Abstract
It is generally believed that new PhD graduates begin their first faculty positions having already outlined a research agenda that will guide their work during the next several years of their careers. Yet very little guidance is provided regarding how to accomplish this important task. In fact, little explanation is provided about what, exactly, a research agenda is. In this paper, we define a research agenda and discuss why it is important for scholars to establish one. We discuss how strong research questions provide the foundation for a strong research agenda and provide specific ideas for articulating one’s contributions to the field. We end with some primary considerations involved in accomplishing this important task, including suggestions for how to determine your specific focus, interest, community, and context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79–100. doi:10.1007/BF02319859.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer.
Cates, W. (2013). Personal communication.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Using rich media wisely. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 309–320). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1/2), 54–72.
Ertmer, P. A., Glazewski, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., et al. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced PBL in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 35–54.
Ertmer, P.A., Koehler, A. (2013). Examining student engagement in the problem space afforded by case-based discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59, 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Designing effective question prompts to facilitate critical thinking in online discussions. International Journal of Design Principles and Practices, 5(4), 1–28.
Glazewski, K.D., Shuster, M., Brush, T., Ellis, A. (in press). Conexiones: Fostering socioscientific inquiry in graduate teacher preparation. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning.
Hmelo, C. E. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173–208.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Barrows, H.S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning faciliatator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1004.
Hora, M. T., & Holden, J. (2013). Exploring the role of instructional technology in course planning and classroom teaching: Implications for pedagogical reform. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 68–92. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9068-4.
Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1–10.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282.
Kim, M., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.
Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2013). Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a distance course: Integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25, 93–121. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9069-3.
Lane, C. A., & Lyle, H. F., III (2011). Obstacles and supports related to the use of educational technologies: The role of technological expertise, gender, and age. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 38–59. doi:10.1007/s12528-010-9034-3.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2003). Theories of learning and their application to technology. In H.F.O’Neil Jr. & Perez, R.S. (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 127–157). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Medawar, P. B. (1979). Advice to a young scientist. New York: Harper and Row.
Munger, M. (2013). Writing a dissertation and creating your research agenda. Liberty Guide Newsletter. http://www.libertyguide.com/resources/writing-your-dissertation-and-creating-your-research-agenda/.
National Foundation for Educational Research (2002–2013). Developing young researchers: How to design a robust research project. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/schools/developing-young-researchers/how-to-design-a-robust-research-project.cfm.
Reedy, J., Murty, M. (no date). Creating a research agenda. In Mentor Memo—An occasional newsletter for the University of Washington graduate students. http://www.grad.washington.edu/mentoring/memos/research-agenda.shtml.
Rowland, G. (2013). Innovation over the edge: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology, 53(5), 3–7.
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. doi:10.1007/BF02505026.
Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2004). Scaffolding problem-based teaching in a traditional social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(3), 349–378. doi:10.1080/00933104.2004.10473259.
Varela, O. E., Carter, J. J., III, & Michael, N. (2012). Online learning in management education: An empirical study of the role of personality traits. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24, 209–225. doi:10.1007/s12528-012-9059-x.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ertmer, P.A., Glazewski, K.D. Developing a research agenda: contributing new knowledge via intent and focus. J Comput High Educ 26, 54–68 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9076-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9076-4