Research Article

Trends and Priorities of Educational Technology Research: A Delphi Study

Xiaoman Wang 1 , John Hampton 2 , Albert D. Ritzhaupt 1 * , Kara Dawson 1
More Detail
1 School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA2 Department of Educational Technology and Foundations, University of West Georgia, GA, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(4), October 2022, ep383, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12317
Published: 07 August 2022
OPEN ACCESS   1742 Views   1240 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

As journal editors play an important role in defining and shaping academic discourse, knowing their opinions could likely prove beneficial for both current and future academic journal stakeholders. Within this vein, this study used the Delphi method to help build a profile on the trends and priorities within educational technology, from the unique perspective of the journals’ editors-in-chief. This expert panel—initially built from 117 national and international research journals—concluded with 25 editors-in-chief who finished all three rounds of the survey. Results indicated five emerging themes for trends and priorities: computer-focused, teaching and learning, online and digital education, societal, and research and theory. By exploring these current trends and priorities within educational technology, this study may provide meaningful insights to better understand the field as a whole and may also help scholars in their goal of publishing relevant, high-quality academic scholarship.
Keywords: educational technology research, trends, priorities, research journal editors, Delphi

CITATION (APA)

Wang, X., Hampton, J., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Dawson, K. (2022). Trends and Priorities of Educational Technology Research: A Delphi Study. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(4), ep383. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12317

REFERENCES

  1. Aharony, N., & Bronstein, J. (2013). A Delphi Investigation into the future of e-learning. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 911-914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.170
  2. Arthur, C., Levett-Jones, T., & Kable, A. (2013). Quality indicators for the design and implementation of simulation experiences: A Delphi study. Nurse Education Today, 33(11), 1357-1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.012
  3. Birko, S., Dove, E. S., Ozdemir, V., & Dalal, K. (2015). Evaluation of nine consensus indices in Delphi foresight research and their dependency on Delphi survey characteristics: A simulation study and debate on Delphi design and interpretation. PLoS ONE, 10(8), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135162
  4. Bodily, R., Leary, H., & West, R. (2019). Research trends in instructional design and technology journals: Research trends in instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 64-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12712
  5. Bond, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Nichols, M. (2019). Revisiting five decades of educational technology research: A content and authorship analysis of the British Journal of Educational Technology: Revisiting five decades of educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 12-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12730
  6. Burbules, N. C., Fan, G., & Repp, P. (2020). Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.05.001
  7. Cals, J. W., Mallen, C. D., Glynn, L. G., & Kotz, D. (2013). Should authors submit previous peer-review reports when submitting research papers? Views of general medical journal editors. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(2), 179-181. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1448
  8. Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of Computers & Education. Computers & Education, 151, 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
  9. Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2018). Development of a tourism coopetition model: A preliminary Delphi study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.10.004
  10. Choppin, J., & Borys, Z. (2017). Trends in the design, development, and use of digital curriculum materials. ZDM, 49(5), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0860-x
  11. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
  12. Davies, B., & Felappi, G. (2017). Publish or perish. Metaphilosophy, 48(5), 745-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12269
  13. Dawson, & Brucker, P. S. (2001). The utility of the Delphi method in MFT research. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(2), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180126229
  14. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman.
  15. Dołowy-Rybińska, N. (2021). Publishing policy: Toward counterbalancing the inequalities in academia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2021(267-268), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0090
  16. Ely, D. P. (1983). The definition of educational technology: An emerging stability. Educational Considerations, 10(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.1793
  17. Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017). Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. Discussion Paper. University of St Andrews. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100
  18. Glenn, J. C., & Gordon, T. J. (2009). Futures research methodology—version 3.0 (CD-ROM). The Millennium Project, Washington, DC, USA. https://www.millennium-project.org/publications-2/futures-research-methodology-version-3-0/
  19. Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi method. Futures Research Methodology, 2(3), 1-30.
  20. Green, B., Jones, M., Hughes, D., & Williams, A. (1999). Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements. Health & Social Care in the Community, 7(3), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.x
  21. Grindlay, D. J., Dean, R. S., Christopher, M. M., & Brennan, M. L. (2014). A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal editors-in-chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research. BMC Veterinary Research, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-10
  22. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
  23. Heiko, A. V. D. G. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525-1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013
  24. Helmer-Hirschberg, O. (1966). The use of the Delphi technique in problems of educational innovations. Rand. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3499.html
  25. Hlynka, D., & Jacobsen, M. (2010). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de l’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2N88P
  26. Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
  27. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203054000
  28. Jubb, M. (2016). Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1008
  29. Kimmons, R. (2020). Current trends (and missing links) in educational technology research and practice. TechTrends, 64(6), 803-809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00549-6
  30. Lasker, S. (2018). Peer review system: A golden standard for publications process. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, 9(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v9i1.37104
  31. Latchem. (2014). BJET editorial: Opening up the educational technology research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12122
  32. Loo, R. (2002). The Delphi method: A powerful tool for strategic management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(4), 762-769. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210450677
  33. Lopez-Catalan, B., & Bañuls, V. A. (2017). A Delphi-based approach for detecting key e-learning trends in postgraduate education: The Spanish case. Education+Training, 59(6), 590-604. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2016-0186
  34. Loughlin, K. G., & Moore, L. F. (1979). Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a pediatrics department. Journal of Medical Education, 54(2), 101-106. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197902000-00006
  35. Lounds, J., Oakar, M., Knecht, K., Moran, M., Gibney, M., & Pressley, M. (2002). Journal editors’ views on the criteria a paper must meet to be publishable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 338-347. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1092
  36. Matias-Guiu, J. (2020). The role of scientific journal editors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neurología (English Edition), 35(4), 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2020.05.011
  37. McGinty, S. (1999). Gatekeepers of knowledge: Journal editors in the sciences and the social sciences. Greenwood Publishing Group.
  38. McGuigan, G., & Russell, R. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3). http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html
  39. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3
  40. Noble, K. A. (1989). Publish or perish: What 23 journal editors have to say. Studies in Higher Education, 14(1), 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078912331377642
  41. Pereira, V. (2017). Journal editors as philosopher kings: duties and responsibilities of academics in a changing world. South Asian History and Culture, 8(3), 360-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/19472498.2017.1350405
  42. Pollard, C., & Pollard, R. (2004). Research priorities in educational technology: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782430
  43. Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: Expert consensus on issues and research priorities. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1994.10672215
  44. Ray, J. G. (2002). Judging the judges: The role of journal editors. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 95(12), 769-774. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/95.12.769
  45. Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2000). Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 1(4), 308-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/152715440000100409
  46. Reeves, T., & Oh, E. (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
  47. Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 163-177. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.3.163
  48. Ritchie, D., & Earnest, J. (1999). The future of instructional design: Results of a Delphi study. Educational Technology, 39(1), 35-42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429010
  49. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7
  50. Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr, R. P. (2004). From the Editors: Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2004.14438580
  51. Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000 Research, 7, 1605-1605. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16493.1
  52. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.28945/199
  53. Starfield, S., & Paltridge, B. (2019). Journal editors: Gatekeepers or custodians? Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_14
  54. Turoff, M., & Linstone, H. A. (2002). The Delphi method-techniques and applications. https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/index.html
  55. Wellington, J., & Nixon, J. (2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 643-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690500293835
  56. Woolston, C. (2018). Why mental health matters. Nature (London), 557(7703), 129-131. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04998-1
  57. Xia, B., & Chan, A. P. (2012). Measuring complexity for building projects: A Delphi study. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 19(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211192544
  58. Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: A Delphi study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.674