Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 31105
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


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: Learning, pedagogy, Emerging technology, Curriculum, Writing

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1467


[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.