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

Research Article

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.

Notes

Funding

This project received no external funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gitlin, A. (2014). Power and method: Political activism and educational research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Howe, K. R. (1998). The interpretive turn and the new debate in education. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kane, T. J. (2016). Connecting to practice: How we can put educational research to work. Education Next, 16(2), 80–87.Google Scholar
  23. Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  25. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research. Educational Broadcasting, 2, 6–15.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips, D. C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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/
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon (5th ed.). Montgomery: International Distance Education Certification Center.Google Scholar
  43. Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Selwyn, N. (2013). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stallard, C. K., & Cocker, J. (2014). Education technology and the failure of American schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. West, D. M. (2013). Digital schools: How technology can transform education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning, Design and Technology, College of EducationThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, College of EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations