Trends and Issues in Qualitative Research Methods

  • Marcia A. Mardis
  • Ellen S. Hoffman
  • Peter J. Rich


In the almost two decades since the first AECT Handbook article on qualitative research debates about research philosophy, design, and purposes have led to clashes of opinion in the field of educational communications and technology as well as in the larger sphere of educational research. At the same time, the number of publications on qualitative methods specific to the field has increased, expanding the understanding of the potential of such approaches to explore, describe, and explicate key issues in instructional design and the application of technology to learning. While other chapters have included examples of qualitative studies related to specific disciplinary topics, this chapter focuses on trends in the use of qualitative research design and emerging approaches more generally. Within this framework, issues of design, methods, and knowledge generation are reviewed and examined through a sample of recent directions in qualitative studies and designs. For each method reviewed, examples are provided along with common issues and potential directions for future use of these.


Qualitative research Interpretive tradition Case study Ethnography Discourse analysis Cooperative inquiry Grounded theory Research quality 


  1. Åkerlind, G. S. (2007) Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher – Variation in meaning, Studies in Higher Education, 32, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Åkerlind, G. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics’ understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 633–644. doi: 10.1080/13562510802452350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40. Retrieved from
  4. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1. Retrieved from
  7. Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188–196. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arshad-Ayaz, A. (2010). Of mice and men: Educational technology in Pakistan’s public school system. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 5(2), 5–23. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  9. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2006). In the roiling smoke: Qualitative inquiry and contested fields. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 747–755. doi: 10.1080/09518390600975974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Axtell, K., Chaffing, A. J., Aberasturi, S., Paone, T., & Maddux, C. (2007). Writing for publication: An analysis of 591 articles in five journals dealing with information technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Backman, K., & Kyngäs, H. A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing & Health Sciences, 1(3), 147–153. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2018.1999.00019.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2007). 2007 Wallace Foundation ­distinguished lecture – What makes education research “educational”? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529–540. doi: 10.3102/0013189x07312896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., & Newell, M. (2004). Critical design ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254–268. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.2.254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barg, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. Fiske, G. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 268–316). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Barusch, A., Gringeri, C., & George, M. (2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35(1), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Beabout, B., & Carr- Chellman, A. A. (2007). Change Agentry. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, M. Driscoll & J. Van Merrienboer (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 619–632). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9144-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455–476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bengston, J. K., & Marshik, T. T. (2007). An ecological study of intersubjectivity and the opening of closed minds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). What makes a good case study? A positivist review of qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971–2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., & Guest, G. (2003). An ethnographic approach to design. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging application (pp. 964–986). Mahway, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Bos, N., Karahalios, K., Musgrove-Chavez, M., Poole, E. S., Thomas, J. C., & Yardi, S. (2009). Research ethics in the Facebook era: Privacy, anonymity, and oversight. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2767–2770). Boston, MA: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Bossen, C. (2002). Ethnography in design: Tool-kit or analytic science? Proceedings of Participation and Design Conference 2003 (pp. 338–343). Malmo, Sweden. Retrieved from
  26. Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic research process. In Qualitative research methods: Doing developmental phenomenography. Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Brown, S. (2009). Navigating an English-only classroom: Multiple identities in a primary writer. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 44(1), 10. Retrieved from Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  29. Bruce, C., Stoodley, I., & Pham, B. (2009). Doctoral students’ experience of information technology research. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 203–221. doi: 10.1080/03075070802556131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22. doi: 10.1177/2345678906290531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bryman, A. (2008). Of methods and methodology. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 3(2), 159–168. doi: 10.1108/17465640810900568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Buchanan, D. A., & Bryman, A. (2007). Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 483–501. doi: 10.1177/1094428106295046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1–13. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  35. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Chenail, R. J. (2010). Getting specific about qualitative research generalizability. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 5, 1–11. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  37. Chenail, R. J., Duffy, M., St. George, S., & Wulff, D. (2011). Facilitating coherence across qualitative research papers. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 263–275. Retrieved from
  38. Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487–510. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9173-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Clandinin, D. J., Pushor, D., & Orr, A. M. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 21. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Clarke, M. (2009). The discursive construction of interpersonal relations in an online community of practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2333–2344. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Teacher research and research on teaching: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Collier-Reed, B. I., Case, J. M., & Linder, C. (2009). The experience of interacting with technological artefacts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 295–303. doi: 10.1080/03043790902987352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Collingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5), 389–395. doi: 10.1177/1062860608320646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis (Volume 12 of social research and educational studies series reprintth ed., p. 162). London: Psychology Press. Retrieved from Google Books.Google Scholar
  47. Corwin, J. R., & Cintrón, R. (2011). Social networking phenomena in the first-year experience. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(1). Retrieved from Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  48. Coryell, J. E., & Clark, M. C. (2009). One right way, intercultural participation, and language learning anxiety: A qualitative analysis of adult online heritage and nonheritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 483–504. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Craig, C. J. (2009). The contested classroom space: A decade of lived educational policy in Texas schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1034. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Crawford, P., Brown, B., & Majomi, P. (2008). Professional identity in community mental health nursing: A thematic analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(7), 1055–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. *Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  53. Cunningham, P. J., Felland, L. E., Ginsburg, P. B., & Pham, H. H. (2011). Qualitative methods: A crucial tool for understanding changes in health systems and health care delivery. Medical Care Research and Review, 68(1), 34–40. doi: 10.1177/1077558710385468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Czerniewicz, L. (2008). Distinguishing the field of educational technology. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(3), 171–178. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  55. Dalton, D., Hannafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24. doi: 10.1007/bf02298287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  57. Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 1–52. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  58. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 483–97. doi: 10.1177/0022219408321151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers in Education, 46(1), 6–28. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205–219. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 139–160. doi: 10.1177/1468794108098034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419–427. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. *Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 1–43). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ ­ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189x08331140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Díaz Andrade, A. (2009). Interpretive research aiming at theory building: Adopting and adapting the case study design. The Qualitative Report, 14(1), 42–60. Retrieved from
  67. Dickey, M. D. (2011). Murder on Grimm Isle: The impact of game narrative design in an educational game-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 456–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01032.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Dodge, T., Barab, S., Stuckey, B., Warren, S., Heiselt, C., & Stein, R. (2008). Children’s sense of self: Learning and meaning in the digital age. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 225–249.Google Scholar
  69. Donaldson, S. I. (2009). In search of the blueprint for an evidence-based global society. In S. I. Donaldson, C. A. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 2–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Donnelly, R. (2010). Interaction analysis in a “learning by doing” problem-based professional development context. Computers in Education, 55(3), 1357–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Druin, A. (2005). What children can teach us: Developing digital libraries for children. Library Quarterly, 75(1), 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Druin, A. (2010). Children as codesigners of new technologies: Valuing the imagination to transform what is possible. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(128), 35–43. doi: 10.1002/yd.373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Duncan, S. C. (2010). Gamers as designers: A framework for investigating design in game affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 21–34. doi: 0.2304/elea.2010.7.1.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2008). Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 419–429. doi: 10.1177/1094428108315858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Eisenhart, M. (2006). Qualitative science in experimental time. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 697–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Epstein, J. L. (2007). Connections count: Improving family and community involvement in secondary schools. Principal Leadership, 8(2), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community Partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23. doi: 10.3102/0013189x035005014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ertmer, P., Donald, S., Cindy, Y., Ann, S., Xuemei, W., Stacey, Z., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.Google Scholar
  82. Evers, J. C. (2011). From the past into the future: How technological developments change our ways of data collection, transcription and analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Article 38. Retrieved from
  83. Eynon, R., Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. (2009). New techniques in online research: Challenges for research ethics. Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 4(2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Fielding, N. (2005). The resurgence, legitimation and institutionalization of qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Article 32. Retrieved from
  85. Fielding, N. (2010). Elephants, gold standards and applied qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 123–127. doi: 10.1177/1468794109348687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Forsyth, D. R., Story, P. A., Kelley, K. N., & McMillan, J. H. (2009). What causes failure and success? Students perceptions of their academic outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 12(2), 157–174. doi: 10.1007/s11218-008-9078-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Fox, K. (2008). Rethinking experience: What do we mean by this word “experience”? Journal of Experiential Education, 31(1), 36–54. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32. doi:  10.3102/0013189x06298009
  90. Frie, R. (2010). A hermeneutics of exploration: The interpretive turn from binswanger to gadamer. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 30(2), 79–93. doi: 10.1037/a0021570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Games, I. A. (2010). Gamestar Mechanic: Learning a designer ­mindset through communicational competence with the language of games. Learning, Media & Technology, 35(1), 31–52. doi: 10.1080/17439880903567774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the Internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 52–84. doi: 10.1177/0891241607310839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Gardner, J., & Galanouli, D. (2004). Research into information and communications technology in education: Disciplined inquiries for telling stories better. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(2), 147–161. doi: 10.1080/14759390400200177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. *Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  96. Gergen, M. (2004). Once upon a time: A narratoligist’s tale. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 267–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  97. Ghislandi, P., Calidoni, P., Falcinelli, F., & Scurati, C. (2008). E-university: A cross-case study in four Italian universities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 443–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00840.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737. doi: 10.1177/1094428109351319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Gibson, W. (2009). Negotiating textual talk: Conversation analysis, pedagogy and the organisation of online asynchronous discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 35(5), 705–721. doi: 10.1080/01411920802688754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for virtual worlds: A communal constructivism case study. Computers in Education, 55(1), 342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23–38. Retrieved from
  102. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  103. Gonzalez, C. (2010). What do university teachers think elearning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 61–78. doi: 10.1080/03075070902874632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Gorard, S. (2002). Fostering acepticism: The importance of warranting claims. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(3), 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2006). Combining numbers with narratives. Evaluation & Research in Education, 19(2), 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22. doi: 10.1177/1558689807309969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09336671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Guha, M. L.,* Druin, A., & Fails, J.,* (2010). Investigating the impact of design processes on children. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (IDC’2010), Barcelona, Spain, 198–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Haggis, T. (2008). “Knowledge must be contextual”: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 40(1), 158–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00403.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Hallett, F. (2010). The postgraduate student experience of study support: A phenomenographic analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 35(2), 225–238. doi: 10.1080/03075070903134234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Hammersley, M. (2000). The relevance of qualitative research. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4), 393–405. doi: 10.1080/3054980020001909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Hammersley, M. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms? Discourse & Society, 14(6), 751–781. doi: 10.1177/09579265030146004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Hammersley, M. (2005). What can the literature on communities of practice tell us about educational research? Reflections on some recent proposals. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(1), 5–21. doi: 10.1080/01406720500036653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education, 1(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. *Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  116. Hammersley, M. (2010). Reproducing or constructing? Some questions about transcription in social research. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 553–569. doi: 10.1177/1468794110375230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography principles in practice (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  118. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and ­repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Herring, S. C. (2004a). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338–376). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Herring, S. C. (2004b). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36. doi: 10.1177/1461444804039906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Herring, S. C. (2008). Language and the Internet. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 2640–2645). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  122. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of emergent methods. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  123. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Hirumi, A. (2009). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned e-learning interactions In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. R. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 201–227). Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  125. Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring research on Internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd. ed., pp. 51–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding: Research on collaborative learning in computer-supported environments. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 460–464. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00832.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Hong, S., & Jung, I. (2011). The distance learner competencies: A three-phased empirical approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 21–42. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9164-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Horn, J. (2008). Human research and complexity theory. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 40(1), 130–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00395.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Hrastinski, S., & Keller, C. (2007). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Humphreys, M. (2006). Teaching qualitative research methods: I’m beginning to see the light. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 1(3), 173–188. doi: 10.1108/17465640610718770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Ingerman, Å., Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2009). The learners’ experience of variation: Following students’ threads of learning physics in computer simulation sessions. Instructional Science, 37, 273–292. Retrieved from Scholar
  133. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). An overview of CSCL methodologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 921–928). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  134. Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Aksela, M., & Meisalo, V. (2009). Adoption of ICT in science sducation: A case study of communication channels in a teachers’ professional development project. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(2), 103–118. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  135. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  136. Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2010). “Whose inquiry is this anyway?” Money, power, reports, and collaborative inquiry. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(4), 315-338. doi: 10.1177/0741713609347367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Khan, S. (2008). The case in case-based design of educational software: A methodological interrogation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 423–447. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9028-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Kim, H. K., & Bateman, B. (2010). Student participation patterns in online discussion: Incorporating constructivist discussion into online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(1), 79–98.Google Scholar
  139. Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2010). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4.
  140. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research Is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Kline, W. B. (2008). Developing and submitting credible qualitative manuscripts. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47(4), 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687–699. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09351980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Kovari, V., Hicks, T., Ferlazzo, L., McGarvey, C., Ochs, M., Alcantara, L., & Yorks, L. (2004). Leaders as lead learners. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  145. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (Vol. 2, illustrated ed., p. 354). SAGE. Retrieved from Google Books.Google Scholar
  146. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. United States of America: Yale University.Google Scholar
  147. Langellier, K. M. (2003). Personal narrative, performance, performativity: Two or three things I know for sure. In Y. Lincoln & N. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  148. Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2009). Preparing instructional designers for different career environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9031-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 25–38. doi: 10.1080/17437270902759931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Lawson, T., & Comber, C. (2010). Videoconferencing in English schools: One technology, many pedagogies? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 315–326. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.513764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Lee, M. M. (2010). ‘We are so over pharaohs and pyramids!’ Re-presenting the othered lives with young people through an ­international studies program. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 23(6), 737–754. doi: 10.1080/09518390903362359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587–604. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70–84. doi: 10.1037/a0022711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Lewis, J. (2009). Redefining qualitative methods: Believability in the fifth moment. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  156. Liang, N., & Lin, S. (2008). Erroneous learning from the west? A narrative analysis of Chinese MBA cases published in 1992, 1999 and 2003. Management International Review, 48(5), 603–638. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188–202. Retrieved from
  158. Lin, E., Wang, J., Klecka, C. L., Odell, S. J., & Spalding, E. (2010). Judging research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 295–301. doi: 10.1177/0022487110374013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 3–9. doi: 10.1177/1077800409349754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2007). NCLB and scientifically-based research: Opportunities lost and found. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 99–107. doi: 10.1177/0022487107299980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate, 3(5), Article 2. Retrieved from
  162. Lom, E., & Sullenger, K. (2011). Informal spaces in collaborations: exploring the edges/boundaries of professional development. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Luehmann, A. L. (2008). Using blogging in support of teacher ­professional identity development: A case study. [Article]. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 287–337. doi: 10.1080/10508400802192706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Lyle, E. (2009). A process of becoming: In favour of a reflexive narrative approach. The Qualitative Report, 14(2), 293–298. Retrieved from Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  166. Macdonald, M. E. (2009). Growing quality in qualitative health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 97–101.Google Scholar
  167. Maddux, C. D. (2001). Case studies – Are we rejecting rigor or rediscovering richness? Computers in the Schools, 16(2), 13–16. doi: 10.1300/J025v16n02_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Maddux, C. D. (2003). Twenty years of research in information technology in education: Assessing our progress. Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Maddux, C. D., & Cummings, R. (2004). Fad, fashion, and the weak role of theory and research in information technology in education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 511–533.Google Scholar
  170. Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2009). Information technology in education: Some reasons for optimism. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 83–88. doi: 10.1080/07380560902906179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Maggs-Rapport, F. (2001). ‘Best research practice’: In pursuit of methodological rigour. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(3), 373–383. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01853.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Mardis, M. A., Hoffman, E. S., & Marshall, T. E. (2008). A new framework for understanding educational digital library use: re-examining digital divides in U.S. schools. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 9(1), 19–27. doi:10.1007/s00799-008-0035-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  174. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. McBride, N. (2008). Using performance ethnography to explore the human aspects of software quality. Information Technology & People, 21(1), 91–111. doi: 10.1108/09593840810860342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. McDougall, A., & Jones, A. (2010). Theory and history, questions and methodology: Issues in research into information technology in education. In A. McDougall, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N. Reynolds (Eds.), Researching IT in education – Theory, practice and future directions (pp. 1–7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  177. McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1996). User centered design of hypertext and hypermedia for education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 622–633). New York, NY: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. *Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  179. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  180. Miller, C., Veletsianos, G., & Doering, A. (2008). Curriculum at forty below: A phenomenological inquiry of an educator explorer’s experiences with adventure learning in the Arctic. Distance Education, 29(3), 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  182. Mills, J., Chapman, Y., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2007). Grounded theory: A methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(1), 72–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04228.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  184. Møller, V., Theuns, P., Erstad, I., & Bernheim, J. (2008). The best and worst times of life: Narratives and assessments of subjective well-being by anamnestic comparative self assessment (ACSA) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9225-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Morris, A. K., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products: An alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 5–14. doi:10.3102/0013189x10393501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Morrison, K. (2009). Causation in educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  187. Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483–491. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  189. Naidu, S., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers in Education, 46(1), 96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Newton, P. M., & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring types of educational action research: Implications for research validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Ng’ambi, D. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of students’ anonymous online postings. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(3), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Oates, B. J. (2002). Co-operative inquiry: Reflections on practice. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 1(1), 27–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Oliver, M., & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 444–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00948.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(2), 114–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770–792.Google Scholar
  196. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). A typology of errors and myths perpetuated in educational research textbooks. Current Issues in Education, 8(7). Retrieved from
  197. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality and Quantity, 41(2), 233–249. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Ospina, S., El Hadidy, W., & Hofmann-Pinilla, A. (2008). Cooperative Inquiry for learning and connectedness. Action Learning, 5(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G. N., & Tsinakos, A. (2011). What if undergraduate students designed their own web learning environment? Exploring students’ web 2.0 mentality through participatory design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 146–159. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00382.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Pacheco, M. (2010). English-Language learners reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 292–317. doi: 10.1525/aeq.1988.19.3.05x1565e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Pan, C.-C., & Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 33–52. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  202. Park, J.-r. (2007). Interpersonal and affective communication in synchronous online discourse. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Paulus, T. M., Woodside, M., & F., Z. M. (2010). “I tell you, it’s a journey, isn’t it?” Understanding collaborative meaning making in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 852–862. doi:10.1177/1077800410383124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. *Randolph, J. J. (2008). Multidisciplinary methods in educational technology research and development. Hameenlinna, Finland: HAMK. Retrieved from
  205. Randolph, J. J., Julnes, G., & Sutinen, E. (2009). Trends, tribes, and territories in computer science education research. Journal for Computing Teachers, 1–19.Google Scholar
  206. Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139–160. Retrieved from
  207. Reason, P., & Heron, J. (2004). A layperson’s guide to co-operative inquiry. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Reedy, G. B. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 143–162. doi: 10.1080/14759390802098623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Reimers, F. (2009). Enlightening globalization: An opportunity for continuing education. Continuing Higher Education Review, 73, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 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.Google Scholar
  211. Rogers, P., Graham, C., & Mayes, C. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 197–217. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9033-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom (expanded ed.). New York: Irvington. Retrieved from JSTOR.Google Scholar
  213. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2007). Getting started in instructional technology research (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).Google Scholar
  214. 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. Retrieved from
  215. Rostvall, A.-L., & West, T. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on designing video studies of interaction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
  216. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Rymes, B. (2001). Conversational borderlands: Language and identity in an alternative urban high school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  219. *Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (1996). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1st ed., pp. 1171–1195). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  220. Schwartzman, L. (2007). Student defensiveness as a threshold to reflective learning in software design. Informatics in Education, 6(1), 197–214. Retrieved from Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  221. Seidl, B. (2007). Working with communities to explore and personalize culturally relevant pedagogies: Push, double images, and raced talk. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 168–183. doi:10.1177/0022487106297845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  223. Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Maddux, C., Sprague, D., Bull, G., & Bell, L. (2007). Research on the effectiveness of technology in schools: The roles of pedagogy and content. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 456–460.Google Scholar
  224. Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Kearney, M. (2010). Web 2.0 in the classroom? Dilemmas and opportunities inherent in adolescent Web 2.0 engagement. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 234–246.Google Scholar
  225. Seaman, J. (2008). Adopting a grounded theory approach to cultural-historical research: Conflicting methodologies or complementary methods? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 1–17. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  226. Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by ­bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00662.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Shaw, S. M., Walls, S. M., Dacy, B. S., Levin, J. R., & Robinson, D. H. (2010). A follow-up note on prescriptive statements in nonintervention research studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 982–988. doi: 10.1037/a0020924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  229. Sliwa, M. (2009). This is not the same city: Narratives of postsocialist spatial change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 650–667. doi: 10.1108/09534810910997050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Smith, J. (2009). Judging research quality: From certainty to contingency. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 1(2), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Solomon, D. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20. doi: 10.1007/bf02300497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Souto-Manning, M. (2006). A critical look at bilingualism discourse in public schools: Autoethnographic reflections of a vulnerable observer. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 19. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Spatariu, A., Quinn, L. F., & Hartley, K. (2007). A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussions quality. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51, 44–45. doi: 10.1007/s11528-007-0041-9.Google Scholar
  235. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  236. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  237. Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 119–149). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  238. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  239. Stein, S. J., Shephard, K., & Harris, I. (2011). Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 145–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00997.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Sutin, A. R., & Gillath, O. (2009). Autobiographical memory phenomenology and content mediate attachment style and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3), 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Symonds, J. E., & Gorard, S. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 121–136. doi: 10.1080/09500790.2010.483514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. Taber, N. (2010). Institutional ethnography, autoethnography, and narrative: An argument for incorporating multiple methodologies. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1177/1468794109348680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Thompson, A. D. (2005). Scientifically based research: Establishing a research agenda for the technology in teacher education community. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 331–337.Google Scholar
  245. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. Travers, M. (2009). New methods, old problems: A sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 161–179. doi: 10.1177/1468794108095079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. Triantafyllakos, G. N., Palaigeorgiou, G. E., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2008). We!Design: A student-centred participatory methodology for the design of educational applications. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 125–139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00740.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. Trigwell, K. (2006). Phenomenography: An approach to research into geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 367–372. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times. New York: Jossey-Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work. doi: 10.1177/1473325010368316.Google Scholar
  251. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Twining, P. (2010). Educational information technology research methodology: Looking back and moving forward. In A. McDougall, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N. Reynolds (Eds.), Researching IT in education – Theory, practice and future directions (pp. 153–168). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  253. Urquhart, C. (2012). Grounded theory for qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  254. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of education 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. Valcke, M., & Martens, R. (2006). The problem arena of researching computer supported collaborative learning: Introduction to the special section. Computers in Education, 46(1), 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Van Manen, M. (1995). Epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. VanWynsberghe, R., & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  258. Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38, 355–370. Retrieved from Scholar
  259. Vuojärvi, H., Isomäki, H., & Hynes, D. (2010). Domestication of a laptop on a wireless university campus: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 250–267. Retrieved from
  260. Walford, G. (2001). Doing qualitative educational research: A personal guide to the research process. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  261. Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers in Education, 55(1), 350–362. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1998). Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(3), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative eesearch, and intuitive inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  265. Whipp, J., & Lorentz, R. (2009). Cognitive and social help giving in online teaching: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 169–192. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9104-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  266. Wiles, R., Pain, H., & Crow, G. (2010). Innovation in qualitative research methods: A narrative review NCRM Working Paper: Economic and Social Research (ESRC) National Centre for Research methods. Retrieved from
  267. Williamson, A., Nodder, C., & Baker, P. (2001). Educational technology research in New Zealand: A literature review. Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ) Conference 2001 (Vol. NACCQ, pp. 169–176), Napier, New Zealand. Retrieved from
  268. *Willis, J. W. (2008). Qualitative research methods in education and educational technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  269. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  270. Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Ethnographic research in education. In C. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 155–172). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. (Reprinted from: 1997).Google Scholar
  271. Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  272. Wong, E. M. L., Li, S. S. C., Choi, T.-h., & Lee, T.-n. (2008). Insights into innovative classroom practices with ICT: Identifying the impetus for change. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 248–265. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  273. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  274. Yanchar, S., South, J., Williams, D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. Yang, M. (2008). Rethinking lifelong learning through online distance learning in Chinese educational policies, practices and research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 583–597. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00766.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  277. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  278. Yoshimura, M. (2008). Educators in American online universities: Understanding the corporate influence on higher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 295–305. doi: 10.1080/02607470802401412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. (2002). Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning. In Yorks, L. and Kasl, E. (Eds). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education no. 94 (pp. 1–11). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 405–415. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9019-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325. doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcia A. Mardis
    • 1
  • Ellen S. Hoffman
    • 2
  • Peter J. Rich
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Library and Information Studies, College of Communication & InformationFlorida State UniversityTallahasseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational TechnologyUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Instructional Psychology & TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations