Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research?

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 956-971

  Hew, Khe Foon ^a   Lan, Min ^a   Tang, Ying ^a   Jia, Chengyuan ^a   Lo, Chung Kwan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENTS; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

ANALYSIS PROCESS; CITATION IMPACT; DATA COLLECTION; EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY; HIGHER EDUCATION; IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 85063037453     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12770     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (pp. 35–50). Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
2. Anyon, J. (1982). Adequate social science, curriculum investigations, and theory. Theory into Practice, 21(1), 34–37.
3. Ashwin, P. (2012). How often are theories developed through empirical research into higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 941–955.
4. Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: The missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179–189.
5. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2001). How to research (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
6. Bulfin, S., Henderson, M., & Johnson, N. (2013). Examining the use of theory within educational technology and media research. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 337–344.
7. Bulfin, S., Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Methodological capacity within the field of “educational technology” research: An initial investigation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 403–414.
8. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
10. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
11. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
12. Drummond, A., & Sweeney, T. (2017). Can an objective measure of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) supplement existing TPACK measures? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 928–939.
13. Ely, D. P. (1983). The definition of educational technology: An emerging stability. Educational Considerations, 10(2), 2–4.
14. Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873–879.
16. Han, S., & Makino, A. (2013). Learning cities in East Asia: Japan, the Republic of Korea and China. International Review of Education, 59(4), 443–468.
17. Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111–119.
18. Hatzigianni, M., Gregoriadis, A., Karagiorgou, I., & Chatzigeorgiadou, S. (2018). Using tablets in free play: The implementation of the digital play framework in Greece. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 928–942.
19. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6, 1–13.
20. Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2011). Theory in learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 173–177.
21. Kilis, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2018). Investigation of community of inquiry framework in regard to self-regulation, metacognition and motivation. Computers & Education, 126, 53–64.
22. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
23. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605.
24. Malone, T. W. (1985). Designing organizational interfaces. In L. Borman, R. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI’85 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 66–71). New York, NY: ACM Press.
25. Markauskaite, L., & Reimann, P. (2014). Editorial: e-Research for education: Applied, methodological and critical perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 385–391.
26. May, T. (1993). Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
27. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
29. Moore, M. G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.
30. Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
31. Moreno, V., Cavazotte, F., & Alves, I. (2017). Explaining university students’ effective use of e-learning platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 995–1009.
32. Morgan, C., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Questions related to theory. In Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 40–50). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
33. Mueller, B., & Urbach, N. (2017). Understanding the why, what, and how of theories in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41(17), 349–388.
34. OECD. (2010). Are the new millennium learners making the grade?: Technology use and educational performance in PISA 2006. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
35. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.
36. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286.
37. Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 80–86.
38. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 5–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models, volume iii: Building a common knowledge base (p. 3–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
40. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1995). Getting started in instructional technology research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
41. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: an introduction and an overview. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
42. Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor’s comments: Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), iii–x.
44. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
45. Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 395–411.
46. Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998). Educational research—A critique. London, UK: Office for Standards in Education.
47. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
48. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
49. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
50. Violato, C., & Hecker, K. G. (2007). How to use structural equation modeling in medical education research: A brief guide. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 19(4), 362–371.
51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
53. Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.
54. Yang, T. C., Chen, M. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2018). The influences of self-regulated learning support and prior knowledge on improving learning performance. Computers & Education, 126, 37–52.
55. Yuen, A. H., & Hew, T. K. F. (2018). Information and communication technology in educational policies in the Asian region. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1–20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
56. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.