Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scholars from diverse fields and research traditions agree that the conceptual framework is a critically important component of disciplined inquiry. Yet, there is a pronounced lack of shared understanding regarding the definition and functions of conceptual frameworks, which impedes our ability to design effective research and mentor novice researchers. This paper adopts John Dewey’s instrumental view of theory to discuss the prevalent definitions of a conceptual framework, outline its key functions, dispel the popular misconceptions regarding conceptual frameworks, and suggest strategies for developing effective conceptual frameworks and communicating them to the consumers of research. Examples of hypothetical and existing empirical studies in the field of educational technology are used to illustrate the analysis. It is argued in this article that conceptual frameworks should be viewed as an instrument for organizing inquiry and creating a compelling theory-based and data-driven argument for the importance of the problem, rigor of the method, and implications for further development of theory and enhancement of practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S.-Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avis, J. (2003). Work-based knowledge, evidence informed practice and education. British Journal of Education Studies, 51(4), 369–389.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., Weinberger, T., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 883–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Yu, J. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2011). Students’ confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural wiki-based collaborations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation and interpretation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 539–556.

  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. N. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Educational and Teaching International, 44(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2007). The ontology of concepts—abstract objects or mental representations? Nous, 41(4), 561–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://standards.nsta.org/AccessStandardsByTopic.aspx.

  • Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, X. A., Poon, R. C., Nunes, N. L., & Stone, E. M. (2013). Research on teacher education programs: Logic model approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 36(1), 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(3), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. R. (2004). Research on and research with emerging technologies revisited: The role of disciplined inquiry in the study of technology innovation. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. In M. R. Simonson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the association for educational communications and technology, research and theory division (pp. 459–470). CA: Anaheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T., McKenney, S., & Herrington, J. (2011). Publishing and perishing: The critical importance of educational design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangari Active Science (2013). IQWST interactive digital edition. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://sangariglobaled.com/iqwst-tablet-edition/.

  • Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, P. M., & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate theory: The missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, A., & Waite, M. (2011). Concise Oxford English Dictionary (12th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H.-N., Liang, J.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. D. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their helpful feedback on an early version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavlo D. Antonenko.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A concept map of the original conceptual framework in the Niederhauser et al. (2000) study

Appendix 2

See Fig.  3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

A concept map of the modified conceptual framework in the Niederhauser et al. (2000)) study. The differences are presented in bold font

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antonenko, P.D. The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 53–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4

Keywords

Navigation