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

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, access via your institution.

References

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Funding

This project received no external funding.

Author information

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

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

Keywords

  • Educational Technology
  • Research Goal
  • Research Section
  • Educational Technology Research
  • Integrative Literature Review