a ten year analysis

8/7/2019 A Ten Year Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-ten-year-analysis 1/19

MOJIT A Ten Year Analysis: Trends in Traditional Educational Technology Literature

A Ten Year Analysis: Trends in TraditionalEducational Technology Literature

Mona MasoodCentre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia

Universiti Sains Malaysia, [email protected]

AbstractThe purpose of the study was to determine concepts that have emerged, grown, or diminished in the field educational technology in an effort to identify themes that have been most dominant in the most recent timEmerging themes covering a decade worth of literature as presented in the Educational Technology of Research aDevelopment ( ETR&D) were discussed. A content analysis of journal articles for themes and tracking for conceclusters were conducted. A total of 200 articles were reviewed.

INTRODUCTION

The field of educational echnology has grown and changed greatly over the past century, affected by variouinfluences including historical forces, paradigm shifts in educational psychology, emerging technologies, anevolving approaches to inquiry. In the 1960s and 1970s, the educational technology field was heavily orientetoward applying Behaviourist notions to the design of instruction. At the same time, cognitive informatioprocessing theory was emerging as the dominant paradigm in educational psychology. From the 1960s to 1980Gagné’s evolving “theory” of instruction, integrated cognitive with behavioral views (Reiser, 2002). In the 1980and 1990s, computer technology dominated the field, while in educational psychology, theories of constructivisand situated cognition offered new ways of thinking about instruction. Toward the turn of the century, thWorld Wide Web had made significant inroads in telecommunication, enabling both asynchronous ansynchronous communication and information sharing on a global scale. More recently, academia has becomhighly dependent on the Internet for administrative purposes as well as for teaching and research.

The professional association with the most extensive history in the field of educational technology is thAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). The association has provided a broaview through the publication of its research journal. The research journal began as Audiovisual CommunicatiReview ( AVCR ) in 1953, was continued as Educational Communications and Technology Journal ( ECTJ ) in 1978, anbecame Educational Technology, Research and Development ( ETR&D) in 1989. The name changes of this journreflect the evolution of the field as it worked to keep pace with rapid changes in the world of technology.

Since AECT has the longest history in the field of educational technology and has provided a broad view of thfield through publication of a peer reviewed research or theory journal, ETR&D, this journal was chosen represent the body of articles related to educational technology. Evidence from previous studies indicates th

the content of the journal reflect the changing concerns of the field over the years. Torkelson (1977) purportethat when AVCR was launched, instructional technologists were interested in audiovisual research ancommunication. In reviewing 25 years of the AVCR , he contends that the older terminology of ‘audiovisueducation’ has moved to ‘audiovisual communications,’ to ‘educational media,’ and to

‘educational/instructional technology.’ He also reported that throughout the 1960s, only about six articles deawith communication in the social context, but in the 1970s, he pointed to Mielke’s view (cited in Torkelso



MOJIT A Ten Year Analysis: Trends in Traditional Educational Technology Literatu

74

1977) that research had expanded to emphasise programmed instruction, behaviourism, and media attribustudies.

In their analysis of ECTJ , Higgins et al., (1989) found that researchers in the 1980s were most interested in medselection or utilisation followed by effective instruction and computer applications. Villareal-Stewart et al., (

cited in Klein, 1997) reported that many studies done in the first half of the 1990s compared computapplications and interactive technologies. Up to 1997, there were numerous studies on instructional design focomputer technology and on aspects of instructional design and development itself.

The purpose of the present study was to identify trends in professional “conversations” about the educationtechnology field as reflected in the AECT literature. Specifically, this study focuses on identifying the topics thgovern the “conversations” in the articles. The term “conversation” is used metaphorically to represent the bodof topics commonly discussed intellectually. That is, to provide a channel for discourse within the field. Researcquestions include: What topics related to instructional technology have emerged within the past ten years? Whtopics have diminished? Do patterns change over time? What topics dominate current work? The studcontributes to the history of the educational technology field by identifying issues and trends in the field withthe past ten years as reflected by this AECT journal, which is a significant tool for tracking the advancement o

instructional technology.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Field Defined Educational Technology (ET), is frequently referred to as Instructional Technology (IT), however, IT is oftebounded by institutional settings, while ET has a broader connotation usually encompassing activities ansources to espouse learning. For the purposes of this paper, the researcher referred to the field as ET.

The definition of ET by the AECT has evolved through the passage of time. The present definition is, “…ththeory and practice of design, development, utilisation, management, and evaluation of processes and resourc

for learning...” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 9). A newer definition, currently being proposed by Molenda Robinson (cited in Definition & Terminology Committee, AECT, 2004), defines the field as “the study anethical practice of creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources to bettfacilitate learning.” This new definition goes beyond an effort to promote the field’s own identity by trying to bself explanatory to audiences from outside the field. The definition indicates that proper resources and actionare managed, used, and created through the means of theory and practice. These are important elements of Eand serve as a background to the study.

Studies on Content Analysis

In 1977, Torkelson conducted a review of one-quarter century of AVCR issues of its contents, impacts, ancharacterisations of the field just before AECT renamed its academic journal AVCR to ECTJ in 1978. Torkelsoattempted to search for cogent statements and critical comments in AVCR in order to characterise what whappening in the field. He stated that an intellectual technique had been developed with respect to the professiobut that application to practical affairs was still lacking (Torkelson, 1977).

Twelve years after Torkelson’s study, Higgins et al., (1989) conducted a survey to assess AECT memberpreferences for topics and types of articles in the ETR&D journal. These preferences were compared with th




75

actual content of ten previous issues of ECTJ and the Journal of Instructional Development ( JID). Results from thsurvey showed that interactive video was ranked first by AECT members and third by subscribers. Instructiondevelopment ranked first among subscribers. This finding brought about the question of whose preferencshould be given the greatest weight in considering the journal’s content since subscribers’ preferences differefrom the preferences of the general AECT members for certain topics.

Studies on Trends

Ely et al., (1992) conducted a content analysis of educational technology in selected literature and discovered ththe rank order of content analysis categories showed that instructional processes ranked first followed bmanagement, then technological developments. Nonetheless, Gustafson (1995/1996) claimed that the future othe profession depends on external forces in society: demographic changes, cultural changes, family structurglobalisation of the economy, and globalisation of communication technology.

Klein (1997) analysed articles published in the development section of ETR&D between 1989 and 1997, usingcontent analysis methodology similar to that used in the present study. Nine main topics were identified andescriptors were used to clarify each topic. Results showed that instructional design (ID) for computtechnologies was the topic most frequently published (26%) followed by instructional design and developmen(23%).

The Status of Adoption and Use of Instructional

Media and Technology

In contrast to the content analysis studies, Molenda et al., (1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002) have attempted to tracthe diffusion and use of instructional technology in various sectors using quantitative data. Their study is continuing project and an on-going survey of activities in the field. Molenda et al., (1998) examined trenrelated to media and technology in the realms of formal education and corporate training and developmenAmong the issues discussed were incorporation of traditional audiovisual media into the instructionmainstream, incorporation of computer-based media into the instructional mainstream, application of advance

interactive technologies, and growing interest in learner-centered, inquiry-based instruction.

As a follow-up to the 1998 survey, Molenda & Harris (2001) reported that the rapid emergence of netechnological developments, the convergence of previously distinguishable media into digital format, anaccompanying changes in the affected businesses, made it increasingly difficult to be sure what the issues weand what entities should be measured. The shift was towards patterns of use and the consequences of thospatterns of use.

Impact of Trends Wilson (2002) discussed key trends and their impact on the future of education, distance education, and learnintechnologies. Trends included the technologising of school systems, learner and user-centered philosophie

moves to automate instructional design, digital shifts, the global market place, radical forces inspired by globconnectivity, and changing paradigms of thought in instructional design.

While scholars were reporting persistent technology trends in the United States, Seo et al., (2002) reviewed thinternational section of the ETR&D. They found that articles reflected a prompt and sensitive response to thdevelopment of various media, hence keeping pace with the evolutionary process of instructional media, while the same time addressing the diverse field of media through discussions of microcomputers, the Internet, anteleconferencing.




76

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A content analysis of journal articles was used to identify the trends and issues. A total of 200 articles fro

ETR&D were scrutinised. An instrument in the form of codebooks and coding forms were designed and usefor collecting and extracting data from text.

Content analysis of journal articles was chosen because of the chronological occurrences of articles published traditional educational technology journals. In consequence, data collected indicates emerging trends or changin focus over time. Further, written documentation is an archived source of information that can be analysesystematically by extracting data. Besides being an unobtrusive technique, “content analysis is context sensitivand therefore allows the researcher to process as data texts that are significant, meaningful, informative, and everepresentational to others” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 41).

Rationale for Content Analysis

Neuendorf (2002) takes the view of a postpositivist acknowledging “content analysis is a summarisinquantitative analysis of messages that relies on the scientific method (including attention to objectivitintersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability, validity, generalisability, replicability, and hypothesis testing) and not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured or the context in which the messages are created opresented” (p. 10).

Basically, content analysis is a research tool used to assist researchers in gathering and extracting facts from andocument systematically (Masood, 2004). Content analysis requires objectivity, systematicity, and generali(Holsti, 1969) while Berelson (1952) states that content analysis is about manifest content. Nevertheless, Babb(1992) posits that researchers want to move beyond manifest content and analyse what is called latent contenthus the focus shifts to the meaning underlying the elements on the surface of a message. Still, for this studwords or concepts that appear in the document were recorded during the coding stage and any interpretations o

inferences were reserved for the interpretive stage.Specifically, an adaptation of Pershing’s (2002) eight and Thomas’ (2003) six basic steps in conducting a contenanalysis is the basis for the present study. By integrating the suggested processes, the researcher derived ninsteps (Figure 1). The nine steps are:

1. State the purpose of the document analysisThe purpose of the analysis has to be articulated at the beginning of the study.

2. Specify the set of questions to be answered by the analysisResearch questions need to need to be developed in the anticipation that the analysis will assist answering those questions.

3. Select a methodology of approach

There are three types of document analysis: tracking, content analysis, and case study aggregatioChoose the best type of analysis that can assist the researcher in answering the research questions. Fothis study, content analysis and tracking provided a uniform, methodic, and objective way to derivconcepts and identification of themes.

4. Prepare for the analysisSelect the appropriate number of documents or artifacts and number them. A coding approach usineither objective, heuristic, or in-between should be decided.

5. Code documents




77

6. Sort and sift7. Make discoveries8. Think about things

The processes of coding the documents, sorting and sifting, making discoveries, and thinking abothings are iterative and done repeatedly until all pertinent and relevant concepts are considered. As

result, themes emerge, sequences materialise, and patterns are discovered.9. Report findingsReport should include the problem statement, desciption of the documents, explanation of the codinscheme, and explanation of any assertions and implications.

Selection of Journals

The ten-year period of 1993 through 2002 was chosen as a period of time during which computers becamubiquitous and the World Wide Web came into widespread use. It is expected that during this periocomputers, and especially the Internet, will be found to be increasingly prominent in driving the discussion.

ETR&D publishes four issues per year, 36 issues were analysed over a span of ten years covering from 199through the end of 2002 - volumes 41 through 50. Although there are two sections in ETR&D, each editeindependently, the study includes both the Research and Development sections to provide a more coherenpicture of the themes that emerge across the field of educational technology. All articles except for book reviewinternational reviews, and dissertation abstracts were coded.




78

ENDPROCESS

Report Findings

1. State Problem2. Describe Documents/Artifacts3. Explain coding Schema

4. Make Assertions and Explain

5. Implications

Repeat Repeat

Sort and Sift Code Documents or Artifacts

Think About

Things

Make Discoveries

Patterns Sequences Wholes Processes

Categories, Types, Classes

BEGIN PROCESS

Select a Me hodologyof Approach

TrackingContent AnalysisCase Study

State the Purpose of theDocument analysis

Performance ProblemQuality Improvement InitiativeBusiness Opportunity

Select a Coding

ApproachObjectiveHeuristicIn-Between

Select and Number Documents or Artifacts

Doc. 1a.b.c.

Specify Set of

Questions




79

Figure 1: Document Analysis Process. From Pershing (2002). Adapted with Permission of The Author.

Coding and Categorising

Each article was categorised according to concepts discussed. A representative subset from the pool of articl

was scrutinised for the coding scheme. Ten randomly chosen articles from the research and developmensections of ETR&D were analysed so that commonly discussed topics could be obtained. These ten articles werandomly selected across the ten volumes, five from each section, through the process of stratified randomsampling.

Items in the coding sheet were decided upon after looking at the salient concepts found in the first five articles. faculty member from the Department of Instructional Systems Technology was consulted to review thdominant topics chosen in the coding scheme and better classification scheme were suggested. In order to arrivat the proper themes , concepts were chosen as the best term for this content analysis. For example, if the researchis looking for information about the adoption of technology in schools, the concepts would be adoptiotechnology, and schools. Ary et al., (1996) defines concept as “...an abstraction that represents objects or eventhat have something in common...” (p. 565). On the contrary, themes reflect the combination of topics categorie

Each of the articles was read thoroughly and various concepts mentioned or discussed in the articles were noteThen another set of five articles were scrutinised until a majority of the concepts were overlapping and thusaturated. The concepts were categorised into concept clusters in order to make sense of the emerging themeFor example, concepts like cooperative learning, metacognitive activity, individualised instruction, and problesolving were categorised under the cluster “instructional methods.” Several categories emerged during the firphase of analysis, whereby sorting and sifting were once again necessary. This process was iterative and nopredetermined. Problematic categories were referred back to the expert for further assistance. At first, only 6concepts were derived. Later, the concepts were clustered into 15 broader categories.

A codebook and a coding sheet were prepared for analysing the journals by categories derived from analysing

stratified random sample of the journal. The codebook informs the coders how to analyse the articles of eacclassification or category and provide explanations of the terms. An explanation of each item is illustrated wiexamples drawn from the journal articles.

Once the categories were identified and the instrument developed, another coder was recruited to code tharticles. A set of 15 articles from both the Research and Development sections of ETR&D were randomselected. The coder and the researcher coded the same articles independently. Coding here refers to the process transcribing, recording, categorising or interpreting the concepts so that they can be analysed. Each article wcoded a maximum of five concepts only. From the initial inspection of the five articles, more examples weadded, categories collapsed, some were included and others were excluded. Sorting and sifting were necessaduring this first phase of analysis and the process was iterative. Thus, the codebook and coding sheet we

revised (Masood, 2004). This process of sorting and sifting went through three iterations before the coder anthe researcher were 85% in agreement. The final draft of the coding sheet was resubmitted for approval andtotal of 18 main categories and 104 concepts were agreed upon (see Table 1).Then the researcher herself codethe remainder of the 175 articles.




80

Table 1: Concepts used in the study

Clusters of Concepts Concepts used in the instrument for coding articles

1. Instructional/educational

Technology

IT/ET as a whole, Research on IT/ET, Instructional Theory,

Learning Theory 2. Other Fields or Disciplines Other disciplines3. Instructional Process Variables Learner control, Interactivity, Feedback

4. Instructional Process ElementsOrienting, Instructional objectives, Advanced organisers, Informationretrieval

5. Teaching/learning PerspectivesBehaviourist, Cognitivist, Constructivist, Situated cognition, Generativelearning, ARCs model, Chaos Theory, Elaboration theory, Other

6. Instructional MethodsCooperative learning/collaboration, Metacognitive activity,Individualised instruction, Problem solving, Simulation (role-play),Other

7. Delivery systems/MediaFormat

Distance education, Audiographic, TV & Audio Feedback, Two-way TV, Internet or Web-based, AV Media, Student Response System,Intelligent tutoring system, Computer-based instruction, Programmed

instruction, Hypermedia/ web, Multimedia, Written Material, Other8. Instructional development (ID)

ID, ID Models, Elements/ID phases, Analysis, Design, Development,Implementation, Evaluation, Other

9. Production Variables Program attributes, 3-Dimensional, Message design, Semanticcomplexity, Cues, Animation, Link density, Other

10. Learner OutcomesLearner achievement, Fact, Concept, Principle, Procedure, Genericthinking skills, Attitudes, Interpersonal skills, Motor skills, Preferences,Discipline specific, Other

11. Learner Variables Motivation, Age/grade/developmental level, Gender, Prior knowledge,Mental storage & retrieval, Other

12. Learning Environment Learning environment13. Evaluation Evaluation, Usability, Formative evaluation, Summative evaluation,

Adaptive Testing, Other

14. Performance technology (PT)& Performance Support Systems PT models, Electronic Performance Support System, Job aid, Meeting system/conferencing, Other15. Organisational change Systemic change, School reform/restructuring, Non-school

reform/restructuring, Other

16. The ProfessionEthics, Skills/competencies, Certification, Standards, Employment,Other

17. Culture Organisational, National (ethnic), Other18. Teacher Variable Support, Cognitive styles, Attitude, Instructional practice

Reliability

An intercoder reliability analysis was carried out. The coding results from both the trained coder and thresearcher were entered into a statistical package using the SAS system for Windows version 8e to calculate th

intercoder reliability. Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated using the example suggested by Kang et al., (1993The intercoder reliability derived using Krippendorff’s alpha is 0.82.

Face and Content Validity

Two professionals and a graduate student from the field of instructional systems technology at IndianUniversity were invited to comment on the instrument for validation purposes. The instrument was checked the start of the analysis and was revised after feedback was given by the experts. After the final revision was don




81

during the end of the coding phase, the same experts were consulted to conduct a final check of the instrumenfor face validity and content validity .

Analysis of Data

Various analyses were conducted throughout the data collection process. Quantitative data were obtained b

calculating the frequency of different kinds of concepts, and descriptive statistics were generated. In contrasqualitative decisions involve creating a system for classifying the categories and emerging themes. Generalisationwere confined within the chosen journal.

The data analysis was conducted using two approaches: inductive analysis (Goetz & LeCompte, 1981; Patto1990) and constant comparison strategy (Goetz & LeCompte, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As the data analysprogressed, the researcher was able to define categories based on overlying themes. Coding, comments, anreflections on each article were noted. During this period, sorting and sifting of articles into categories occurreIn consequence, fewer modifications were required as data sources become saturated. Once patterns weidentified, data were integrated and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Data gathered were organised according to the clusters of categories. Each article was coded and statisticanalysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12.0 for Windowprogramme. The programme was used to assist the researcher in grouping the articles into clusters for commoareas of focus found in the coding. An output in the form of a dendrogram using average linkage betweegroups illustrated various choices of possible clusters for the researcher to use.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation is the purposeful sample taken from the population of instructional technology journals publishearound the world. Research in areas of instructional technology may be published in other journals noconsidered in this study such as Instructional Computing , Educational Technology , and British Journal of EducationTechnology . Limitations were posed by using only one journal as opposed to many other journals, such as thbreadth of discussions covered in various educational journals. However, since AECT is seen to be th

overarching association of educational technology, ETR&D should suffice in giving a snapshot of the whopicture. Any generalisations made will be limited to just ETR&D.

Another limitation is the number of concepts that were constricted to each article. Since each article was codewith a maximum of five concepts, there may be instances where an article may be discussing more than fivmajor concepts and were not included during the coding phase. As a result, concepts that may have beepertinent to others may not be considered or included by the researcher.

A further limitation is the accuracy of the meaning underlying the concepts analysed. The basis of conteanalysis is to look at manifest content that refers to observable word or written text. The categories derived anconcepts gathered are based on manifest content, but during the interpretive stage the researcher relies heavi

on the patterns and connections between the concept cues. Since manifest content and latent content lies oncontinuum, there is a likelihood that the researcher may fall into the area of analysing latent content. Here thresearcher may have included some bias and judgment that are shaped by the researcher’s existing schemSubjectivity may become a question. To counteract this possibility, an American graduate student who is in theducational technology field was consulted for any differences in views in the interpretation stage. Andifferences found were justified and clarified.




82

RESULTSFrequency of Major Concepts A frequency table was generated in order to take a quick look at the major concepts and to grasp a general idewhat concept cluster appear consistently and persistently throughout the period of study (see Table 2). Thmethod of tracking gives a macroscopic view of what concept cluster most frequently appear in the articl

during the decade of study.

In Table 2, the last column with arrows denotes whether a particular concept cluster increased, decreased, oremains constant as seen in the first 5 and last 5 years of study. A particular concept cluster is considere

unchanged ( ↔) if the differences between the first 5 years and the last 5 years is less than 1%; however, if the

is an increase by 1%, than a concept cluster is regarded to have increased ( ↑) during the period studied. Likewis

if there is a drop by 1% during the last 5 years of study, the concept cluster is deemed to have decreased ( ↓).Feach particular concept cluster, the total number of concepts is shown in the ‘first 5 years’ and ‘last 5 yearcolumns. The table also gives the total number of concepts and the total number of articles analysed per yeaDuring the last 5 years, the number of articles had increased by 11%. The average concept per article for the fir5 and last 5 years were 2.8 and 3 respectively.

Table 2: Frequency of Major Concepts by Year in ETR&D

(Year) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Clusters of Concepts (Volume ) 41 42 43 44 45

First 5

yrs (%) 46 47 48 49

1. Instructional/educational Technology 4 0 0 0 5 9 (3.6) 2 2 3 2

2. Other Fields or Disciplines 0 1 3 0 1 5 (2.0) 4 8 5 0

3. Instructional Process Variables 3 2 3 2 1 11 (4.4) 1 1 3 3

4. Instructional Process Elements 0 1 1 1 3 6 (2.4) 2 1 1 1

5. Teaching/learning Perspectives 4 0 5 4 4 17 (6.8) 3 6 5 2

6. Instructional Methods 3 2 6 4 3 18 (7.2) 8 7 9 7

7. Delivery systems/Media Format 10 3 10 17 11 51 (20.4) 11 11 15 11

8. Instructional development 12 2 7 15 11 47 (18.8) 10 17 7 9

9. Production Variables 4 0 5 4 2 15 (6.0) 3 2 2 1

10. Learner Outcomes 4 2 4 1 3 14 (5.6) 7 5 8 7

11. Learner Variables 4 0 9 3 1 17 (6.8) 3 3 3 3

12. Learning Environment 1 0 2 4 3 10 (4.0) 1 2 7 9

13. Evaluation 2 1 2 2 1 8 (3.2) 2 5 1 0

14. Performance technology & Performance

Support Systems0 0 1 1 2 4 (1.6) 4 2 1 1

15. Organisational change 1 1 0 0 1 3 (1.2) 1 5 0 0

16. The Profession 1 1 1 1 1 5 (2.0) 1 5 0 0

17. Culture 0 1 1 2 0 4 (1.6) 4 1 1 1

18. Teacher Variable 0 1 2 3 0 6 (2.4) 2 0 0 0

Concept Total 53 18 62 64 53 250 69 83 71 57

Article Total 19 6 18 24 22 89 24 23 22 22

Note . The frequency table reflects concept clusters that the articles contain. An article may have up to 5 concept.




83

From the frequency table, a rank order of content analysis of concept cluster was derived (Table 3‘Instructional/educational technology’ as a field seems to be a concept that neither increased nor decreased idiscussion during the period of study. According to the codebook, this concept refers to the general field oinstructional/educational technology particularly instructional theories. However, there were no promine

discussions at all on this concept in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2002.

Table 3: Rank Order of Content Analysis Concept Categories

Clusters of Concepts 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Delivery System 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Instructional Development 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 2

Instructional Method 8 2 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 3



MOJIT A Ten Year Analysis: Trends in Traditional Educational Technology Literature

Nevertheless, ‘other disciplines’ have been appearing throughout the decade in study. The numberof articles that presented ‘other disciplines’ increased by four times in the last 5 years studied orconversely, tripled with respect to the total number of concepts. For example, language, science, andsoftware engineering were among the other disciplines that permeated into the field of ET.

The concept on ‘instructional process variables’ like learner and programme control, interactivity,and feedback were seen steadily throughout the period of study except in 2002. The focus on thisconcept were slightly more during the first half of the study in comparison to the latter half. Incontrast, ‘instructional process elements’ which includes orienting and information retrieval weretouched upon minimally throughout the period of study.

The ‘teaching or learning perspectives’ concept cluster includes behaviourist, cognitivist, andconstructivist approaches. These were concepts that appear steadily throughout the decade.However, ‘instructional methods’ that involves cooperative learning or collaboration, metacognitiveactivity, individualised instruction, problem solving, and simulation were concepts that increasedalmost two-folds during the latter half of the decade and was ranked third in the content analysisconcept cluster.

‘Delivery systems or media format’ was the top ranked content analysis concept cluster thatappeared in the literature either first or second each year even though on the whole there was anoverall drop in the articles. This concept cluster pertains to distance education and its variousdelivery systems like using audiographic, television and audio feedback, two-way television, andInternet or Web-based. There were articles that still considered classroom media such as films,slides, and overhead transparencies. However, computer-based instruction were seen to dominatethe topic of discussion especially after 1996. Likewise, ‘instructional development’ is a conceptcluster that appeared more prominently from 1996 through 1999. This concept cluster was rankedsecond as the most frequently presented concept in the ETR&D literature although in general therewas a decrease in percentage.

‘Production variables’ that includes programme attributes, message design, semantic complexity,cues, animation, and link density were frequently discussed during the first half of the decade andslowly declined in the latter half of the study. In addition, the discussion on ‘learner variables’ suchas motivation, age or developmental level, gender, and prior knowledge appeared more in theliterature during the first half decade than the second half.

‘Learner outcomes’ like learner achievement was doubled after 1997 while the concept ‘learning environment’ were seen to increase in the literature almost by half especially during the last threeyears of study. However, the concept cluster, ‘evaluation’ includes usability, formative evaluation,and summative evaluation tend not to be as prominent except for in 1999. Similarly, ‘performance

technology and performance support systems’ were concept clusters that do not appear frequently inthe ETR&D literature except for in 1998. Nevertheless, the number of articles more than doubledin the last 5 years of study.

‘Organisational change’ which covers systemic change, school reform or restructuring, and non-school reform did not appear that frequently throughout the decade in study except for in 1999only. This is due to special issues on developments in ET design and evaluation and IT and teachereducation that particular year. In general, this concept cluster remained unchanged. ‘The profession’includes ethics, skills or competencies, certification, standards, and employment. There were nodiscussion on this concept during the last three years of study. Organisational culture and ethnicity were clustered into the category ‘culture’ which did not appear frequently and seem to decrease in



MOJIT A Ten Year Analysis: Trends in Traditional EducationalTechnology Literature

85

the literature towards year 2002 although overall, this concept remained unchanged. Also, ‘teachervariable’ was a concept that did not appear frequently during the period of study.

Themes and Trends

Emerging patterns were searched thoroughly from the categories of concepts that were collectedthroughout the coding and sorting process. Individual concepts were cross tabulated against thedecade of study and a cluster analysis was carried out. Through this process, the articles were placedinto logical groupings whereby the articles that shared similarities of concepts observed wereclumped together. Upon further investigation of the concept clusters, its individual concepts, and adendrogram output, themes were identified and eventually translated into trends.

Theme 1: Delivery Systems Revolutionised through New Technologies Between 1993 and 1999 there were still on-going discussion and concerns regarding distanceeducation as a delivery system. Evaluation studies were implemented to assess the effectiveness of distance learning programmes (e.g., Martin & Bramble, 1996; Whetzel et al., 1996). However, thisdiscussion started to dwindle at the turn of the century as reflected in ETR&D with respect toprevious years. There were very few instances of inquiry into the area of distance learning.

Nonetheless, Squire & Johnson (2000) examined three distance learning programmes to look athow instructors facilitate student and expert interaction. Delivery via the Web has been agrowing interest among educators. For example, Internet-based instructional material on frog dissection was developed to encourage high levels of use and user satisfaction (Kinzie et al., 1996).Meanwhile, in Taiwan a system incorporating cooperative distance learning provided a networkedcourseware that was written in Chinese (Chou & Sun, 1996).

Also, studies related to computer-based as a media format were many (e.g., Cho & Jonassen, 2002;Cobb, 1999; Gerlič & Jaušovec, 1999; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000; Windschitl, 2000). At thesame time, interest is seen in the area of designing a framework for authentic learning environmentsusing multimedia as the delivery mode (e.g., Herrington & Oliver, 2000). Their study investigated

students’ perceptions using a multimedia package based on a situated learning environment withinan authentic learning context.

Theme 2: Instructional Development Renewed In connection to the growing field of instructional technology, there is a constant need for betterand improved instructional development (ID) models. One example appears in Ryder & Redding (1993) who presented a framework for the integration of cognitive and behavioural task analysismethods within the Instructional Systems Development model. In the same year, Sullivan et al.,(1993) conducted a survey looking at different perspectives on the future of educational technology.In addition, the 1996 Dick and Carey model (Dick, 1996) was revisited and the influence of constructivist theory on the model was described.

For many years there was little interest in computer-based instructional design tools that support theanalysis and design activities before the selection of a medium was made (van Merriёnboer &Martens, 2002). Likewise, slight interest was shown prior to 2002 towards computer-basedinstructional design tools that support implementation and evaluation activities that were undertakenafter the instruction has been developed.

Nevertheless, there is a renewed interest in computer-based instructional design tools. It isspeculated that these tools will gain importance in the near future since the instructional design toolsincorporates multidisciplinary and collaborative tasks (van Merriёnboer & Martens, 2002). First,Mooij (2002) described a digital instructional management system called the Digital Planning Board




86

that may help to implement personalised and learner-centered instruction in kindergarten andprimary school. Second, McKenney et al., (2002) discussed a family of computer-based tools calledComputer Assisted Curriculum Analysis, Design and Evaluation (CASCADE) designed to assistprofessional designers and secondary school teachers in developing countries to design and evaluatetheir instructional materials. Third, Spector (2002) elaborated the use of a knowledge managementsystem to support planning, implementation, and management of instructional systems and learning

environments in higher education, Reiser (2001) said that, “knowledge management is one of themost recent trends to have affected the field of instructional design” (p. 64). Fourth, De Croock etal., (2002) introduced a training design tool (Core) that supports analysis and design for competency-based training programs and tool (Eval) to evaluate industrial training programs for complex skills.

Theme 3: Regained Interest in Instructional Methods According to the ETR&D literature, beginning 1998 researchers paid more attention to differenttypes of instructional methods. Research were conducted on how educational theory translates intoclassroom practice such as engaging in hands-on and authentic activity (e.g., Nicaise & Crane, 1999;Herrington & Oliver, 2000) as well as project-based environment (Land & Greene, 2000). Also,individual and small group learning structures besides learner-centered approaches gained attention

(e.g., Klein & Doran, 1999; Land, 2000). Another instructional method that captured many researchers interest was in problem solving approaches (e.g., Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Jonassen &Kwon, 2001; Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Saye & Brush, 2002) and coaching strategies(Stepich et al., 2001).

Theme 4: Burgeoning Interest in Collaboration and Learning Communities The ETR&D articles revealed an active discussion on the importance of learning communities andvarious learning environments (e.g., Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Land, 2000; Saye & Brush, 2002).Moller (1998) described the need for learning communities within the context of asynchronousdistance education and emphasised the relevance of this community in a training environment.While Moller stressed community support such as social reinforcement and information exchange,

Rovai (2001) theorised four classroom community components encompassing spirit, trust,interaction, and learning. In addition, Barab et al., (2000) looked at how partnership betweenuniversities and K-12 schools can provide the foundation for supporting a learning community of preservice and practicing teachers situated in collaborative practices that are authentic. Also, theauthors stated that the importance of collaborative knowledge building is to redirect the teaching and learning process to the community. Gilbert & Driscoll (2002) provided guidelines for acollaborative knowledge-building environment suggesting the use of scaffolds, tracking the learning process, balancing tension, promoting relevance and motivation, promoting a shared vision andpromoting the acquisition of knowledge.

Theme 5: Cultural and Social Aspects of Instructional Design

To a lesser extent, the content analysis also revealed that earlier articles were concerned aboutvarious factors to be considered during the process of designing instruction. The role of instructional designing should simply be seen as designing or composing rather than an isolatedphenomenon (Rowland, 1993). Factors such as the role of context (Tessmer & Richey, 1997), co-designing between cultures (Dávila & Keirns, 1994), and expert teacher’s thinking (Moallem, 1998)are important considerations that should be well thought-out in the process of instructional design.Further, Moallem (1998) pointed toward a social and cultural construct of thinking and teaching versus a cognitive construct of instructional design that emphasises the interaction of designers withthe social and cultural system and subsystems. Moallem (1998) stated that this view is different fromthe cognitive view of knowledge whereby instructional design models, strategies, or solutions areformulated outside of the social system and are decided by designers and subject matter experts.




87

While Dávila & Keirns (1994) and Moallem (1998) emphasised the importance of transfer betweenthe culture of two different nations, Tessmer & Richey (1997) accentuated the importance of organisational culture in instructional design. Cifuentes & Murphy (2000) advocated multiculturalunderstanding and positive self-concept whose findings substantiate the power of social-constructivist approaches to classroom teaching.

DISCUSSIONBased on this content analysis of ETR&D, the top ranked content analysis concept cluster is‘delivery systems or media format’ which consistently appeared first in all the years except for 1993and 1999 when this concept frequently appeared second. This result is a major difference to Ely etal.’s 1991 study when they discovered that ‘instructional processes’ was ranked first in 1988, 1989,and 1991. The ETR&D literature from 1993 through 2002 did not show any prominence in either‘instructional process variables’ or ‘instructional process elements.’ On the contrary, the trend showsthat interest in delivery system via distance education has blossomed and moved from using audiographic to Web-based infrastructure.

The second ranked most frequently presented concept in the literature was ‘instructionaldevelopment’. Thus, the trend shows that there is a growing attention to the development of computer-based instructional development tools. There is an increased interest in tools by botheducators and trainers. These tools are emerging to support various levels of developers (novice toexpert) and to support a variety of perspectives in learning. This finding is comparable to Klein’sstudy (1997) that showed instructional design (ID) for computer technologies was the topic mostfrequently published topic between 1989 to 1997 although the analysis was only for the developmentsection of ETR&D. However, there is a renewed interest for the design of instructional toolsrecently.

Towards the second half of the study period, the literature revealed that researchers were more

focused in inquiry on instructional methods like effects of learner-centeredness, collaboration, andproblem-based approaches. This shows that the key to reaching a specific outcome is by applying the appropriate instructional method. Further, if it had not been for the dramatic surge of interest in“constructivist” learning approaches in the late 1980s and early 1990s it is highly unlikely that thisvigorous conversation about the methods coupled with learning environments would have takenplace.

An interesting finding is that there is an escalating need for learning communities to support thelearning environment. This is a growing trend and can be seen in various settings. One can deducefrom the ETR&D literature that there is burgeoning interest in collaboration and learning communities and it has become prevalent in any learning environment.

Lastly, downward trends include a decreasing interest in production variables, learner variables, andteacher variables in ETR&D for the period studied.

REFERENCES

AECT, Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2004). The Definition of Educational Technology . Pre-publication draft of a chapter for The Definition of Educational Technology .Bloomington, IN: AECT.




88

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education (5th ed.). Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace & Company.

Babbie, E. (1992). The Practice of Social Research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D. & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting theemergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37-62.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research . New York: Free Press.

Cho, K-L. & Jonassen, D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation andproblem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.

Chou, C. & Sun, C-T. (1996). Constructing a cooperative distance learning system: The CORALExperience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 71-84.

Cifuentes, L. & Murphy, K.L. (2000). Promoting multicultural understanding and positive self-concept through a distance learning community: Cultural connections. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 69-83.

Cobb, T. (1999). Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 15-31.

Dávila, J.R. & Keirns, J.L. (1994). The effect of co-designing on educational transfer betweencultures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 89-100.

De Croock, M.B.M., Paas, F., Schlanbusch, H., & van Merriёnboer, J.J.G. (2002). ADAPT IT: Tools

for training design and evaluation, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 47-58.

Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 56-63.

Ely, D.P., Foley, A., Freeman, W. & Scheel, N. (1992). Trends in educational technology 1991.Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 18, 1-29.

Gerlič, I. & Jaušovec, N. (1999). Multimedia: Differences in cognitive processes observed withEEG. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 5-14.

Gilbert, N.J. & Driscoll, M.P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 50(1), 59-79.

Goetz, J.P. & LeCompte, M.D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51-70.

Gustafson, K.L. (1995/1996). Educational media and technology: The state of the profession.Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 21, 8-13.

Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.




89

Higgins, N., Sullivan, H., Harper-Marinick, M. & Lopez C. (1989). Perspective on educationaltechnology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 7-17.

Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jonassen, D.H. & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design:Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.

Jonassen, D.H.& Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communciation patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35-51.

Kang, N., Kara, A., Laskey, H.A. & Seaton, F.B. (1993). A SAS macro for calculating intercoderagreement in content analysis. Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 18-23.

Kinzie, M.B., Larsen, V.A., Burch, J.B. & Boker, S.M. (1996). Frog dissection via the World-wide

web: Implications for widespread delivery of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 59-69.

Klein, J.D. (1997). ETR&D-Development: An analysis of content and survey of future direction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 57-62.

Klein, J.D. & Doran, M.S. (1999). Implementing individual and small group learning structures witha computer simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 97-110.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Land, S.M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.

Land, S.M. & Greene, B.A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitativestudy of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45-68.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, B.L. & Bramble, W.J. (1996). Designing effective video teletraining instruction: The Floridateletraining project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 85-99.

Masood, M. (2004). Trends and issues as reflected in traditional educational literature: A contentanalysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University.

McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2002). Computer support for curriculumdevelopers: CASCADE, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 25-35.

Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching and instructional design models andprinciples: An ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37-64.




90

Molenda, M. & Harris, P. (2001). Issues and trends in instructional technology. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 26, 3-15.

Molenda, M., Russell, J. D. & Smaldino, S. (1998). Trends in media and technology in education andtraining. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 23, 2-13.

Molenda, M. & Sullivan, M. (2000). Issues and trends in instructional technology. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 25, 3-13.

Molenda, M. & Sullivan, M. (2002). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Hitting theplateau. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 27, 3-18.

Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115-122.

Mooij, T. (2002). Designing a digital instructional management system to optimize early education.Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 11-23.

Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Nicaise, M. & Crane, M. (1999). Knowledge constructivng through hypermedia authoring.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 29-50.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Pershing, J. L. (2002). Using document analysis in analyzing and evaluating performance. Performance Improvement, 41(1), 36-42.

Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II-A history of

instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67.

Reiser, R.A. (2002). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R. A.Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology . Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rovai, A.P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33-48.

Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.

Ryder, J.M. & Redding, R.E. (1993). Integrating cognitive task analysis into instructional systemsdevelopment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 75-96.

Saye, J.W. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues inmultimedia-supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.

Schnackenberg, H.L. & Sullivan, H.J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-basedinstruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and Development,48(2), 19-35.




91

Seels, B.B. & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field .Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Seo, K., Eastmond, N. & Cain, H. (2002). Twenty years (and more) of international review:Retrospective view. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 82-93.

Spector, J.M. (2002). Knowledge management tools for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 37-46.

Squire, K.D. & Johnson, C.B. (2000). Supporting distributed communities of practice withinteractive television. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 23-43.

Stepich, D.A., Ertmer, P.A. & Lane, M.M. (2001). Problem-solving in a case-based course: Strategiesfor facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 53-69.

Sullivan, H.J., Igoe, A.R., Klein, J., Jones, E.E. & Savenye, W.C. (1993). Perspectives on the futureof educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 97-110.

Tessmer, M. & Richey, R.C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.

Torkelson, G. (1977). AVCR—One quarter century: Evolution of theory and research. Audiovisual Communication Review, 25(4), 317-358.

Thomas, R.M. (2003). Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Theses and Dissertations .Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

van Merriёnboer, J.J.G. & Martens, R. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design: An

introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 5-9.

Whetzel, D.L., Felker, D.B. & Williams, K.M. (1996). A real world comparison of the effectivenessof satellite training and classroom training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 5-18.

Wilson, B.G. (2002). Trends and futures of education: Implications for distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 99-103.

Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 81-95.