Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 3–22 | Cite as

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

  • Michael Hannafin
  • Chandra Orrill
  • Hyeonjin Kim
  • Minchi Kim


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.


research methodologies technology effectiveness postsecondary basic research use-inspired research applied research field research 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in educational computing research.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cuban, L. (1998). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. A commentary.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 6–7.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M.P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gokhale, A. A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33, 36–46.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education.Educause Review, 38(4), 24–88, 30–34.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Refraining the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Kulik, C.-L.C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis.Computers and Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews, D. (1998). Transforming higher education.Educom Review, 33(5), 48–57. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from erm9854.htmlGoogle Scholar
  26. McGorry, S. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion.The Atlantic Monthly Company, 280, 45–62.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Pear, J. J., & Novak, M. (1996). Computer-aided personalized system of instruction: A program evaluation.Teaching of Psychology, 23, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities.Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472–480.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Postman, N. (1995a).The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Postman, N. (1995b). Making a living, making a life: Technology reconsidered.College Board Review, 8–13, 176–177.Google Scholar
  37. Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks of groceries?Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rovai, R. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, T. (1999).The no significant difference phenomenon. North Carolina: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Savage, T.M., & Vogel, K.E. (1996). Multimedia: a revolution in higher education?College Teaching, 44, 127–131.Google Scholar
  42. Stokes, D. E. (1997).Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  43. Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What’s wrong with media comparison studies?Educational Technology, 41(7), 32–35.Google Scholar
  44. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments.Educational Technology Research & Development.Google Scholar
  45. 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

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hannafin
    • 1
  • Chandra Orrill
    • 1
  • Hyeonjin Kim
    • 1
  • Minchi Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning & Performance Support LaboratoryUniversity of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations