simon���s (1996) notions of design and engineering perspec- tives, are now at the forefront of research efforts constructing per- suasive narratives involving processes of iteration, feedback loops, and other characteristics of the study of complex educational sys- tems (Brown, 1992 Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, this issue Collins, 1999 Design-Based Research Collective, this issue Kelly & Lesh, 2000). Design studies involve a pronounced emphasis on the narra- tive report of the complex interactions and feedback cycles that can significantly blur the roles of researchers, teachers, curricu- lum developers, instructional designers, and assessment experts (Kelly & Lesh, 2000). Thus, some educational researchers are raising significant questions about the appropriate methods and processes to use in complex, naturalistic settings. How should we systematically create, test, and disseminate teaching and learning interventions that will have maximum impact on practice and will contribute significantly to theory? More globally, can we de- termine which specific research methodologies or combinations of methods are most appropriate to particular phases of the emerging model of design research? There is a need for comprehensive models to guide research (both design and more experimental genres) from initial con- ceptualization to diffusion and adoption. I argue that it may be productive to consider a program of research as a design event (i.e., to articulate design research processes that view a well- crafted single study as part of an entire scope of work from orig- inal idea to diffusion of results). The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework by Brenda Bannan-Ritland Educational Researcher, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 21���24 Characteristics and Implications of the Integrative Learning Design Framework I propose an integrative learning design (ILD) framework (see Figure 1) that attempts to provide a comprehensive, yet flexible, guiding framework that positions design research as a socially constructed, contextualized process for producing educationally effective interventions with a high likelihood of being used in practice. This framework attempts to move past isolated, indi- vidual efforts of design research by articulating a logically or- dered, but dynamic frame that considers both field studies and experimental research methodologies in advancing the systemic impact of research across a variety of domains and social settings. The goal of the ILD framework is not only to construct propo- sitions about learning and teaching but also to engineer and con- struct effective learning environments (using software and other artifacts) that allow teachers and learners to make these proposi- tions actionable (see Toulmin, 2001). Thus, the ILD framework may provide a broad context within which to map the design- based research processes discussed by Cobb et al. (this issue) and the Design-Based Research Collective (this issue). The ILD framework draws from traditions of instructional de- sign (Dick & Carey, 1990), product design (Urlich & Eppinger, 2000), usage-centered design (Constantine & Lockwood, 1999), and diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1995), as well as estab- lished educational research methodologies (Isaac & Michael, 1990). ILD strives to combine the creativity of design commu- nities with appropriate adherence to standards of quantitative and qualitative methods in education. It is important to note that the ILD process is not intended to be a description of a single study in which an intervention is designed in a relatively short space of time and then tested and disseminated. Rather, it is meant to provide a program-level perspective. Extending the stages of Urlich and Eppinger (2000) and draw- ing upon other design fields, the broad phases of the ILD frame- work are (a) Informed Exploration, (b) Enactment, (c) Evaluation: Local Impact, and (d) Evaluation: Broader Impact. Each of these stages will be described and illustrated with an example from my work in the LiteracyAccess Online (LAO) project. LAO is de- signed to help teachers, tutors, and parents (acting as literacy fa- cilitators) to use Web-based technology to foster collaborative reading processes with children, particularly those with disabilities (Bannan-Ritland, Egerton, Page, & Behrmann, 2000 Bannan- Ritland, 2002 Bannan-Ritland, Crook, & Korjus, 2002). The Informed Exploration Phase of ILD From the outset, and pervading all four phases of ILD, is a con- cern with identifying and satisfying the needs of the intended

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 22 users so that the mature innovation is successfully adopted and used to support its learning goals. The first phase of ILD, there- fore, is rooted in essential research steps of problem identification, literature survey, and problem definition. To this foundation, the ILD framework adds (a) a needs analysis activity from the field of instructional system design and innovation development studies and (b) a research focus on audience characterization from the field of usage-centered design (see Figure 1). Illustration From LAO. The research objective of the LAO study is to simultaneously investigate, describe, and support the activities that occur as literacy facilitators and children engage in reading processes. Our interdisciplinary research team consisted of educational researchers teachers graduate students experts in literacy, special education, and assistive technology as well as parent members of an advocacy group for children with disabil- ities. The team carried out a traditional literature review but sup- plemented it with both documentation of the target audience and stakeholder perceptions, and a benchmarking of related products. Activities at this stage were informed not only by the views of experts, teachers, and parents but also by observations of children and facilitators in both classroom and home envi- ronments. This activity revealed many plausible paths for design research. The consensus direction for the research grew from the obser- vation that although literacy facilitators play a crucial role, they require easy access to powerful literacy supports to make their reading strategies effective (see Wittrock, 1998 Wasik, 1998 National Reading Panel, 2000). As a result, we abandoned an early design for a didactic, tutorial, child-focused intervention to move toward a collaborative, story-based reading support system that provided embedded metacognitive strategies for both the lit- eracy facilitator and the child. When the rough outlines for an intervention were apparent, we focused the efforts of the design team by creating a composite de- piction���a sort of role model (Constantine & Lockwood, 1999) or persona (Cooper, 1999) that characterized the end users. To in- form this composite, we characterized features such as the knowl- edge and use of reading and writing strategies computer skills of the children (fourth- through eighth-grade children with and without disabilities) the facilitator���s (parent, tutor, sibling) re- lationship with the child and the child���s physical, mental, or learning disabilities. This composite was used to calibrate the de- velopment of the software environment to the identified needs of FIGURE 1. Merging of design and research processes into the integrative learning design framework.