Educational Sciences MA – Instructional Design and Evaluation 2019-2020
1.1 – Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology
research? By: Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia & Lo
Introduction
Problem: educational technology research has grown in importance, but is often methodologically
weak and under-theorised.
Aim of the paper: uncover 1) how much/little theory is actually being used to frame or set up
research, and 2) how often existing theories are challenged or confirmed.
Solution: researchers should develop more middle-range theories (see conclusion) and be more
explicit about the theories that underly their research.
Reasons why theory is important:
- Theory provides a useful basis to describe, explain and predict phenomena
- Studies that show refinements to theory are usually considered to be of high quality
- The use of theory can increase generalisations
Theory in education technology research
Theory = an explanation (Y because of X) or design (to achieve Y, do X).
Results
How explicitly is existing theory identified in educational technology research?
40% did not make any reference to a theory; 25% vaguely described the theory they used; 35%
explicitly described the theories they used. Most used theories stem from fields such as psychology ,
with less than 20% being specific to the field of educational technology.
How is existing theory applied in educational technology research?
Research was mostly used to conceptualise research, to inform data collection or analysis, and to
discuss research outcomes, rather than to expand upon the research.
To what extent is existing theory being advanced in the research?
Only 15% of the articles revealed new insights about a particular theory.
Are certain research methods more likely to engage with theory?
Yes, the correlational method showed a higher proportion of theory use, whereas the prescriptive
and comparative methods are least predominant in using theory (but they are the most used
methods in general).
,Discussion
Reasons for “naïve empiricism” or the lack of theory in educational technology research:
- Emphasis on collecting and processing data, without grounding the results in theory
- Emphasis on hypothetical-deductive systems based on the observed regulations
Why is naïve empiricism prevalent in education research?
Possibly because of the demand to focus on practical applications of research, giving little priority to
theory.
Epistemic engagement view = theories that stress learners’ discovering and sharing of knowledge.
Heutagogy view = theories focusing on the development of learner self-direction.
Presentational view = theories about how to make discourse and visualisations explicit to learners,
such as how to present images and words effectively.
Why do so many articles show explicit theoretical engagement with other disciplines?
Possibly because educational technology is an eclectic field, meaning that it borrows heavily from
fields such as psychology, sociology, and computer sciences.
Opportunity: insights from various fields > better interpretation of findings.
Challenge: outlining a coherent theoretical stance on educational technology as a whole.
Theory exemplification = using theory as a way to highlight particular issues about the relation
between theory and data, instead of challenging or expanding a theory.
Why are correlational studies more often expanding on research than other methods?
Using correlational methods (especially multivariate techniques) requires a theoretical diagram that
shows how variables/concepts influence each other. Hypotheses are meant to test these influences.
Conclusion
Implications:
- Develop more “middle-range theories”, i.e. theories that can 1) explain empirical findings,
and 2) conceptualise research design, inform data manipulation, and interpret results
- Researchers ought to be more explicit about the theories they use and base their
assumptions on
Limitations of the study:
- It could be that authors have thought about theoretical underpinnings for their research, but
simply did not mention it their articles
- The articles examined were considered to be of high quality > the results may be biased
- The articles examined were all about empirical studies
- The articles examined were only published in the last two years > no change over time can be
shown
,1.2 – Categorising and combining theories of cognitive development and
learning. By: Byrnes
Introduction
Approach of the paper: classifying the underlying assumptions of theories to see if they can be
combined.
Meta-theoretical belief systems = philosophies/assumptions that 1) lead researchers to investigate
certain phenomena and avoid others (e.g. behaviourists do not study mental imagery); 2) specify the
nature of knowledge (e.g. structuralists believe that knowledge consists of interrelated concepts); 3)
specify the origin of knowledge (e.g. naturalists believe knowledge to be innate).
Advantages of MTBSs:
- MTBSs can help explain models, as theories (that produce models) are influenced by the
MTBS they rely on
- Theories can be viewed as having historical linkage through a common MTBS
- MTBSs can be used to determine whether (parts of) theories can be combined
- MTBSs can help to categorize theories and highlight their differences and similarities
- More nuanced than dichotomies (behaviourism vs. cognitivism or qualitative vs. quantitative)
Eight meta-theoretical belief systems
The chosen MTBSs answer one or more of the following questions: 1) what is the nature of
knowledge?, 2) do mental representations exist? Can mental representations affect behaviour?, and
3) where does knowledge come from?
Group 1 – behaviourism, neo-behaviourism, cognitivism > different explanations of behaviour
Group 2 – structuralism, functionalism > different forms of knowledge
Group 3 – nativism, empiricism, constructivism > different origins of knowledge
How epistemologies underlie model construction
Group 2 is neutral to question 3, the origin of knowledge; group 3 is neutral to question 1, the nature
of knowledge. Hence, there can be within-group combinations of MTBSs (behaviourism and neo-
behaviourism) and between-group combinations (behaviourism and structuralism).
Within-group combinations
Within-group combinations of MTBSs can only occur if:
- The MTBSs are not the opposite ends or midpoints on a spectrum (one cannot be both
radically behaviourist and cognitivist at the same time)
- The theorist does not have one preferred or in their opinion “best” MTBS
Between-group combinations
Group 2
Structuralism Functionalism
Group 1 Radical behaviourism No No
Neo-behaviourism Yes Yes
Cognitivism Yes Yes
, Group 3
Nativism Constructivism Empiricism
Group 1 Radical behaviourism No No Yes
Neo-behaviourism No No Yes
Cognitivism Yes Yes Yes
Group 2
Structuralism Functionalism
Group 3 Nativism Yes Yes
Constructivism Yes Yes
Empiricism Yes Yes
Conclusions
Yes, MTBSs can indeed show whether it is sensible to combine (parts of) theories. What can be done
with the eight MTBSs: 1) they impose order on current theories and how those relate to prior ones,
and 2) it permits a new, systematic way of determining when a combination of theories is coherent.
Two theories can have the same MTBSs, but differ in the mechanisms used: e.g. organismic vs.
mechanistic, their methodologies, etc.
What this paper adds:
- It accounts for more theories, even ones that have been omitted in previous classifications
- It uses a three continua/spectra (the three groups) approach instead of using a single
dichotomy > more insight into differences and similarities between theories
- The idea that theories can and should be combined is new and unpopular
1.1 – Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology
research? By: Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia & Lo
Introduction
Problem: educational technology research has grown in importance, but is often methodologically
weak and under-theorised.
Aim of the paper: uncover 1) how much/little theory is actually being used to frame or set up
research, and 2) how often existing theories are challenged or confirmed.
Solution: researchers should develop more middle-range theories (see conclusion) and be more
explicit about the theories that underly their research.
Reasons why theory is important:
- Theory provides a useful basis to describe, explain and predict phenomena
- Studies that show refinements to theory are usually considered to be of high quality
- The use of theory can increase generalisations
Theory in education technology research
Theory = an explanation (Y because of X) or design (to achieve Y, do X).
Results
How explicitly is existing theory identified in educational technology research?
40% did not make any reference to a theory; 25% vaguely described the theory they used; 35%
explicitly described the theories they used. Most used theories stem from fields such as psychology ,
with less than 20% being specific to the field of educational technology.
How is existing theory applied in educational technology research?
Research was mostly used to conceptualise research, to inform data collection or analysis, and to
discuss research outcomes, rather than to expand upon the research.
To what extent is existing theory being advanced in the research?
Only 15% of the articles revealed new insights about a particular theory.
Are certain research methods more likely to engage with theory?
Yes, the correlational method showed a higher proportion of theory use, whereas the prescriptive
and comparative methods are least predominant in using theory (but they are the most used
methods in general).
,Discussion
Reasons for “naïve empiricism” or the lack of theory in educational technology research:
- Emphasis on collecting and processing data, without grounding the results in theory
- Emphasis on hypothetical-deductive systems based on the observed regulations
Why is naïve empiricism prevalent in education research?
Possibly because of the demand to focus on practical applications of research, giving little priority to
theory.
Epistemic engagement view = theories that stress learners’ discovering and sharing of knowledge.
Heutagogy view = theories focusing on the development of learner self-direction.
Presentational view = theories about how to make discourse and visualisations explicit to learners,
such as how to present images and words effectively.
Why do so many articles show explicit theoretical engagement with other disciplines?
Possibly because educational technology is an eclectic field, meaning that it borrows heavily from
fields such as psychology, sociology, and computer sciences.
Opportunity: insights from various fields > better interpretation of findings.
Challenge: outlining a coherent theoretical stance on educational technology as a whole.
Theory exemplification = using theory as a way to highlight particular issues about the relation
between theory and data, instead of challenging or expanding a theory.
Why are correlational studies more often expanding on research than other methods?
Using correlational methods (especially multivariate techniques) requires a theoretical diagram that
shows how variables/concepts influence each other. Hypotheses are meant to test these influences.
Conclusion
Implications:
- Develop more “middle-range theories”, i.e. theories that can 1) explain empirical findings,
and 2) conceptualise research design, inform data manipulation, and interpret results
- Researchers ought to be more explicit about the theories they use and base their
assumptions on
Limitations of the study:
- It could be that authors have thought about theoretical underpinnings for their research, but
simply did not mention it their articles
- The articles examined were considered to be of high quality > the results may be biased
- The articles examined were all about empirical studies
- The articles examined were only published in the last two years > no change over time can be
shown
,1.2 – Categorising and combining theories of cognitive development and
learning. By: Byrnes
Introduction
Approach of the paper: classifying the underlying assumptions of theories to see if they can be
combined.
Meta-theoretical belief systems = philosophies/assumptions that 1) lead researchers to investigate
certain phenomena and avoid others (e.g. behaviourists do not study mental imagery); 2) specify the
nature of knowledge (e.g. structuralists believe that knowledge consists of interrelated concepts); 3)
specify the origin of knowledge (e.g. naturalists believe knowledge to be innate).
Advantages of MTBSs:
- MTBSs can help explain models, as theories (that produce models) are influenced by the
MTBS they rely on
- Theories can be viewed as having historical linkage through a common MTBS
- MTBSs can be used to determine whether (parts of) theories can be combined
- MTBSs can help to categorize theories and highlight their differences and similarities
- More nuanced than dichotomies (behaviourism vs. cognitivism or qualitative vs. quantitative)
Eight meta-theoretical belief systems
The chosen MTBSs answer one or more of the following questions: 1) what is the nature of
knowledge?, 2) do mental representations exist? Can mental representations affect behaviour?, and
3) where does knowledge come from?
Group 1 – behaviourism, neo-behaviourism, cognitivism > different explanations of behaviour
Group 2 – structuralism, functionalism > different forms of knowledge
Group 3 – nativism, empiricism, constructivism > different origins of knowledge
How epistemologies underlie model construction
Group 2 is neutral to question 3, the origin of knowledge; group 3 is neutral to question 1, the nature
of knowledge. Hence, there can be within-group combinations of MTBSs (behaviourism and neo-
behaviourism) and between-group combinations (behaviourism and structuralism).
Within-group combinations
Within-group combinations of MTBSs can only occur if:
- The MTBSs are not the opposite ends or midpoints on a spectrum (one cannot be both
radically behaviourist and cognitivist at the same time)
- The theorist does not have one preferred or in their opinion “best” MTBS
Between-group combinations
Group 2
Structuralism Functionalism
Group 1 Radical behaviourism No No
Neo-behaviourism Yes Yes
Cognitivism Yes Yes
, Group 3
Nativism Constructivism Empiricism
Group 1 Radical behaviourism No No Yes
Neo-behaviourism No No Yes
Cognitivism Yes Yes Yes
Group 2
Structuralism Functionalism
Group 3 Nativism Yes Yes
Constructivism Yes Yes
Empiricism Yes Yes
Conclusions
Yes, MTBSs can indeed show whether it is sensible to combine (parts of) theories. What can be done
with the eight MTBSs: 1) they impose order on current theories and how those relate to prior ones,
and 2) it permits a new, systematic way of determining when a combination of theories is coherent.
Two theories can have the same MTBSs, but differ in the mechanisms used: e.g. organismic vs.
mechanistic, their methodologies, etc.
What this paper adds:
- It accounts for more theories, even ones that have been omitted in previous classifications
- It uses a three continua/spectra (the three groups) approach instead of using a single
dichotomy > more insight into differences and similarities between theories
- The idea that theories can and should be combined is new and unpopular
