Educational technology research approaches

Draft

--- by NO means of real interest for the moment !!

Introduction

This article will aim to give an overview on different research approaches popular in educational technology and also present some of the debates.

Research approaches

Examples of some research questions

• Foundations of the field (or of sub-fields)
• Evaluation and effects of a design
  • Pedagogical effectiveness
  • Learner time
  • Learning outcomes
  • Student perceptions (various variables)
  • Interaction with learner style
  • Teaching time (increased/decreased)
• Discussion and argumentation
  • Quality of discussion (classroom vs. on-line or various tools compared)
  • Effect of teacher presence
  • Various tutoring roles and models
• Multimedia presentation and animation effects and human information processing
• Media effect
  • The 'No Significant Difference' phenomenon: A structural analysis of research on technology enhanced instruction. (Nettles et al. 2000, Johnson et al, 2000).
  • The big media debate

Some debates

Lack of quality

Research comes under fire from very different angles

From evaluation research (in distance education [1] but also present in educational technology): ssues raised include:

• lack of experimental control
• lack of procedures for randomly selecting research participants
• lack of random assignment of participants to treatment conditions
• poorly designed dependent measures that lack reliability and validity
• failure to account for a variety of variables related to the attitudes of students and instructors.

From design-oriented research:

• See design-based research

The problem with experimental research

“Papert (1993) sums up the inadequacy of these traditional evaluation designs: "The method of controlled experimentation that evaluates an idea by implementing it, taking care to keep everything else the same, and measuring the result, may be an appropriate way to evaluate the effects of a small modification. However, it can tell us nothing about ideas that might lead to deep change" (p. 27).” (Reeves, 1997).

Links

• Thomas C. Reeves (contributed a lot to the debates).

References

• Anderson, T. & Kanuka, H. (2002). E-Research: Issues, Strategies and Methods. Allyn Bacon.

• Robert M. Bernard, Yiping Lou, Philip C. Abrami, Lori Wozney, Evgueni Borokhovski, Peter Andrew Wallet, Anne Wade & Manon Fiset. How Does Distance Education Compare to Classroom Instruction? A Meta-analysis of the Empirical Literature. Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and Louisiana State University. Presented as a Symposium at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 2003.

• Passi, B. K. & Sudarshan Mishra, Selecting Research Areas and Research Design Approaches in Distance Education: Process Issues, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 5, No 3 (2004), ISSN: 1492-3831. HTML

• Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.

• Reeves, T. C. (1992). Research foundations for interactive multimedia. In Promaco Conventions (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Interactive Multimedia Symposium, 177-190. Perth, Western Australia, 27-31 January. Promaco Conventions. HTML

• Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.

• Reeves, Thomas, C. (1997). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education. HTML - HTML copy

• Reeves, T. C., (2000) Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through "Design Experiments" and Other Development Research Strategies, Paper presented on April 27, 2000 at Session 41.29,

"International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century," a Symposium sponsored by SIG/Instructional Technology at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA. PDF

• Reeves, Thomas C. (1999) The Scope and Standards of the Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Journal of Interactive Learning Research (JILR) HTML, retrieved 19:43, 11 September 2006 (MEST).

• Reeves, T. C., (1999). A Research Agenda for Interactive Learning in the New Millennium, HTML

To sort out

• Berge, Z. L., and Mrozowski, S. (2001). Review of Research in Distance Education, 1990 to 1999. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 5 - 19.

• Garrison, R & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge

• Kirkpatrick, D. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal. 33(6), p. 78-92.

• Honey, M., Culp, K. M., & Carrigg, F. (1999). Perspectives on technology and education research: Lessons from the past and present. New York: Center for Children and Technology. HTML summary, retrieved 19:43, 11 September 2006 (MEST).

• Luppicini, Rocci (2003), Towards a Cyber-Constructivist Perspective (CCP) of Educational Design, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Volume 29(1) Winter / hiver, 2003.

• Nettles, K., Dziuban C., Cioffe, D., Moskal, P., & Moskal, P. (2000). Technology and learning: The 'No Significant Difference' phenomenon: A structural analysis of research on technology enhanced instruction. Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation. Dziuban & Moskal (Eds.) Orlando: University of Central Florida.

• Perraton, Hilary (2000), The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 1, No 1 (2000), ISSN: 1492-3831 HTML Abstract and PDF

• Reeves, Thomas C. (1995), Questioning the Questions of Instructional Technology Research, Instructional Technology Research Online, HTML

• Saba, F. (2000). Research in Distance Education: A Status Report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). HTML

• Douglas H. Clements And Julie Sarama, Strip Mining for Gold: Research and Policy in Educational Technology\u2014A Response to \u201cFool\u2019s Gold\u201d. PDF

• http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/DBR-ED-Tech4.pdf