Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Educational Technology Research: Contexts, Complexity and Challenges Cover

Educational Technology Research: Contexts, Complexity and Challenges

Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Volume 2021 (2021): Issue 1
By: Eileen Scanlon  
Open Access
|Feb 2021

References

  1. 1Akron, M and Black, P. 2005. Changing the subject, OECD.
    Back to article
  2. 2Baker, T, Smith, L and Anissa, N. 2019. Educ-AI-tion Rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. Available at https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf.
    Back to article
  3. 3Bayne, S. 2014. What’s the matter with ‘technology enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
    Back to article
  4. 4Briggs, LJ. 1970. Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research.
    Back to article
  5. 5Cohen, L, Manion, L and Morrison, K. 2007. Research methods in education (6th edition). London: Routledge.
    Back to article
  6. 6Conole, G, Scanlon, E, Mundin, P and Farrow, R. 2010. Interdisciplinary research: Findings from the TEL research programme. TEL Programme. Available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/25107/.
    Back to article
  7. 7Coughlan, T, Lister, K, Seale, J, Scanlon, E and Weller, M. 2019. Accessible inclusive learning: Futures. In: Ferguson, R, Jones, A and Scanlon, E (eds.), Educational visions: The lessons from 40 years of innovation. London: Ubiquity press, pp. 75–91. DOI: 10.5334/bcg.e
    Back to article
  8. 8Cross, S, Conole, G, Clark, P, Brasher, A and Weller, M. 2008. Mapping a landscape of learning design: Identifying key trends in current practice at the Open University. In: 2008 European LAMS Conference, 25–27 Jun 2008, Cadiz, Spain.
    Back to article
  9. 9Cross, S, Galley, R, Brasher, A and Weller, M. 2012. Final project report of the OULDI-JISC project: Challenge and change in curriculum design process, communities, visualisation, and practice. Available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/curriculumdesign/OULDI_Final_Report_instit%20story.pdf.
    Back to article
  10. 10Delgado Kloos, C, Ibáñez-Espiga, M, Fernández-Panadero, C, Muñoz-Merino, P, Estévez-Ayres, I, Crespo-García, RM and Alario-Hoyos, C. 2014. A Multidimensional analysis of trends in educational technology. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 395–398. DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044053
    Back to article
  11. 11Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
    Back to article
  12. 12Engstrom, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Back to article
  13. 13Ferguson, R, Brasher, A, Clow, D, Cooper, A, Hillaire, G, Mittelmeier, J, Rienties, B, Ullmann, T and Vuorikari, R. 2016. Research evidence on the use of learning analytics – implications for education policy. In Vuorikari, R and Castaño Muñoz, J (eds.), Joint Research Centre Science for Policy Report; EUR 28294 EN. DOI: 10.2791/955210
    Back to article
  14. 14Ferguson, R and Clow, D. 2017. Where is the evidence? A call to action for learning analytics. In: LAK ‘17 Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, ACM, New York, USA, pp. 56–65. DOI: 10.1145/3027385.3027396
    Back to article
  15. 15Ferguson, R, Jones, A and Scanlon, E. 2019. Educational visions: The lessons from 40 years of innovation. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: 10.5334/bcg
    Back to article
  16. 16FitzGerald, E, Jones, A, Kucirkova, N and Scanlon, E. 2018. A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: What works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26: article no. 2095. DOI: 10.25304/rlt.v26.2095
    Back to article
  17. 17Hattie, J. 2008. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203887332
    Back to article
  18. 18Hawkridge, D. 1973. Media taxonomies and media selection. ERIC. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED092067 (last accessed 4 Sept 2020).
    Back to article
  19. 19Herodotou, C, Rienties, B, Boroowa, A, Zdrahal, Z, Hlosta, M and Naydenova, G. 2017. Implementing predictive learning analytics on a large scale: The teacher’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, ACM, NY, pp. 267–271. DOI: 10.1145/3027385.3027397
    Back to article
  20. 20Herodotou, C, Sharples, M, Gaved, M, Kukulska-Hulme, A, Rienties, B, Scanlon, E and Whitelock, D. 2019. Innovative pedagogies of the future: An evidence-based selection. Frontiers in Education, 4: article no. 113. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00113
    Back to article
  21. 21Herodotou, C, Papathoma, T, Davies, G, Gaved, M and Scanlon, E. 2020. Interdisciplinary research in technology-enhanced learning: Strategies for effective working. In: International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2020), 19–23 Jun 2020, Nashville, TN, USA.
    Back to article
  22. 22Herodotou, C, Rienties, B, Boroowa, A, Zdrahal, Z and Hlosta, M. 2019. A large-scale implementation of predictive learning analytics in higher education: The teachers’ role and perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5): 273–1306. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-019-09685-0
    Back to article
  23. 23Holmes, W, Anastopoulou, S, Schaumburg, H and Mavrikis, M. 2018. Technology-enhanced personalised learning: Untangling the evidence. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH.
    Back to article
  24. 24Holmes, W, Bialik, M and Fadel, C. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in education. Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Boston: Centre for Curriculum Design.
    Back to article
  25. 25Issroff, K and Scanlon, E. 2002. Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002 (6). ISSN: 1365-893X [www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/6]. DOI: 10.5334/2002-6
    Back to article
  26. 26Janric, J and Hayes, S. 2019. Who drives the drivers? In: Saltman, KJ and Means, AJ (eds.), The Wiley handbook of global educational reform. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781119082316.ch15
    Back to article
  27. 27Jones, A. 2010. Affective issues in learning technologies: Emotional responses to technology and technology’s role in supporting socio-emotional skills. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2010(2): Art 9. DOI: 10.5334/2010-9
    Back to article
  28. 28Jones, A and Scanlon, E. 1981. A review of research in the CAL group: A report of the first annual conference, November, CALRG Technical Report No. 27, Open University, Milton Keynes.
    Back to article
  29. 29Jones, A, Scanlon, E, Gaved, M, Blake, C, Collins, T, Clough, G, Kerawalla, L, Littleton, K, Mulholland, P, Petrou, M and Twiner, A. 2013. Challenges in personalisation: Supporting mobile science inquiry learning across contexts. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1): 21–42.
    Back to article
  30. 30Jones, A, Scanlon, E and O’Shea, T. (eds.) 1987. The computer revolution: New technologies for distance teaching. Brighton: Harvester Press.
    Back to article
  31. 31Iniesto, F, Coughlan, T, Lister, K and Holmes, W. 2020. Designing an assistant for the disclosure and management of information about needs and support: The ADMINS project. In: 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 26–28 Oct 2020, Athens, Greece (Online). DOI: 10.1145/3373625.3418017
    Back to article
  32. 32Lai, J and Bower, M. 2019. Evaluation of technology use in education: Findings from a critical analysis of systematic literature reviews. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3): 241–259. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12412
    Back to article
  33. 33Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.) London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203304846
    Back to article
  34. 34Luckin, R, Holmes, W, Forcier, L and Griffiths, M. 2016. Intelligence unleashed. An argument for AI in education. London: Pearson.
    Back to article
  35. 35Meltzoff, N, Kuhl, PK, Movellan, J and Sejnowski, TJ. 2009. Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938): 284. DOI: 10.1126/science.1175626
    Back to article
  36. 36McAndrew, P. 2019. Teaching and learning: Foundations. In: Ferguson, R, Jones, A and Scanlon, E (eds.) Educational visions: The lessons from 40 years of innovation. London: Ubiquity press, pp. 75–91.
    Back to article
  37. 37Nafea, I. 2017. Machine learning in educational technology. In: Farhadi, H (ed.), Machine learning – advanced techniques and emerging applications. InTechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72906
    Back to article
  38. 38Nowotny, H. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780803977945.
    Back to article
  39. 39Noss, R. 2013. Does technology enhance learning? Some findings from the UK’s technology enhanced learning (TEL) research programme. Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/enhance.pdf (Last accessed 25 September 2020).
    Back to article
  40. 40O’Shea, T and Self, J. 1983. Learning and teaching with computers. Brighton: Harvester Press.
    Back to article
  41. 41Perry, W. 1969. Establishment of an applied educational science unit. Council Paper C/II/3. Milton Keynes: Open University.
    Back to article
  42. 42Reiser, R and Dempsey, J. 2012. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. 3rd edition. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publishing.
    Back to article
  43. 43Rienties, B, Herodotou, C, Olney, T, Schencks, M, and Boroowa, A. 2018. Making sense of learning analytics dashboards: A technology acceptance perspective of 95 teachers. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5):186–202. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3493
    Back to article
  44. 44Rienties, B and Jones, A. 2019. Evidence-based learning: Futures. Using learning design and learning analytics to empower teachers to meet students’ diverse needs. In: Ferguson, R, Jones, A and Scanlon, E (eds.), Educational Visions: The lessons from 40 years of innovation. London: Ubiquity Press, pp. 109–125. DOI: 10.5334/bcg.g
    Back to article
  45. 45Ritter, S, Anderson, J, Koedinger, K and Corbett, A. 2007. Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2): 249–255. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194060
    Back to article
  46. 46Rogers, Y. 2000. Recent theoretical developments in HCI; Their value for informing systems design. Available at http://www.cogs.sussex.ac.uk/users/yvonner/.
    Back to article
  47. 47Rowntree, D. 1979. Educational technology in curriculum development. London: Harper and Row.
    Back to article
  48. 48Scanlon, E and Conole, G. 2018. Interdisciplinarity in technology enhanced learning: An interview study. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018(1): 11. DOI: 10.5334/jime.476
    Back to article
  49. 49Scanlon, E, Jones, A and Waycott, J. 2005. Mobile technologies: Prospects for their use in learning in informal science settings. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 21(5): 2005/25. ISSN:1365-893X [jime.open.ac.uk/2005/25]. DOI: 10.5334/2005-25
    Back to article
  50. 50Scanlon, E, Sharples, M, Fenton-O’Creevy, M, Fleck, J, Cooban, C, Ferguson, R, Cross, S and Waterhouse, P. 2013. Beyond prototypes: Enabling innovation in technology-enhanced learning. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1026.8163
    Back to article
  51. 51Sharples, M. 2019. Practical pedagogy. London: Routledge.
    Back to article
  52. 52Sharples, M and Ferguson, R. 2019. Pedagogy-informed design of conversational learning at scale. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2437. DOI: 10.1145/3330430.3333642
    Back to article
  53. 53Slade, S and Prinsloo, P. 2013. Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10): 1509–1528. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213479366
    Back to article
  54. 54Tomei, LA. 2013. Learning tools and teaching approaches through ICT advancements. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2017-9
    Back to article
  55. 55Vygotsky, L. 1980. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
    Back to article
  56. 56Waycott, J, Jones, A and Scanlon, E. 2005. PDAs as lifelong learning tools: An activity-theory based analysis. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2): 107–130. DOI: 10.1080/17439880500093513
    Back to article
  57. 57Yu, H, Miao, C, Leung, C and White, TJ. 2017. Towards AI-powered personalization in MOOC learning. NPJ Science Learn, 2: 15(2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41539-017-0016-3
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.580 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 2, 2020
Accepted on: Sep 29, 2020
Published on: Feb 26, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
educational technology,
theories,
distance learning,
complexity,
technology enhanced learning

© 2021 Eileen Scanlon, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 2021 (2021): Issue 1Next article