Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014)

Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of educational technology research with specific emphasis on determining how the research goals pursued and methods used have evolved over the 25-year period from 1989 through 2014. For this study, the contents of the Educational Technology Research and Development journal were analyzed over two six-year periods, first from 1989 to 1994 and second from 2009 to 2014, to identify the goals and methods of the studies specifically designated in the journal as “research papers.” Results indicate trends in the goals and methods employed in educational technology research that have implications for future research directions as well as for the preparation of graduate students and early career scholars to conduct educational technology research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baydas, O., Kucuk, S., Yilmaz, R.M., Aydemir, M., & Goktas, Y. (2015). Educational technology research trends from 2002 to 2014. Scientometrics, Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/journal/11192

  • Bulfin, S., Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Methodological capacity within the field of “educational technology” research: An initial investigation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilesiz, S., & Spector, J. M. (2014). The philosophy of science and educational technology research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 875–884). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, C. N. (2012). Now you see it: How technology and brain science will transform schools and business for the 21st century. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A. (2011). A critical-realist response to the postmodern agenda in instructional design and technology: A way forward. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 799–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & Pierre, E. A. S. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitlin, A. (2014). Power and method: Political activism and educational research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Quality of abstracts in articles submitted to a scholarly journal: A mixed methods case study of the journal Research in the Schools. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., & Betts, L. (2009). Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2010–2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (1991). Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, K. R. (1998). The interpretive turn and the new debate in education. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y. C., Hung, J. L., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: More than a decade of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 685–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T. J. (2016). Connecting to practice: How we can put educational research to work. Education Next, 16(2), 80–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research. Educational Broadcasting, 2, 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, R. G., & Allen-Brown, V. (1996). Critical theory and educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 226–252). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27(5), 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2014). Fostering relevant research on educational communications and technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 909–918). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research. In N. L. Enschede (Ed), The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO). Downloadable from http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/

  • 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 (pp. 459–470). Anaheim: Research and Theory Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Reorienting educational technology research from things to problems. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., & Knezek, G. A. (2003). New millennium research for educational technology: A call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 60–71.

    Article  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 

  • Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon (5th ed.). Montgomery: International Distance Education Certification Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2013). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.). (2014a). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (2014b). Epilogue. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 919–924). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stallard, C. K., & Cocker, J. (2014). Education technology and the failure of American schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Colorado Springs: Createspace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Duit, R. (2014). Paradigms in science education research. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, D. M. (2013). Digital schools: How technology can transform education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2014). An analysis of a decade of research in 10 instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 987–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeaman, A. R. J., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J. H., Damarin, S. K., & Muffoletto, R. (1996). Postmodern and poststructuralist theory. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 253–295). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaugg, H., Amado, M., & Small, T. (2011). Educational technology research journals: Educational technology research and development, 2001–2010. Educational Technology, 51(5), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas C. Reeves.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reeves, T.C., Oh, E.G. The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Education Tech Research Dev 65, 325–339 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1

Keywords

Navigation