Past research in instructional technology: Results of a content analysis of empirical studies published in three prominent instructional technology journals from the year 2000 through 2004

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 269-300

  Khe, Foon Hew ^a   Kale, Ugur ^b   Nari, Kim ^a,b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547422488     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/K3P8-8164-L56J-33W4     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Rudner, L. M. (1991). Meta-analysis in educational research. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation (ERIC No. ED339748).
2. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all, Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
3. Bowman, J., Newman, D. L., & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81-94.
4. Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities (5th ed.). (1998). New York: Cabell Publishing Company.
5. Callan, P. M. (2002). Coping with recession: Public policy, economic downturns and higher education. Available ED462896.
6. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
7. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
8. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
9. Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5-8.
10. Driscoll, D. M., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(4), 431-450.
11. Dryburgh, H. (2000). Underrepresentation of girls and women in computer science: Classification of 1990s research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 181-202.
12. Fleiss, J. L. (1976). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.
13. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text, In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38.
15. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
16. Hancock, D. R., & Flowers, C. P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on WWW and paper-administered surveys. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 5-13.
17. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
18. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing Electronic Collaborative Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66.
19. Klein, J. D. (1997). ETR&D-development: An analysis of content and survey of future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 57-62.
20. Knupfer, N. N., & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1196-1212). New York: Macmillan.
21. Koetting, J. R., & Malisa, M. (2004). Philosophy, research, and education, In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1009-1020). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Lee, Y., Driscoll, M. P., & Nelson, D. W. (2004). The past, present, and future of research in distance education: Results of a content analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 225-241.
23. Lee. J. Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2003). Formative research on the heuristic task analysis process. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 5-24.
24. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Liu, C. C., Chen, G. D., Wang, C. Y., & Lu, C. F. (2002). Student performance assessment using Bayesian network and Web portfolios. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 437-469.
26. Lohr, L., Javeri, M., Mahoney, C., Gall, J., Li, K., & Strongin, D. (2003). Using rapid, application development to improve the usability of a preservice teacher technology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 41-55.
27. Lou, Y. (2004). Understanding process and affective factors in small group versus individual learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 337-369.
28. Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23-44.
29. Mann, S. J. (2003). A. personal inquiry into an experience of adult learning online. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 111-125.
30. Masood, M. (2004). Trends and issues as reflected in traditional educational technology literature: A content analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.
31. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shemla, A. (2000). Internet usage by students in an Israeli high school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 55-73.
32. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Reliability. In K. A. Neuendorf (Ed.), The content analysis guidebook. London-New Delhi: Thousand Oaks.
33. Orill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. M. (2004). Disciplined inquiry and the study of emerging technology. In D. H. Jonassen. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 335-353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Pek, P. K., & Poh, K. L. (2004). A Bayesian tutoring system for Newtonian mechanics: Can it adapt to different learners? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 281-307.
35. Price, R. V., & Maushak, N. J. (2000). Publishing in the field of educational technology: Getting started. Educational Technology, 40(4), 47-52.
36. Rahim, M. M., Seyal, A. H., & Rahman, M. N. A. (2001). Factors affecting softlifting intention of computing students An empirical study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4), 385-405.
37. Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional research. In M. R. Simonson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Research and Theory Division (pp. 459-470), Anaheim, CA.
38. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology. Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53-64.
39. Richey, R. C. (2004). Validating instructional design and development models. Paper presented at the annual Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference, Chicago: IL.
40. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1997). Getting started in instructional technology research (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational. Communications and Technology.
41. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1021-1043). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Rowley, K., & Meyer, N. (2003). The effect of a computer tutor for writers on student writing achievement, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 169-187.
43. 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 in educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1045-1071). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Associates.
44. Schrader, P. G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Ataya, R., Teale, W. H., Labbo, L. D., & Cammack, D. (2003). Using Internet delivered video cases to support pre-service teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31(4-5), 317-340.
45. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A. dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
47. Shapiro, A. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2000). The use of latent semantic analysis as a tool, for the quantitative assessment of understanding and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 1-36.
48. Smith, B., & Caputi, P. (2004). The development of the attitude towards computerized assessment scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 407-422.
49. Smith, P. J. (2001). Technology student learning preferences and the design, of flexible learning programs. Instructional Science, 29(3), 237-254.
50. Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context, and form. Instructional Science, 28(5-6), 413-438.