Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 37 Number 3: Spring 2005

	Edited by Dr. Lynne Schrum, University of Utah
formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volume 37 Number 3 Spring 2005

A Proactive Approach to a Research Agenda for Educational Technology
Glen Bull, University of Virginia
Gerald Knezek, University of North Texas
M. D. Roblyer, University of Maryland University College
Lynne Schrum, University of Utah
Ann Thompson, Iowa State University

During the past quarter century technological advances have exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. The steady advance in speed and capacity, doubling every 18 months as predicted by Moore’s law, has produced powerful computers available at modest prices. In addition, the National Educational Technology Plan recently released by the U.S. Department of Education reports that virtually all classrooms are now linked to the Internet.

The Disappointing Record of Technology in School Reform

Yet despite the growing capability and presence in schools, more advanced technologies have had limited documented impact on school reform. Virtually every other aspect of society—business, medicine, and entertainment—has been significantly changed and demonstrably improved by the digital revolution. Changes in schools have been limited to “islands of excellence” rather than the transformed landscape many had anticipated. The most recent report on this subject by the U.S. Department of Education concludes:

We have not realized the promise of technology in education. Essentially, providing the hardware without adequate training in its use—and in its endless possibilities for enriching the learning experience—meant that the great promise of Internet technology was frequently unrealized. Computers, instead of transforming education, were often shunted to a “computer room,” where they were little used and poorly maintained. Students mastered the wonders of the Internet at home, not in school. Today’s students, of almost any age, are far ahead of their teachers in computer literacy. (National Educational Technology Plan, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2004, p. 10).

Those of us who have committed our professional lives to this area had anticipated that the advances in technological capacity would be matched by parallel enhancements in learning. Technology has had a positive impact on education, as the National Educational Technology Plan notes, even if it has not yet resulted in wholesale educational transformation.

However, an effective return on future investments in educational technology is more likely to be realized to the extent that research captures past impact and provides directions for future use. Best approaches to educational research have been the focus of a major emphasis by the U.S. Department of Education. There is no area in which well-conceived and effectively implemented research could be of greater value than in the area of technological innovation.

Challenges for Educational Technology Research

A review of educational technology journals provides an opportunity to survey the terrain of educational research in this area. It reveals considerable inefficiencies in the research process. For example, approximately 85% of current submissions to the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE) are ultimately rejected for reasons related to quality and focus. Even the articles that are published sometimes retread previously covered ground.

Every researcher undertakes a study with the hope of making a substantive contribution to the field. Each of the submissions represents months or years of effort and commitment on the part of one or more authors. A publication process that results in inefficiencies of 80% or more clearly cries out for improvement.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Education has challenged educational researchers to consider carefully what constitutes scientifically-based evidence. Considering the substantial investment required to introduce educational technology into schools, it is important to base its implementation and use on best practices. However, the body of usable information available today is scant and scattered. To date there have been no documented systemic increases in student achievement and learning directly attributable to technological innovation.

The problems that have contributed to this lack of evidence also help define the current challenge of re-shaping a role for educational technology research:

• Unrealistic expectations for technology-based reform. Technologies brought about such high-profile reforms in other areas of society that many educators and researchers came to expect similarly widespread impact in education. Other areas of society faced similar challenges. For example, researchers were not able to capture any relationship between investments in technology and increases in productivity throughout the 1980s. Business continued to invest, and eventually the investment in technology was associated with gains in productivity in the 1990s. Education represents an unparalleled set of problems and complexities. In retrospect, it seems apparent that expectations should been based on a more realistic, theory-based appraisal of specific learning problems for which technology applications might be a good solution. Research should have focused on confirming that these applications were instructional strategies of choice and on providing guidelines for conditions under which this was true.
  
  
• Lack of consensus on research questions and methodologies. For the first twenty years, educational technology research focused on the question: “Is a technology-based method better than a non-technology-based one?” Eventually, this strategy was deemed ill-conceived and unproductive. Yet no more useful paradigm has emerged to take its place. Future research must focus on yet-to-be-articulated research questions.
  
  
• Diminished role of research in school reform. Even published studies do not typically result in any change in educational practice. Some educators have argued that this is due in no small part to a disconnect between the interests of researchers and the needs of teachers and schools. A more practical, focused research agenda is an essential need, as well as strategies for coordinating research efforts and findings across researchers and research centers.

A Proposal for a Proactive Research Agenda

For several years the editors of a number of educational technology journals have gathered at an annual autumn retreat. Those participating include editors of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE), the Journal of Computers in Teacher Education (JCTE), the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE), Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), Learning and Leading with Technology, and Computers in the Schools. The most recent retreat, the sixth National Technology Leadership Summit (NTLS VI) was held at the Library of Congress in Fall 2004. The editors of participating journals met with leaders of teacher educator associations, federal policy makers, and selected corporate partners. The goal is to collectively discuss emergent trends and promising research directions.

This meeting is convened under the auspices of the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC), a consortium of teacher educator associations whose membership includes the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE), working in concert with the teacher educator associations representing the core content areas in science (AETS), mathematics (AMTE), English (CEE), and social studies (CUFA). The intent is to facilitate cross-disciplinary dialogue among the content associations and educational technology associations to provide diverse perspectives.

A proactive approach to a research agenda was conceived in discussions originating at the most recent NTLC meeting. It began as a dialogue among the editors and editorial staff of the relevant technology journals. The editors and editorial staff of these journals have a broad perspective on work in progress and trends. Articles and research in progress are generally received six to eighteen months before appearing in print. Hence, this provides a perspective from which it is possible to look over the horizon.

One editorial function is to serve as a nexus for quality control. However, being an editor also offers an opportunity to provide leadership. Discussion regarding the potential value of a proactive approach to research rose within this context. An effective conversation must include discourse among leading educational technology researchers. However, to be successful, it will be equally important to involve other stakeholders to ensure strong linkages between applied research and explicit connections and value to schools. It will also be important to include input from software developers, hardware developers, and corporate partners.

To begin the dialogue, a keynote panel, “Developing a Proactive Research Agenda,” has been scheduled for the forthcoming SITE conference in March. This keynote panel will be anchored by Lynne Schrum, past president of ISTE and current editor of JRTE. This dialogue is designed to be continued at subsequent meetings at AERA in April, NECC in June, and NTLS VII in Fall 2005.

Once an internal consensus is achieved, a dialogue with federal policy makers can be undertaken. The results and guidelines emerging from this discussion will be widely published in the respective educational technology journals as a means of communicating with researchers working in this area.

Conclusions

At present the technological capacity available to schools exceeds our ability to use it effectively to enhance learning. A proactive approach to establishing a research agenda can potentially provide guidance to future investigators. The substantial continuing cost of technology in schools makes it important to ensure that research produced is directly relevant. Providing researchers with context and guidelines will increase the likelihood that efforts are productively directed.

Two further outcomes may emerge from this dialogue and each would be a welcome addition to our conversations. The process of preparing doctoral students to design, conduct, and analyze good research is a nontrivial task, and yet we continue to see repetition of research that does not move our community forward. If educational technology researchers and journal editors can proactively work toward even a general concurrence on productive directions for future research, it may be possible to increase the percentage of studies that ultimately contribute to our knowledge base.

Second, as previously addressed, the introduction of technology into our schools has not resulted in educational reform. One reason for that may be the relationship between educators and their questions and the educational researchers and the questions they choose to investigate. If the dialogue we propose results in a stronger collaboration and recursive conversation between these two groups, that too would be an excellent outcome.

A consensus on every point of the compass will not occur, nor is that the intent. There will always be diverse perspectives within an academic community. However, the dialogue will encourage more sharply articulated research objectives and guidelines. The result should facilitate much needed research in this area. Further updates will be provided in this journal as the dialogue proceeds.

Copyright © 2005, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.