Readings on Theory in Educational Technology

(More readings from the first year seminar in the ETEC program at UH Manoa)   
 
Ocholla, Dennis N, LeRoux, J. (2011). Conceptions and Misconceptions of a theoretical framework in Library and Information Science Research. Prolissa Conference (Vol. 2011, pp. 1-11).

We were asked to read the first three pages of this as a refresher on the relationship of theory to research.  The authors review the concepts of deductive reasoning (explaining something through a conclusion, or theory) and inductive reasoning (seeking knowledge through observation with no conclusion in mind).  A new connection for me was that the authors pointed out that inductive reasoning is really the scientific method, restated—that helps clarify and now I won't forget.  They then say that good research does both of these things.  It seeks a framework to apply to a series of questions, and then goes about testing the validity of that framework. 

Also important to working with a framework is a good understanding and explicit treatment of the assumptions involved in its creation.  This paper includes (p.8-9) a table listing some (couple hundred?) of the theories associated with information sciences, which makes it a good resource for etec.

Robyn, S. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: A researcher’s reflections. Issues In Educational Research, 14(2). 167-180. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/smyth.html

 This paper serves as a primer for understanding what a conceptual framework is and how it can be a valuable tool for scaffolding a research question.  A conceptual framework is a "set of broad ideas and principles taken from relevant fields of enquiry and used to structure a subsequent presentation."  This concept nudges researchers to link their thinking and questions to previous inquiry in the area. The author uses the article to explain how conceptual framework informed a particular research project of hers in which she was part of a team looking at the issues of change related to instatement of a vocational education system in a particular school group of schools.   This is a great article that elucidates the value of conceptual framework when tackling complex questions about education.   It was also cool to see Sergiovani quoted as a reference for questions of change in schools.  (I love his book Moral Leadership.)

Richey, R., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Just read chapter 1 as the free sample on the kindle app on the ipad—might buy the rest one of these days but it is $31.  And you can rent books on the kindle now (is that new?).

This is the first chapter of a book that primarily targets researchers and advanced graduate students—the authors also say that they hope practitioners will be able to use this to "justify decisions the many decisions they make in the course of an ID project."  That seems like a silly thing to say and an unlikely hope, but oh well. Mostly, the first chapter looks at the base of ID theory.  They mention that theory stems from research, but it has a philosophical level to it too—there are value judgments in theory.  ID is a planning activity

Another good definition of theory from Hoover and Donovan (1995): "a set of related propositions that attempts to explain and sometimes predict a set of events." They then go on to list the functions of theory as described by Hoover and Donovan (1995):

Theory. . .

1.     provides patterns for interpretation of data

2.     links one study with another

3.     supplies frameworks with which concepts and variables acquire special significance

4.     allows us to interpret the larger meaning of our findings for ourselves and others.

Then they talk about Models: "a representation of realty presented with a degree of structure or order."  They go on to explain that models tend to be idealized or simplified views of reality. Conceptual models can often be confused with theories but they are generally more abstract and experience based.  I'm not sure I understand the difference—will work on that!

The theories discussed in depth in the rest of the book are: General Systems Theory, Communication Theory, Learning Theory, Early Instructional Theory, Media Theory, Conditions-Based Theory, Constructivist Design Theory and Performance Improvement Theory.

Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology : The influence of theory. The Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(July), 1-13.

This article is broken down into 8 sections including an intro and conclusion.  It begins with a history of the field of Educational Technology—good to read since that is now "my" field!  It goes on to examine the theories of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and Human Computer Interaction (HCI).  They talk about how AIED theory is important for supporting good instruction and learning environments, not just the robot type stuff that comes (to my) mind when one says AI.  They then go on to discuss the expanding application of HCI from a realm of limited scientific scope to many real world applications.  HCI theory can be used to model different types of cognitive behaviors and improve research about instruction and learning.

An educational technologist has to take a multi-leveled approach to understanding complex learning situations. Thus there is a need to consider the context of the institution, the culture of the students, the location of the learning situation within the curriculum as well as the design of the technology and software.

Also, it talks about the rise of emphasis on constructivist perspectives of education and the practitioners' impact on research, based on their own experience.  They conclude that theories are an "important but neglected area of research in educational technology."

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2009). Theories, Concepts, and Techniques: Too Much of a Number of Good Things? Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 165-168. doi:10.1080/07380560903129086

This piece is an editorial that points to the ongoing challenge to establish educational technology as a legitimate field of academic research. The authors point to three main problems: 1) Funding (I assume they are referring to funding at the university level to promote research; 2) Disorganization in the sub-culture of educational research as it pertains to teacher training and finally 3) The lack of higher education to effectively point to and promote good practice. 

This final element, the authors claim, is in part due to the field's reliance on fad as doctrine.  They note that there are a number of concepts and theories that are so widely accepted to be "good" that they go unquestioned and shape research on which they build.  I imagine the purpose of reading this is for us to do a good job examining the theories on which we hang our own research so as not to take anything for granted.  The authors seem to lament the mindless promotion of fads like "constructivism"—really?  Okay, if they say so.  

Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology  (3rd ed., pp. 21-28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associatesdoi:10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.002

This chapter explored four areas of theory that can be applied to educational technology-- this figure describes the outline of the presentation:

In the conclusion of the chapter, after attention to the three foundation theories (psychology of learning, communications theory, HCI and instructional design and development), the author suggests that the most important elements of designing good research in educational technology are not expertise in any of these areas (in fact he admits, over and over again, that he does not have that) but rather a humility and openness to ask good questions. 

McDougall, A., & Jones, A. (2006). Theory and history, questions and methodology: current and future issues in research into ICT in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(3), 353-360. doi:10.1080/14759390600923915

This article examines criticisms of the field of educational technology in terms of lack of connection to theory.  This is a response to critics (like Maddux and Johnson, 2009) suggesting that our issue is not over attention to theory, but lack of attention to theory.  They argue that research in this area should further our understanding of the theories around which our questions are framed. 

 

Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179-189. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624997

Many questions that emerge in instructional technology are about lived practical matters—should our school implement the l:1 program? How do I best reach a classroom of diverse learners? Etc. . .— that is way, this article argues, there has not been enough attention to theory in this field.  Schools, governments and individual practitioners all want answers to our immediate questions. That is, in fact, why I came into this field.—I want answers too.  So I found the case studies of engagement with theory particularly interesting.  The article challenges researchers (like me!) to find a way to make empirical investigations "speak back to theory" by engaging relationships with theory in an ongoing and central way.  The authors also suggest the potential for the field of learning technology to connect with other fields, if this connection to theory is more carefully attended to. 

Becker, K. (2007). Conceptual framework for considering instructional design as a wicked problem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1), Article 4.

This article discuses instructional design (ID) as something that should be approached through a problem based learning model, identifying "wicked problems" and then designing to improve the realities.  The article reviews the literature surrounding the ID process and then goes into a description of "wicked problems".   The essence of a wicked problem is its messiness.  As we often hear in class, there is no silver bullet in education, because it is a messy endeavor, with limitless variables.  These unique individual situations are the wicked problems the Becker is looking for—so the rest of the article is an argument for having ID be specific to these scenarios.  It goes through a laundry list of what makes education messy and then encourages researchers to have at it.  One term that is new to me is a "stopping rule" which is essentially a pre-determined outcome or situation in which the study would stop.