(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.
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.
