finally getting back around to this,
Steve, can we agree the author is calling for action research?
"For researchers who adopt this point of view, design-based interventions would make the most sense. Here researchers and practitioners work together to identify the problem that they would investigate, come up with hypotheses, design the intervention and then implement it. Collecting and then analyzing data on the intervention and its outcomes in actual classrooms and then teachers decide whether to put into practice the results means that the research is process-driven"
however the failure of the research model ISN'T the takeaway I would like to highlight.
its this one
"... These researchers have designed studies that have compared films, instructional television, and now computers to traditional instruction in order to determine to what degree the technology has shown that teachers are more efficient and effective in their teaching and students learn more, faster, and better. Such studies have been dominant in IT research in the U.S. for over a half-century "with the most frequent result being 'no significant difference.;"
I think Steve's point is that the research needs to be directing the teaching.
My point ISN'T that the researchers need to be active and embedded participants (the author's point) the point is that the "real" research shows technology to be ineffective at improving outcomes.
... They are more interested in refining the innovation, adapting it to the contours of actual schools and classrooms rather than evaluating the success of the technology ...