Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Re-envisioning instructional technology research in higher education environments: a content analysis of a grant program

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the field of instructional technology, scholars have long worked to define the scope and purpose of research and its role in informing practice. Increasingly, researchers outside of the instructional technology field are conducting studies to examine their use of technology in educational contexts. Few studies have been done on how researchers in other disciplines are designing such studies. We conducted a content analysis of 60 proposals submitted from 2006 to 2010 to our internal grant competition for faculty research on instructional technology to better understand the kinds of studies being proposed. Categories explored within each proposal included academic discipline, collaboration, knowledge of previous literature, context, goals of study, and research design. A majority of proposals came from outside of the education field and were submitted by individuals rather than collaborative teams. Just under half of the proposals cited previous literature to justify their study, and just over half sought to examine classroom contexts. Roughly a third proposed to study distance education contexts. Most proposals were to examine the implementation of a new instructional strategy (rather than to conduct a media comparison study) and just over half utilized a quantitative research design collecting performance or satisfaction data. We include recommendations for those who may be interested in how better to support researchers in designing effective studies to investigate instructional technology use, highlighting the use of design-based research as a viable methodology.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aspelmeier, J. E., & Pierce, T. W. (2009). SPSS: A user-friendly approach. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

    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 

  • Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekele, T. A., & Menchaca, M. P. (2008). Research on internet-supported learning: A review. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 373–405.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., Kale, U., & Kim, N. (2007). Past research in instructional technology: Results of a content analysis of empirical studies published in three prominent instructional technology journals from the year 2000 through 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, N., Sullivan, H., Harper-Marinick, M., & Lopez, C. (1989). Perspectives on educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(1), 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S., & Keller, C. (2007a). An examination of research approaches that underlie research on educational technology: A review from 2000 to 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S., & Keller, C. (2007b). Computer-mediated communication in education: A review of recent research. Educational Media International, 44(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, P.-H., Hsieh, Y.-P., Chung, W.-H., Acee, T., Thoman, G. D., Kim, H.-J., et al. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 523–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. A., Hoadley, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2005). Instructional systems design and the learning sciences: A citation analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D. J. (1997). ETR&D-Development: An analysis of content and survey of future direction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1994a). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1994b). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2010). The implications of the differences between design research and instructional systems design for educational technology researchers and practitioners. Educational Media International, 47(4), 263–275.

    Article  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). Anaheim, CA.

  • Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., 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 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1021–1043). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., Hannafin, R. D., Young, M., van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., et al. (2008). Research designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 715–761). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L. & Szabo, M. (2002). A content analysis of The Journal of Distance Education, 1986–2001. The Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 63–74. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/185/115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., et al. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: A Stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers & Education, 51, 955–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What’s wrong with media comparison studies? Educational Technology, 31(4), 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnick, B. R., & Burbules, N. C. (2007). Media comparison studies: Problems and possibilities. Teachers College Record, 109(11), 2483–2510.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, W. I. (2008). “A chimera of sorts”: Rethinking educational technology grant programs, courseware innovation, and the language of educational change. Computers & Education, 51, 1184–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, 1122 Volunteer Blvd, BEC515, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Trena M. Paulus

  2. Teaching and Technology Center, Aiken Technical College, P.O. Box 696, Aiken, SC, 29802, USA

    Gina Phipps

  3. Carter and Moyers School of Education, Lincoln Memorial University, 125 Cedar Bluff, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway, Harrogate, TN, 37752, USA

    John Harrison

  4. Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, 1122 Volunteer Blvd, BEC535, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Mary Alice Varga

Authors
  1. Trena M. Paulus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gina Phipps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary Alice Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trena M. Paulus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paulus, T.M., Phipps, G., Harrison, J. et al. Re-envisioning instructional technology research in higher education environments: a content analysis of a grant program. J Comput High Educ 24, 164–181 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-012-9062-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-012-9062-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation