DiSessa & Cobb (2004) - Revision history

imported>Raymond Johnson: fix displaytitle spacing, begin summary

2013-11-08T19:14:30Z

fix displaytitle spacing, begin summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 8 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Title\|Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}}		{{Title\|Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}}{{DISPLAYTITLE:diSessa & Cobb (2004)}}
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:diSessa & Cobb (2004)}}
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	The article ''Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments'' was written by [[Andrea diSessa]] and [[Paul Cobb]] and published in the ''[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]]'' in 2004. The article is available from Taylor & Francis Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.		The article ''Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments'' was written by [[Andrea diSessa]] and [[Paul Cobb]] and published in the ''[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]]'' in 2004. The article is available from Taylor & Francis Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Outline of Headings */

2013-11-08T19:12:37Z

Outline of Headings

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 8 November 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:
	** Domain Specific Instructional Theories		** Domain Specific Instructional Theories
	* Ontological Innovation		* Ontological Innovation
	* Case Study I: Meta-Representational Competence		* Case Study 1: Meta-Representational Competence
	** Opportunistic Research, Retrospective Analysis, and Discovery		** Opportunistic Research, Retrospective Analysis, and Discovery
	** Ontological Innovation: Meta-Representational Competence		** Ontological Innovation: Meta-Representational Competence
Line 29:		Line 29:
	** Reflection		** Reflection
	* Conclusion		* Conclusion


	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: added outline

2013-11-08T19:07:21Z

added outline

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 8 November 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:

	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.		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.

			== Outline of Headings ==

			* The Importance of Theory
			* Characterizing "Theory" for Design Studies
			** Grand Theories
			** Orienting Frameworks
			** Frameworks for Action
			** Domain Specific Instructional Theories
			* Ontological Innovation
			* Case Study I: Meta-Representational Competence
			** Opportunistic Research, Retrospective Analysis, and Discovery
			** Ontological Innovation: Meta-Representational Competence
			** Refinement, Iteration, and Extension
			** Synthesis and Extension
			* Case Study 2: Sociomathematical Norms
			** Opportunistic Research, Reorientation, and Retrospective Analysis
			** Ontological Innovation: Sociomathematical Norms
			** Intervention, Iteration, and Refinement
			** Synthesis and Extension
			** Reflection
			* Conclusion


	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Also */ blog post link

2013-11-08T18:46:48Z

Also: blog post link

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 8 November 2013
Line 11:		Line 11:

	* [[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{PAGENAME}}\|Pages linking here]]		* [[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{PAGENAME}}\|Pages linking here]]
			* [http://www.personal.psu.edu/lxw230/blogs/chunpennstate/2010/10/disessa-cobb-ontological-innovation-and-the-role-of-theory-in-design-experiments.html Blog post] by Li-Chun Wang

	=== APA ===		=== APA ===

imported>Raymond Johnson: displaytitle

2013-11-08T18:44:13Z

displaytitle

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 8 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Title\|Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}}		{{Title\|Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}}
			{{DISPLAYTITLE:diSessa & Cobb (2004)}}
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	The article ''Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments'' was written by [[Andrea diSessa]] and [[Paul Cobb]] and published in the ''[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]]'' in 2004. The article is available from Taylor & Francis Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.		The article ''Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments'' was written by [[Andrea diSessa]] and [[Paul Cobb]] and published in the ''[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]]'' in 2004. The article is available from Taylor & Francis Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.

imported>Raymond Johnson: new page

2013-11-08T18:40:24Z

new page

New page

{{Title|Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments}}
__NOTOC__
The article ''Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments'' was written by [[Andrea diSessa]] and [[Paul Cobb]] and published in the ''[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]]'' in 2004. The article is available from Taylor & Francis Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.

== Abstract ==

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.

== Also ==

* [[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{PAGENAME}}|Pages linking here]]

=== APA ===

diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. ''Journal of the Learning Sciences'', 13(1), 77–103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4

=== BibTeX ===

<pre>
@article{DiSessa2004,
author = {DiSessa, Andrea A. and Cobb, Paul},
doi = {10.1207/s15327809jls1301\_4},
journal = {Journal of the Learning Sciences},
number = {1},
pages = {77--103},
title = {{Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments}},
url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls1301\_4},
volume = {13},
year = {2004}
}
</pre>

[[Category:Journal Articles]]
[[Category:Journal of the Learning Sciences]]
[[Category:2004]]
[[Category:Design Research]]