Caught in the Tractor Beam of Larger Influences: The Filtration of Innovation in Education Technology Design

Authors: Justin D. Olmanson, Fitsum F. Abebe, Valerie Jones, Eric Kyle, Lyrica Lucas, Katherine Robbins, Guieswende Rouamba, Xianquan Liu

Abstract:

While emerging technologies continue to emerge, research into their use in learning contexts often focuses on a subset of educational practices and ways of using technologies. In this study we begin to explore the extent to which educational designs are influenced by larger societal and education-related factors not usually explicitly considered when designing or identifying technology-supported education experiences for research study. We examine patterns within and between factors via a content analysis across ten years and 19 different journals of published peer-reviewed research on technology-supported writing. Our findings have implications for how researchers, designers, and educators approach technology-supported educational design within and beyond the field of writing and literacy.

Keywords: Writing, emerging technology, learning, curriculum, pedagogy.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1106957

References:

[1] J. Olmanson, “What’s going on at Zapata Elementary? People, research, and technology in educational spaces: an experiment in experience and possibility,” Austin, TX, 2011.
[2] D. Hlynka and J. C. Belland, Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Educational Technology, 1991.
[3] C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Routledge, 2013.
[4] N. Garrett, “Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating Innovation,” Modern Language Journal, vol. 93, pp. 719–740, 2009.
[5] P. Lather, “Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 35–57, Jan. 2006.
[6] J. F. Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. U of Minnesota Press, 1984.
[7] J. D. Marshall, Michel Foucault: Personal Autonomy and Education. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[8] C. M. Reigeluth, “What is Instructional-Design Theory and How Is It Changing?” in Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. 2, Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp. 5–30.
[9] R. Voithofer and A. Foley, “Post-IT: putting postmodern perspectives to use in instructional technology—a response to Solomon’s ‘Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology,’” Educational Technology Research & Development, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 5–14, Jan. 2002.
[10] C. Der-Thanq, D. Hung, and Y.-M. Wang, “Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 876–884, Sep. 2007.
[11] S. C. Yanchar and B. W. Gabbitas, “Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 59, pp. 383–398, Dec. 2010.
[12] W. J. Reese, “What History Teaches about the Impact of Educational Research on Practice,” Review of Research in Education, vol. 24, pp. 1– 19, Jan. 1999.
[13] R. W. Tyler, Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press, 1949.
[14] W. Pinar, “The reconceptualization of curriculum studies,” in The Curriculum Studies Reader, 2nd ed., D. J. Flinders and S. J. Thornton, Eds. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004, pp. 168–175.
[15] R. McClintock, “Toward a place of study in a world of instruction,” Teachers College Record, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 161–205, Dec. 1971.
[16] W. F. Pinar, What Is Curriculum Theory? Routledge, 2012.
[17] D. Jonassen, “The vain quest for a unified theory of learning,” Educational Technology, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 5–8, 2003.
[18] C. Jewitt, Technology, literacy and learning : a multimodal approach /. London ; Routledge, 2006.
[19] H. J. Perkinson, Teachers without goals, students without purposes. McGraw-Hill, 1993.
[20] E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research,” in The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 105–117.
[21] D. Romrell, L. C. Kidder, and E. Wood, “The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning,” Online Learning, vol. 18, no. 2, Jun. 2014.
[22] B. Cope, M. Kalantzis, and N. L. Group, Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Psychology Press, 2000.
[23] G. R. Kress, Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Taylor & Francis, 2010.
[24] E. Bearne, “Interview with Gunther Kress,” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 287–299, Sep. 2005.
[25] M. B. Eagleton and E. Dobler, Reading the Web: Strategies for Internet Inquiry. Guilford Press, 2012.
[26] M. Davis and K. B. Yancey, “Notes Toward the Role of Materiality in Composing, Reviewing, and Assessing Multimodal Texts,” Computers and Composition, vol. 31, pp. 13–28, Mar. 2014.
[27] K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE, 2012.
[28] O. R. Holsti, Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1969.
[29] M. Schreier, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE, 2012.
[30] A. R. Marri, “Working with blinders on: A critical race theory content analysis of research on technology and social studies education,” Multicultural Ed & Tech Jnl, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 144–161, Aug. 2007.
[31] I. Elola and A. Oskoz, “Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development,” Language Learning & Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 51–71, 2010.
[32] K. Garrison, “An Empirical Analysis of Using Text-to-Speech Software to Revise First-Year College Students’ Essays,” Computers and Composition, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 288–301, Dec. 2009.
[33] R. H. Bruning, G. J. Schraw, and M. M. Norby, Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Pearson, 2011.
[34] ]Z. Aydin and S. Yildiz, “Using Wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing,” Language, Learning & Technology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 160, 2014.
[35] J. Thornton, “The 4e Wiki Writing Model,” Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, vol. 15, no. 1/2, pp. 49–62, Sep. 2013.
[36] P. Baepler and T. Reynolds, “The Digital Manifesto: Engaging Student Writers with Digital Video Assignments,” Computers and Composition, vol. 34, pp. 122–136, Dec. 2014.
[37] J. M. Saunders, “Where writing happens: Elevating student writing and developing voice through digital storytelling,” Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 8, 2014.
[38] J. deWinter and S. Vie, “Press Enter to ‘Say’: Using Second Life to Teach Critical Media Literacy,” Computers and Composition, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 313–322, 2008.
[39] T. Kulla-Abbott and J. Polman, “Engaging student voice and fulfilling curriculum goals with digital stories,” THEN, no. 5, Apr. 2008.
[40] Z. Li and V. Hegelheimer, “Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing,” Language Learning & Technology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 135–156, 2013.
[41] K. Ferrara, H. Brunner, and G. Whittemore, “Interactive Written Discourse as an Emergent Register,” Written Communication, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 8–34, Jan. 1991.