Thomas Reeves and Eunjung Grace Oh conducted a literature review to analyze the transformation goals and methodologies of educational technology research. Reeves and Oh compared the research between the two time periods (1989–1994 & 2009–2014). They analyzed a combined 197 across the periods of time, excluding those not categorized as research papers. Within their analysis, they categorized research goals of these papers into six categories: Theory Development/Synthesis, Exploratory/Hypothesis-Testing, Descriptive, Critical/Postmodern, Design/Development, and Action/Evaluation. Further, the research papers were also categorized by methodologies: Quantitative, Qualitative, Literature Review, Critical Theory, and Mixed Methods. Across their comprehensive review of the literature, Reeves and Oh identified several significant changes in the literature from 1989 to 2014. They found the amount of papers focused on Descriptive goals grew by 15%, indicating this goal being deemed “more acceptable” in the field as sound research. Further, they identified Mixed Methods as a methodology that increased by 17% across the quarter-century, indicating a reflection of the complex nature of education technology and its research often requiring significant context. The largest change was seen in a decrease in literature reviews (ironically, as this paper used a review of the literature as its method) from 40% in 1989 to 8% in 2014. The authors summarize these findings implying educational research has shifted across the 25-year period significantly in the methods chosen. The authors recommend higher ed educational technology students, be especially mindful in their methods and consider new methodologies and perspectives to add to the field as technology is ever changing. 

Within Reeves and Oh’s literature review, they clearly outline and categorizes the various types of goals and methods widely found in these research papers. The presentation of this data and information is illustrated in a way for the reader to identify clear connections and patterns among the research papers chosen in each time period. The wide variety of research papers included in this review by Reeves and Oh also provide a broad consensus of the various subsections of educational technology and the transformation of the research, in a general sense.

The only reservations for the applicability of this work is ironically in a lack of focus. While the broad consensus is a strength, it also lacks specificity in the topics of these research papers. While it does intend to identify specificity in the papers, this specifics of research topics and focuses, in addition to methodologies and goals, could reveal glaring changes in trends and patterns across the research. Further, the time periods assessed compared 1989 to 2014. It has since been a decade since this work has been published, a decade where a flood of educational technologies have become a daily part of learning environments, COVID pushed online/blended learning to a necessity, and AI has transformed edtech. I would be curious how this information would hold up 10 years later and how significantly it would change methodologies and goals considering how education has evolved since even 2014.

Considering a majority of our discussion this week regarding the debate in educational technology between Clark and Kozma nearly 25 years ago, I found this paper particularly interesting. Again, it hasn’t necessarily aided me in focusing on what my research interests are, but as a new doctoral student, the evolution of research methods from then to now is eye-opening. Reeves and Oh make direct references to educational technology doctoral students completing their research and as a result feel this article speaks directly to what many of the students in this cohort may be thinking. Identifying the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of their research is going to largely contrast much of the work that composed education technology in the early 1990s. I also find myself beginning a dialogue internally considering what research methods and goals I might aim for to achieve my research interests (which also I have yet to really pinpoint myself). Similarly to the article I reviewed in Week 2, I find this being a work I can refer back to and to be cognizant of as I move forward in my doctoral work.

Sources
Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. G. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989-2014). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1