Abstract
This article presents the genesis, architecture, and empirical impact of the Transdisciplinary Design-Research Ecology (EIDT), an original methodology developed to overcome the structural dichotomy between critical social research and technical educational research in the public secondary chemistry classroom in Bogotá, radically disrupted by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). Objective: To present the epistemological foundations, the six-phase methodological framework, and the empirical findings of EIDT as an original methodological framework for research on complex educational systems in the algorithmic era. Methodology: The EIDT emerged from a doctoral study situated in the chemistry classroom of two district educational institutions (IED) in Bogotá, Colombia (localities 4 and 15), where initial diagnostics revealed three structural crises: unidisciplinary blindness, a sociotechnological equity gap, and the uncritical adoption of generative tools in chemistry teaching and learning processes. The study involved 100 students from the upper secondary cycle (grades 10 and 11), six natural sciences teacher co-researchers, four school administrators, and eleven women from the Manzanas del Cuidado adult education program, during March–October 2025. The EIDT dialectically integrates Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Design-Based Research (DBR) under Nicolescu's (1994) logic of the Included Third, deploying six recursive morphogenesis phases, epistemic vigilance mechanisms within the Cyber-Space-Time (CET), and an Uncertainty Management Matrix. Results: Evaluation through pre/post scales and analytical rubrics (N=100) confirms the model's ecological relevance: 78% of students overcame algorithmic subordination, 90% achieved high epistemic criticality, and 89% integrated chemistry, ecology, and ethics in territorial socio-environmental challenges. Conclusions: It is concluded that the EIDT constitutes an original methodological contribution to educational research in complex, algorithmically disrupted environments, demonstrating that the method itself can be as recursive, adaptive, and contextually situated as the system it investigates.
References
Acero, C., González, M., & Santamaría, R. (2025). Journey through the MILtiverse: Toolkit for youth organizations. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.58338/FVKH3606
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2022). ATLAS.ti 22 [Software informático]. https://atlasti.com
Bachelard, G. (2000). La formación del espíritu científico (23.ª ed.). Siglo XXI.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? En Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Blonder, R., & Feldman-Maggor, Y. (2024). Generative AI in chemistry education: Cultural biases and pedagogical implications. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(8), 3201–3210. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00311
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Carrizo, L., Prieto, M., & Klein, J. T. (2003). Transdisciplinariedad y complejidad en el análisis social. UNESCO-MOST.
Chen, B. (2025). Generative AI as epistemic infrastructure: Implications for human epistemic agency in education. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10478-9
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., Chan, J., Poulton, P., & Searchfield, C. (2014). Collaborative inquiry for learning in education: Unpacking the research-practice relationship. McGill Journal of Education, 49(3), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.7202/1029328ar
Delgado, C. J., & Sotolongo, P. L. (2006). La revolución contemporánea del saber y la complejidad social. CLACSO.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
Fals Borda, O. (1985). Conocimiento y poder popular: Lecciones con campesinos de Nicaragua, México y Colombia. Siglo XXI.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt. 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). El quark y el jaguar: Aventuras en lo simple y lo complejo. Tusquets.
Gonfiantini, V. (2023). Complexity and transdisciplinarity in educational research. Springer.
Herrera Robles, J. A. (2025). Reconfiguración del aula de química como sistema reflexivo desde el pensamiento complejo y el ágora tecnoeducativa [Tesis doctoral en proceso]. Multiversidad Mundo Real Edgar Morin.
Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2014). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. En N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 549–603). SAGE.
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A., & Braunstein, I. M. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Maldonado, C. E. (2024). Inteligencia artificial y ética. Universidad El Bosque.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. D. Reidel.
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
Morin, E. (1999a). Los siete saberes necesarios para la educación del futuro. UNESCO.
Morin, E. (1999b). La cabeza bien puesta: Repensar la reforma, reformar el pensamiento. Nueva Visión.
Nicolescu, B. (1994). La transdisciplinariedad: Una nueva visión del mundo. Multiversidad Mundo Real Edgar Morin.
Popper, K. (1980). La lógica de la investigación científica. Tecnos.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). SAGE.
UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2025). Media and information literacy: Global standards for MIL practitioners. UNESCO.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
Yuriev, E., Wink, M., & Holme, T. A. (2024). Generative AI in chemistry education: From personalised learning to ethical pedagogy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00225J
Zapata, G., & Rondán, V. (2016). Investigación-acción participativa: Guía metodológica. Instituto de Montaña

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

