You are here:

Commentary: Expanding Notions of Acceptable Research Evidence in Educational Technology: A Response to Schrum et al.
Article

, , University of Florida, United States

CITE Journal Volume 6, Number 1, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

“Developing Acceptable Evidence in Educational Technology Research” (Schrum et al., 2005) and its precursor editorial, “A Proactive Approach to a Research Agenda for Educational Technology” (Bull, Knezek, Roblyer, Schrum, & Thompson, 2005), are unprecedented collaborative efforts by journal editors to influence research in our field. This response aims to highlight the inherent complexity within each of the four main issues addressed by Schrum et. al. and to expand the conversation. We appreciate both the editors' efforts to be proactive with the problems and solutions as well as their open invitation to comment on their ideas for advancing the field. We look forward to continued dialogue.

Citation

Dawson, K. & Ferdig, R. (2006). Commentary: Expanding Notions of Acceptable Research Evidence in Educational Technology: A Response to Schrum et al. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 133-142. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved December 11, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 3-15.
  2. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  3. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Outreach, 1 (1), 11-20.
  4. Bull, G., Knezek, G., Roblyer, M.D., Schrum, L., & Thompson, A. (2005). A proactive approach to a research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (3), 217-220.
  5. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K.J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Website: http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/k12distance.pdf
  6. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
  7. Clark, R.W., Foster, A., & Mantle-Bromley, C. (2005). Hybrid educators and the simultaneous renewal of schools and the education of educators. Seattle, WA: Institution for Educational Inquiry.
  8. Ferdig, R.E., & Weiland, S. (2002). A deeper psychology of technology: A case study of a girl and her eMate. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 423-430.
  9. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
  10. Golde, C., & Walker, G. (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing
  11. Hartshorne, C.R., Ferdig, R.E., & Dawson, K. (2005). Preparing current and future teachers to teach with technology: An examination of school-university collaborations. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21 (3) , 109-1 1 7.
  12. Jones, T.H., & Paolucci, R. (1998). The learning effectives of educational technology: A call for further research. Educational Technology Review, 9(2/3), 10-14.
  13. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universitiy Press.
  14. Labaree, D.F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  15. Oppenheimer (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
  16. Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4 –15
  17. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
  18. Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Sprague, D., Maddux, C., McAnear, A., Bell, L., & Bull, G.(2005). Advancing the field: Considering acceptable evidence in educational technology research. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5 (3/4). Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss3/editorial/article1.cfm
  19. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  20. Thompson, A. (2005). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Framing teacher knowledge about technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22 (2), 46, 48.
  21. Waxman, H.C., Lin, M.F., & Michko, G.M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Website: http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/waxman.pdf

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Using lesson plans as a proxy for teacher technology integration practices in math and science using TPACK: A transferrable research design

    Kara Dawson & Albert Ritzhaupt, University of Florida, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (Mar 17, 2014) pp. 1398–1404

  2. An Exploration of Digital Technologies in Teacher Education: TPCK Framework

    Vetta Vratulis, Saginaw Valley State University, United States

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013 (Jun 24, 2013) pp. 698–704

  3. Gold Standard Research: Methods for Collecting Field-based Data

    Ann Cunningham, Kristin Bennett & Adam Friedman, Wake Forest University, United States; Melissa Pierson, University of Houston, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (Mar 02, 2009) pp. 860–863

  4. The evolution of ARTI: An online tool to promote classroom-based technology outcomes via teacher inquiry

    Kara Dawson & Cathy Cavanaugh, University of Florida, United States; Albert Ritzhaupt, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (Mar 02, 2009) pp. 36–41

  5. Conditions, Processes and Consequences of 1:1 Computing in K-12 Classrooms: The Impact on Teaching Practices and Student Achievement

    Cathy Cavanaugh & Kara Dawson, University of Florida, United States; Albert Ritzhaupt, University of North Florida, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (Mar 03, 2008) pp. 1956–1963

  6. Technology Integration: A Review of the Literature

    Cheryl Franklin, Boise State University, United States; Cheryl Bolick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (Mar 26, 2007) pp. 1482–1488

  7. Conditions, Processes, and Consequences of 1:1 Computing Initiatives in 11 Florida Districts

    Cathy Cavanaugh, University of North Florida, United States; Joseph DiPietro, University of Florida, United States; Nancy Valdes, University of North Florida, United States; Shannon White, University of South Florida, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (Mar 26, 2007) pp. 1425–1428

  8. SITE Fireside Chat #2: Issues and Strategies for Mentoring Doctoral Students in Instructional Technology

    Lynne Schrum, George Mason University, United States; Tom Hammond, University of Virginia, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (Mar 26, 2007) pp. 1114–1115

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.