Advertisement

The Philosophy of Science and Educational Technology Research

  • Sebnem Cilesiz
  • J. Michael Spector
Chapter

Abstract

Educational technology—the study and practice of using technology to support learning and instruction—is influenced by developments in various fields such as cognitive science, information and communications technologies, and psychology. To address the broad range of questions that make up the domain of educational technology research, a variety of approaches to scientific research are relevant. To facilitate the pursuit of a diverse research agenda relying on various approaches, we discuss scientific research in the domain of educational technology, present three philosophical approaches to scientific research that are relevant to educational technology research (namely, postpositivism, constructivism, and phenomenology) along with examples, and then discuss the larger landscape of approaches to scientific inquiry. With this, we aim to contribute to expanding the domain and diversity of scientific approaches within the discipline of educational technology, thereby informing and improving subsequent educational technology research.

Keywords

Constructivist epistemology Philosophy of science Scientific inquiry Phenomenology Postpositivist science Research paradigms 

References

  1. AERA. (2008). Definition of scientifically based research. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.aera.net/uploadedfiles/opportunities/definitionofscientificallybasedresearch.pdf.
  2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cilesiz, S. (2009). Educational computer use in leisure contexts: A phenomenological study of adolescents’ experiences at Internet cafes. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 232–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59, 487–510.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170–200). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Duschi, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (Eds.) (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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, 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagné, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction, (4th ed.), New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hlynka, D. (2004). Postmodernism in educational technology: Update: 1996–2002. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 243–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Howard, D. (1994). Human-computer interactions: A phenomenological examination of the adult first-time computer experience. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howe, K. R. (2009). Positivist dogmas, rhetoric, and the education science question. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 428–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Husserl, E. (1969). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. B. Gibson, Trans. 5th ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Husserl, E. (1970a). The Crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Husserl, E. (1970b). Logical investigations (J. N. Findlay, Trans. Vol. 1 & 2). New York: Humanities PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Husserl, E. (1982). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  21. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, C., Keller, J. M., & Baylor, A. L. (2007). Effects of motivational and volitional messages on attitudes toward engineering: Comparing text messages with animated messages delivered by a pedagogical agent. In D. Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International conference of cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (CELDA) (pp. 317–320). Algarve, Portugal: IADIS press.Google Scholar
  23. Koetting, J. R., & Malisa, M. (2004). Philosophy, research, and education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1009–1020). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mazur, J. M. (2004). Conversation analysis for educational technologists. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1073–1098). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. *Nagel, E. (1994). Introduction: Philosophy in educational research. In S. R. Sharma (Ed.), Encyclopedia of modern educational research (pp. 1–16). New Delhi, India: Anmol Publications.Google Scholar
  27. 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 (1st ed., pp. 226–252). Retrieved January 22, 2012, from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/pdf/09.pdf
  28. NSF (2012). Definitions of research and development: An annotated compilation of official resources. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/fedgov.cfm.
  29. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piaget, J. (1950). Introduction à la épistémologie génétique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  32. Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., Hannafin, R. D., Young, M., van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., et al. (2007). Research designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 715–761). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (2004). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1045–1071). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Schuh, K. L., & Barab, S. A. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 67–82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. *Scriven, M. (1960). The methodology of educational research. Review of Educational Research, 30(5), 422–429.Google Scholar
  38. Sheehan, M. D., & Johnson, R. B. (2011). Philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional design faculty and professionals. Educational Technology Research & Development, published online 13 Oct 2011, DOI: 2010.1007/s11423-11011-19220-11427.Google Scholar
  39. Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a postmodern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spector, J. M. (2007). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 21–28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. *Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (Eds.) (2008). Special issue: Effective, efficient and engaging (E3) learning in the digital age. Distance Education, 29(2).Google Scholar
  43. Spector, J. M., Polson, M. C., & Muraida, D. J. (1993). Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  44. *Suppes, P. (1978). Impact of research on education: Some case studies. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Yeaman, A. R. J., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J. H., Damarin, S. K., & Muffoletto, R. (1996). Postmodern and poststructuralist theory. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (1st ed., pp. 253–295).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Learning Technologies, College of InformationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations