Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Educational technology research in postsecondary settings: Promise, problems, and prospects

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

WHILE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS in higher education have grown dramatically during the past 20 years, significant disagreements exist as to their effectiveness and impact. Advocates and critics tend to advance competing positions, but little evidence of technology’s impact derived through disciplined inquiry has been presented in support of either position. The research that has been conducted has rarely been shared across the diverse disciplines represented in postsecondary settings, so little collective impact has been possible. In this paper, we introduce evidence related to the promise and performance of educational technology, identify problems and issues inherent in educational technology research, and propose a working framework for studying the learning effects of, and with, technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Askov, E., & Simpson, M. (2002). Penn State’s online adult education M. Ed. Degree on the World Campus.Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baines, L. (1997). Future schlock: Using fabricated data and politically correct platitudes in the name of education reform.Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 492–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in educational computing research.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. (1997).Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1998). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. A commentary.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. D., Hawley, D. E., & Piele, P.K. (1990). Costs, effects, and utility of microcomputer assisted instruction in the classroom.American Educational Research Journal, 27, 783–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M.P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhale, A. A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33, 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R., Watkins, S., & Eller, V. (2003). A model for Web-based design of learning. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 367–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, D. E. (1998). Higher education in an era of digital competition: Emerging organizational models.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 66–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education.Educause Review, 38(4), 24–88, 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in schools: Questions, answers, and issues. In J. Oelkers (Ed.),Futures of education (pp. 103–115). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Kim, M.C. (2003). In search of a future: A critical analysis of research on web-based teaching and learning.Instructional Science, 31(4–5), 347–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J.P., & Davidson, M.E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosakowski, J. (2000). The benefits of information technology. In R. M. Branch & M. A. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Educational media and technology yearbook, 2000 (pp. 53–56). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Refraining the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L.C., & Cohen, P.A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A media-analysis of findings.Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L.C., & Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1990). Is there better evidence on mastery learning? A response to Slavin.Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 303–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C.-L.C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis.Computers and Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madorin, S., & Iwasiw, C.L. (1999). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the self-efficacy of baccalaureate nursing students.Journal of Nursing Education, 38(6), 282–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, A. S., & Georges, A. (1997). Benefits of self-paced learning modules for teaching quantitative methods in environmental science.International Journal of Science Education, 19, 835–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, D. (1998). Transforming higher education.Educom Review, 33(5), 48–57. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/ erm9854.html

    Google Scholar 

  • McGorry, S. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 349–365). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D., Shneiderman, B., Herman, R., Agre, P., & Denning, P.J. (1998). Technology in education: The fight for the future.Educom Review, 33(3), 22–30, 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion.The Atlantic Monthly Company, 280, 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, T. (2003).The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom, and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E.M. (2003). Disciplined inquiry and the study of emerging technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pear, J. J., & Novak, M. (1996). Computer-aided personalized system of instruction: A program evaluation.Teaching of Psychology, 23, 119–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities.Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1995a).The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1995b). Making a living, making a life: Technology reconsidered.College Board Review, 8–13, 176–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks of groceries?Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, R. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. (1999).The no significant difference phenomenon. North Carolina: North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies.Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, T.M., & Vogel, K.E. (1996). Multimedia: a revolution in higher education?College Teaching, 44, 127–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997).Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What’s wrong with media comparison studies?Educational Technology, 41(7), 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments.Educational Technology Research & Development.

  • Warburton, E., Chen, X., & Bradburn, E. (2002). Teaching with technology: Use of telecommunications technology by postsecondary instructional faculty and staff in fall 1998.Education Statistics Quarterly, 4(3), 98–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning & Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia, USA

    Michael Hannafin, Chandra Orrill, Hyeonjin Kim & Minchi Kim

Authors
  1. Michael Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chandra Orrill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyeonjin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Minchi Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hannafin, M., Orrill, C., Kim, H. et al. Educational technology research in postsecondary settings: Promise, problems, and prospects. J. Comput. High. Educ. 16, 3–22 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961472

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961472

Keywords

Search

Navigation