Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–50
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu
Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011
Sevda Kucuk a, Melike Aydemir b, Gurkan Yildirim b, Omer Arpacik b, Yuksel Goktas b,*
aDepartment of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Istanbul University, 34452 Istanbul, TurkeybDepartment of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Ataturk University, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 11 December 2012Received in revised form26 February 2013Accepted 13 April 2013
Keywords:Educational technologyResearch trendsContent analysisEvaluation methodologiesPedagogical issues
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 442 231 4047; faE-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. K
Arpacik), [email protected], yuksel.goktas@
0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.016
a b s t r a c t
The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics, methodologies, and general trends inEducational Technology articles, written by authors from Turkey, published in journals listed in the SSCI,SCI, and ERIC indexes from 1990 to 2011. A total of 1151 (SSCI:813, SCI:38, ERIC:300) articles published in94 journals were examined via content analysis, using the ‘Educational Technology Papers ClassificationForm’ (ETPCF). The results show that the number of published Educational Technology studiesdramatically increased in the years 2002 and 2007. “Educational environments and technology”, “dis-tance education” and “multimedia” were the predominant subjects of the articles, though there werevariations in terms of research topics and methodologies. Regarding research methodologies, quantita-tive studies were the most common type. Questionnaires and interviews were most commonly used asdata collection tools, and the convenience sampling method was also widely used. The frequently studiedsample participants were preservice teachers and other undergraduate students. In the present study,cross tabulation is used to present the findings.
� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Technology plays a significant role in the development of education and is more important today than ever before. The exponentialgrowth of technology usage in education, in applications such as distance education, simulations, educational games, and virtual worlds, hasalso attracted the attention of Educational Technology researchers. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)defines Educational Technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using andmanaging appropriate technological processes and resources” (AECT, 2004). The field of Educational Technology has grown and changedgreatly over the past century, affected by various influences including historical forces, paradigm shifts in educational psychology, emergingtechnologies, and evolving approaches to inquiry. In addition to developments and changes, different research approaches are regularlyused in this field (Driscoll, 1995). Educational Technology practitioners and researchers study a wide array of topics and methodologies.
Educational Technology researchers have previously traced trends in the field’s articles, theses, and dissertations. Some of the re-searchers from around the world have examined articles which published in international journals (Hew, Kale, & Kim, 2007; Hranstinski &Keller, 2007; Klein, 1997; Latchem, 2006; Ma, 2000; Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010). However, only a limited amount of attention has beendevoted to Educational Technology journal articles, written by authors from Turkey, in the academic literature. Fortunately, such studieshave increased in recent years (Alper & Gulbahar, 2009; Bozkaya, Erdem-Aydın, & Genc-Kumtepe, 2012; Goktas et al., 2012; Gulbahar &Alper, 2009; Keser & Ozcan, 2011; Sert, 2010). Some researchers have also examined theses or dissertations in the field of EducationalTechnology (Akca-Ustundag, 2009; Caffarella, 1999; Costa, 2007; Erdogmus, 2009; Masood, 2004; Simsek et al., 2008). The researchersthemselves typically determine which topics they will focus on, which research methodologies are best suited to their topic, and how tocollect data. A summary of the current literature of Educational Technology surveys is presented in Fig. 1, using these three categories.
A broad analysis of the methodologies used in the articles published in the three journal indexes (SSCI: Social Science Citation Index, SCI:Science Citation Index, ERIC: Education Resources Information Center) can yield important contributions to the field. Similar prior studies
x: þ90 442 236 0955.ucuk), [email protected] (M. Aydemir), [email protected] (G. Yildirim), [email protected] (O.hotmail.com (Y. Goktas).
ll rights reserved.
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–50 43
have generally been conducted using relatively limited numbers of publications. In the present study, a larger range of journals and pub-lications are examined. Also, many earlier studies notably produced only one-dimensional results. Identifying the components whichdetermine trends will permit evaluations from different perspectives for the benefit of future researchers in the field. This study willhopefully also stimulate similar and comparative studies with works published in different indexes. In addition, areas of research that havenot been previously covered will be highlighted, and some which could usefully be covered more extensively in international publicationswill be noted. This study summarizes the past twenty-two years’ studies in Educational Technology to help us become better prepared forfuture research challenges and the findings may be used to increase the quality of future research studies, by taking attention of researchersto important points and gaps realized throughout this research study. Moreover, Educational Technology researchers, from differentcountries, will be able to compare the results with their countries. The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics, methodol-ogies, and general trends in Educational Technology studies, conducted by authors from Turkey, published in international journals listedwithin the SSCI, SCI, and ERIC indexes between the years 1990–2011. The specific research questions that guided this examination are:
1) In which journals were Educational Technology studies mainly published?2) What topics were commonly researched? How have the investigated subjects changed, according to these indexes?3) Which research methodologies were commonly used? How have these changed over time?
a. What is the distribution of methodologies by years?b. What methodologies were commonly used for different research topics?
4) What are the data collection tools that were most commonly used, and what was their relation to the respective research methodol-ogies? Have these changed over time, and if so, how?
5) Which sample selection methodologies were commonly preferred? Has this aspect of the studies changed over time?6) What sample populations (types of people) were commonly selected for the research topics?7) What is the range of common sample sizes? Have these varied over time?8) What data analysis methods were commonly used? How have these changed over time?
2. Methodology
Content analysis methodology was used to analyze each article. Content analysis can be referred to as a generic name for a variety oftextual analyses that typically involves comparing, contrasting, and categorizing a set of data. Therefore, it was used to classify the data, andto divide it by different identified themes and concepts (Bauer, 2003; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Schwandt, 1997).
2.1. Sample
The study sample consisted of 1151 Educational Technology articles, written by authors from Turkey, published in international journals.These articles are all listed in the SSCI, SCI, and ERIC indexes for the years 1990–2011. The authors reviewed SSCI, SCI and ERIC indexes’
Topic trendsMedia research, computer-based instruction, instructional design and development
Methodological trendsMethodology: Decreasing experimental methods, increasing qualitative methodology Data collection tools: Surveys, documents, interviews, observations
Topic trendsMedia research, computer and web-based instruction, distance education
Methodological trendsMethodology: Quantitative methodology, experimental, descriptive, literature reviewData collection tools: Surveys, scales, interviews
Caffarella (1999), Costa (2007), Ma (2000)Educational Technology dissertations in the USA
Akca-Ustundag (2009), Erdogmus (2009), Simsek et al. (2008)Educational Technology theses and dissertations in Turkey
Topic trendsComputer-based instruction, teaching and learning approaches, e-learning
Methodological trendsMethodology: Quantitative methodology, increasing qualitative methodologyData collection tools: Achievement tests, attitude scales, questionnaires, interview forms
International Articles Turkish Articles Theses/Dissertations
Klein (1997), Masood (2004), Ross et al. (2010)Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D)
Hew et al. (2007)ETR&D, Instructional Science, Journal of Educational Computing Research
Latchem (2006)British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET)
Hranstinski & Keller (2007)Selected four well known journals
Alper & Gulbahar (2009), Bozkaya et al. (2012)Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET)
Gulbahar & Alper (2009)Selected three Turkish journals
Sert (2010)Selected SSCI indexed articles
Goktas et al. (2012)Turkish SSCI indexed articles
Fig. 1. Summary of the literature regarding the most commonly used methodologies and researched topics.
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–5044
journal lists and identified journals that deal primary with Educational Technology (Bray, 2003; Price &Maushak, 2000). In addition to thesejournals, it was tried to determine the journals which include publications related to Educational Technology. For this purpose, somekeywords that may take part in title of journals related to Educational Technology were determined with expert juries in the field. Keywordsare “education, instruction, learning, teaching, teacher, learner, internet, computer, technology, research”. As a result of the review, 378journals were determined (SSCI: 65, SCI: 63, ERIC: 250). Then, full-length articles which were published between the years 1990 and 2011and written by Turkish authors in these journals were examined. The abstracts of these articles were read and decided whether it is relatedto the field of Education Technology. Finally, 1151 articles published in 94 journals were determined that the scope of the study. The datacollection process is presented in Fig. 2.
2.2. The data collection tool
The Educational Technology Publication Classification Form (ETPCF) was used as the data collection tool. This form had been used in asimilar, prior study but has been adapted for this examination to ensure greater reliability (Goktas et al., 2012). The form consists of sevensections. The first section is the identification record. This part displays the name and the author(s) of each examined article, and the title ofthe journal which published each article. Other sections cover the type, topic, methodology, data collection tools, sample, and data analysismethods of the articles, respectively.
2.3. Data analysis
During the content analysis process, one faculty member and four doctoral students worked together. In order to achieve a reliableclassification of the articles, initially the authors worked together. Sets of the selected articles were classified. Initial disagreements duringthe content analysis process were discussed and resolved, and then the rest of the articles were analyzed by collaborative work between theauthors. Again, any disagreements were resolved under the leadership of the supervisor. The datawere controlled for transmission errors bythe researchers. Finally, the data were organized according to the research questions. The data obtained from the articles were analyzedusing descriptive statistics. Both the percentage and the frequency of the items were calculated.
3. Findings
3.1. Most commonly published journals
Those journals which published more articles between 1990 and 2011 were classified according to their listing indexes and presented inTable 1. TOJET published the highest number of articles in the SSCI index; the Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE) publishedthe highest number in ERIC; and IEEE Transactions on Education published the highest number in the SCI.
3.2. Subject trends
Table 2 shows the distribution of article subjects in the different indexes. There were a high number of studies on educational envi-ronments and technology (41.7%), distance education and learning (10.3%), and multimedia (9.0%) in the articles indexed in the SSCI; oneducational environments and technology (34.2%), design and development (26.3%), and multimedia (18.4%) in the articles indexed in theSCI; and on distance education and learning (34.7%), educational environments and technology (23.3%), and education and performance(11.7%) in the articles indexed in ERIC.
Selecting Turkey addressed articles about educational
technology
Accessing indexed SSCI, SCI and ERIC
journal list
Examining journal list with key words
“education, instruction, learning, teaching, teacher, learner, internet, computer,
technology, research”
Analyzing 1151 articles
(SSCI: 813, SCI: 38, ERIC: 300
Selecting journals published educational technology researches
(SSCI: 65, SCI: 63, ERIC: 250*)
Accessing, downloading or buying
full text articles.Writing findings
according to research questions
Accessing whole volumes of journals
1990-2011 years with online data bases
*Only indexed in ERIC journals not SSCI or SCI
Fig. 2. The data collection process.
Table 1Journals in which Educational Technology studies were commonly published.
Indexes Journals n
SSCI Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 322Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education 80Education & Science 69Computers & Education 58Eurasion Journal of Educational Research 53Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 53Educational Technology & Society 32The New Educational Review 27British Journal of Educational Technology 17Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 12Others 90
SCI IEEE Transactions on Education 11Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 6Advances in Physiology Education 4Others 17
ERIC Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 144Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 48Australian Journal of Teacher Education 21Education 17Others 70
TOTAL 1151
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–50 45
3.3. Methodologies and method trends
When the research methodologies were examined in comparison with methods, mostly non-experimental methods were preferred(34.8%) in the quantitative studies. This high percentagewas followed the qualitative studies (22.1%). The percentage for the usages of all themethods in the mixed studies (9.9%) was considerably lower than those noted above (Table 3).
When the research methods were examined across the different indexes, surveys (14.9%), quasi-experimental (13.3%), case studies(13.0%), and literature reviews (13.0%) were used the most in the articles in the SSCI; case studies (39.5%) and descriptive methods (18.4%)were used the most in the SCI articles; and case studies (28.3%), descriptive methods (17.3%), and literature reviews (14.0%) were used themost in the articles in ERIC (Table 3).
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of methodologies used in the articles by the publication year. The number of articles is few until 2001, afterwhich an increase can be seen. A decrease occurred in the number of articles published in 2007; however, publications significantlyincreased after 2007. The quantitative methodology was used most often, followed by the qualitative and mixed methodologies.
Table 4 shows the distribution of Educational Technology research methodologies by subjects. In other category (literature review andmeta-analysis) methodologies, the most researched subject was distance education. The most researched subject was educational envi-ronments and technology in qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies. This was followed by distance education for the qualitativeand quantitative methodologies, and by teacher training for the mixed methodologies studies. The subjects that were preferred least acrossall of the research methodologies were systemic change and administration.
3.4. Data collection tools
Table 5 shows the data collecting instruments and their distribution by methodologies. Questionnaire (36.7%) and attitude, perception,personality, and aptitude tests (24.3%) were used most in the quantitative studies. Interviews or focus group interviews (41.6%) and doc-uments (24.8%) were used the most in the qualitative studies. Interviews or focus group interviews (33.1%) and questionnaires (27.3%) werethe most preferred data collecting instruments in the mixed studies. Only documents were used in the other category studies.
Table 2Subject trends in the educational technology studies.
Educationalenvironmentsand technology
Distanceeducationand learning
Multimedia Educationand performance
Teachereducation
Researchand theory
Design& development
Systemicchange
Administration Other Totals
SSCI n 339 84 73 62 75 81 46 8 7 38 813% 41.7 10.3 9.0 7.6 9.2 10.0 5.7 1.0 0.9 4.7 100
SCI n 13 2 7 3 – 2 10 1 – – 38% 34.2 5.3 18.4 7.9 – 5.3 26.3 2.6 – – 100
ERIC n 70 104 22 35 22 10 20 4 2 11 300% 23.3 34.7 7.3 11.7 7.3 3.3 6.7 1.3 0.7 3.7 100
TOTAL n 422 190 102 100 97 93 76 13 9 49 1151% 36.7 16.5 8.9 8.7 8.4 8.1 6.6 1.1 0.8 4.3 100
Table 3Methodologies and method trends in the educational technology studies.
Research Methodologies Research Methods SSCI SCI ERIC TOTAL
n % n % n % n %
Quantitative Non-experimental Survey 121 14.9 2 5.3 22 7.3 401 34.8Descriptive 113 13.9 7 18.4 52 17.3Comparative 30 3.7 2 5.3 15 5.0Correlational 22 2.7 1 2.6 13 4.3Secondary data analysis 1 0.1 – – – –
Experimental Quasi-experimental 108 13.3 4 10.5 19 6.3 207 18.0True experimental 45 5.5 – – 4 1.3Pre experimental 14 1.7 – – 9 3.0Single subject 4 0.5 – – – –
Qualitative Case study 106 13.0 15 39.5 85 28.3 254 22.1Phenomenological 25 3.1 – – 4 1.3Grounded theory 5 0.6 – – – –
Cultural analysis 4 0.5 – – – –
Critical study 2 0.2 – – 1 0.3Concept analysis 5 0.6 – – 2 0.7
Mixed Explanatory 36 4.4 – – 14 4.7 114 9.9Triangulation 36 4.4 – – 10 3.3Exploratory 14 1.7 1 2.6 3 1.0
Other Literature review 106 13.0 4 10.5 42 14.0 175 15.2Meta-analysis 16 2.0 2 5.3 5 1.7
TOTAL 1151 100
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–5046
3.5. Sample selection methods
Table 6 shows the distribution of the sample selectionmethods by the three journal indexes. Themost commonly preferred sample typesacross the SSCI, SCI, and ERIC indexes were the purposive (47.8%) and the convenience (32.7%) samples. These were followed by the random(16.8%) and the whole population (2.2%) types.
3.6. Sample populations
Table 7 shows the sample populations chosen for the research subjects. Mostly preservice teachers (31.1%) and other undergraduatestudents (17.3%) were chosen as sample groups. Parents (1.1%) and early childhood students (1.1%) were preferred least often. In general,preservice teachers and teachers were preferred participants for research on educational environments and technology. Other under-graduate students were used for distance education and learning studies; and preservice teachers were preferred for studies onmultimedia,education and performance, teacher training, and design and development. Other sample populations were usedmore often in research andtheory; teachers were employed more for systemic change; and administrators were used more for administration.
3.7. Sample sizes
Table 8 shows the distribution of sample sizes by methodologies. A group of 31–100 persons (35.9%) or of 101–300 persons (28.6%) wasmost preferred in the quantitative methodology studies; 11–30 persons (26.0%) or 31–100 persons (24.0%) were typically used in thequalitative methodology studies; and 31–100 persons (36.8%) or 11–30 persons (23.7%) were normally used in mixed methodologiesstudies. More than 1000 persons (4.3%) were used in very few of the studies.
1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Quantitative 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 5 14 28 26 32 42 36 68 65 110 169
Qualitative 5 4 0 1 3 2 6 8 13 37 45 45 40 28 34 46 54 64
Mixed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 4 7 10 10 20 29 27
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Res
earc
h M
etho
dolo
gies
Fig. 3. Distribution of methodologies used in the articles by publication year.
Table 4Cross tabulation of article subjects and research methodologies.
Educationalenvironmentsand technology
Distanceeducation
Multimedia Educationand performance
Teachertraining
Researchand theory
Design& development
Systemicchange
Administration Other Total
Quantitative n 258 65 57 58 52 47 25 5 3 33 602% 42.4 10.7 9.5 9.5 8.6 7.7 4.1 0.8 0.5 5.4 100
Qualitative n 75 58 16 16 18 17 35 2 4 7 259% 29.5 22.8 6.2 6.3 7.1 6.7 13.8 0.8 1.6 2.8 100
Mixed n 44 15 10 10 22 8 5 1 – 2 114% 38.6 13.2 8.8 8.8 19.3 7.0 4.4 0.9 0 1.8 100
Other n 45 52 19 18 5 21 11 5 2 7 176% 25.7 29.8 10.8 10.3 2.9 12.0 6.3 2.9 1.1 4.0 100
Table 5Cross tabulation of the data collection tools and research methodologies.
Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Questionnaires 296 36.7 33 10.9 66 27.3 – – 395 26.1Documents 33 4.1 75 24.8 13 5.4 160 100 281 18.6Interviews or focus group interviews 27 3.3 126 41.6 80 33.1 – – 233 15.4Attitude, perception, personality and aptitude tests 196 24.3 9 3.0 25 10.3 – – 230 15.2Achievement tests 171 21.2 8 2.6 31 12.8 – – 210 13.9Alternative assessments 75 9.3 12 4.0 12 5.0 – – 99 6.5Observations 9 1.1 40 13.2 15 6.2 – – 64 4.2
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–50 47
3.8. Data analysis methods
Table 9 shows the distribution of the data analysis methods by the different indexes. In the quantitative studies, the use of frequencies/percentages/tables (29.7%), and means and standard deviations (15.6%), which are both descriptive analysis techniques, were the mostpreferred overall. T-tests (10.7%) and ANOVA/ANCOVA (7.2%) were more preferred as inferential techniques. Content analysis was the mostpreferred qualitative technique.
Table 7Cross tabulation of the sample populations and research subjects.
Educationalenvironmentsand technology
Distanceeducation
Multimedia Educationand performance
Teachertraining
Researchand theory
Design& development
Systemicchange
Administration Other Total
n %
Preserviceteachers
112 24 30 22 68 23 14 1 – 13 307 31.1
Otherundergraduatestudents
61 42 20 14 1 11 14 2 – 6 171 17.3
K-12 Teachers 65 10 1 27 22 9 1 3 2 3 143 14.5Secondary (9–12)
students52 2 8 13 – 8 3 2 1 6 95 9.6
Primary (6–8)students
47 – 16 7 – 9 9 – – 3 91 9.2
Faculty members 19 13 6 4 5 4 3 – 1 4 59 6.0Primary (1–5)
students25 2 3 5 – 6 1 – 1 2 45 4.6
Graduatestudents
13 8 4 2 – 1 – – 1 2 31 3.1
Administrators 11 3 – 3 1 – 1 – 3 – 22 2.2Early Childhood
students6 – 2 1 – 1 – – – 1 11 1.1
Parents 2 1 2 3 – 2 – – 1 – 11 1.1Others 29 28 8 8 3 16 8 2 – 9 111 11.3
Table 6Distribution of the sample selection methods by the journal indexes.
Sample selection types SSCI SCI ERIC TOTAL
n % n % n % n %
Purposive 307 44.0 20 71.4 130 56.2 457 47.8Convenience 243 34.8 7 25.0 63 27.2 313 32.7Random 124 17.7 1 3.5 36 15.5 161 16.8Census 19 2.7 – – 2 0.8 21 2.2Other 4 0.5 – – – – 4 0.4
Table 8Distribution of sample sizes by methodologies.
Sample size Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
31–100 218 35.9 61 24.0 42 36.8 5 2.9 326 28.3101–300 174 28.6 – – 22 19.3 4 2.3 200 17.4301–1000 134 22.0 – – 15 13.2 2 1.1 151 13.111–30 36 5.9 66 26.0 27 23.7 2 1.1 131 11.41–10 4 0.7 46 18.1 1 0.9 5 2.9 56 4.9More than 1000 40 6.6 – – 7 6.1 2 1.1 49 4.3
Table 9Distribution of the data analysis methods by the different indexes.
Data analysis methods SSCI SCI ERIC
n % n % n %
Quantitative Descriptive Frequencies/percentages/tables 439 23.4 22 27.8 161 29.7Means and standard deviations 367 19.6 9 11.4 86 15.6Graphs 68 3.6 9 11.4 20 3.7
Inferential t-tests 240 12.8 6 7.6 58 10.7ANOVA/ANCOVA 198 10.6 6 7.6 39 7.2Non-parametric tests 71 3.8 2 2.5 17 3.1Correlations 70 3.7 4 5.1 24 4.4Factor analysis 53 2.8 – – 11 2.0MANOVA/MANCOVA 29 1.5 – – 3 0.6Regression 16 0.9 1 1.3 9 1.7Other 11 0.6 – – 1 0.2
Qualitative Qualitative Content analysis 221 11.9 10 12.7 66 12.2Descriptive analysis 89 4.7 10 12.7 47 8.7
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–5048
4. Discussion and conclusion
In this study, 1151 Educational Technology studies, conducted by authors from Turkey, published in 94 international journals indexed inthe SSCI, SCI, and ERIC, were examined to analyze the numbers published in each journal, their research subjects, research methodologies,research methods, sample populations, methods of sample selection, sample sizes, and data analysis methods.
The number of articles published from 1990 to 2011 is highest in TOJETwithin the SSCI index, in IEEE Transactions on Educationwithin theSCI index, and in TOJDE within ERIC. The high number of articles in the journals TOJET and TOJDE may be due to the fact that these journalsare published online and have more issue yearly. Moreover, these journals focus on only Educational Technology research. Another reasonmay be that researchers demand journals from Turkey more frequently (Goktas et al., 2012; Sert, 2010).
Regarding the distribution of article subjects by the three indexes, the most popular subjects in studies indexed within the SSCI wereeducational environments and technology, distance education, and multimedia. In the SCI, educational environments and technology,design and development, and multimedia were the most popular subjects. And in ERIC, distance education, educational environments andtechnology, and education and performance were the most numerous subjects. It is also reported in the literature that the subjects ofeducational environments and technology, distance education, and multimedia are frequently addressed (Alper & Gulbahar, 2009;Caffarella, 1999; Erdogmus, 2009; Goktas et al., 2012; Hew et al., 2007; Ma, 2000; Masood, 1997; Ross et al., 2010; Simsek et al., 2008). Thepercentage of studies on design and development was higher in the SCI than other indexes. This is likely because the focal subject mattercovered in these journals is design and development. Overall, there is variation in the subjects across the indexes, with the result that thethree indexes present a diverse range of research concerning Educational Technology.
Quantitative methodology was most frequently used in Educational Technology research in the indexed articles, followed by qualitative,other category (literature review and meta-analysis) and mixed studies. In other analytical surveys of Educational Technology publications,this finding has often been noted (Alper & Gulbahar, 2009; Bozkaya et al., 2012; Hannafin & Young, 2008; Ross, Morrison, &Lowther, 2010).However, qualitative methodology has been more frequently used in recent years (Goktas et al., 2012; Kelly & Lesh, 2000; Masood, 1997).When the number of articles on Educational Technology in the years 1990–2011 was examined, the number published prior to 2001 wasvery few; but there was a steady increase after 2001. The number of articles also increased significantly after 2007. This may be due to thefact that the first undergraduate students in the field to receive their degrees from the newly opened Computer and Instruction Technologydepartments in Turkey did so in 2002. Some of these students went on to earn their PhD degrees in 2007, and then carried out and publishedacademic studies.
When the researchmethods used in the studies were examined, it was found that non-experimental methodswere themost preferred inquantitative studies (this category also had the highest overall percentage), and case study was the most preferred in qualitative studies.Experimental methods were less popular, possibly because designing experimental studies is difficult and time-consuming (McMillan &Schumacher, 2010). The survey, quasi-experimental, case study and literature reviews methods were all used preferentially in the arti-cles within the SSCI. The case study and descriptive methods were the most frequently used in the articles listed within the SCI and ERIC.According to this result, quantitative methods were preferred more in the SSCI indexed articles, and qualitative methods were morecommon in the other indexes.
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–50 49
When the distribution of research methodologies by subjects was examined, the subject which was most researched in qualitative,quantitative and mixed methodologies was educational environments and technology. While distance education was the most researchedsubject in other category, second most researched subject within the qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and teacher training wasnext in the mixed studies. Goktas et al. (2012) also reached similar results in their study. The fact that teacher training was the second moststudied subject in the mixed studies was possibly due to the fact that this sample group is more easily accessible for researchers.
When sample populations were compared against research subjects, preservice teachers especially and also other undergraduatestudents were the most preferred sample groups. Other findings reported in the literature support this result (Akca-Ustundag, 2009;Alper & Gulbahar, 2009; Goktas et al., 2012; Simsek et al., 2009). In general, preservice teachers and teachers were commonly used inresearch on educational environments and technology. Other undergraduate students were used for distance education subjects; andpreservice teachers were used for multimedia, education and performance, teacher training, and design and development subjects.This may be explained by the fact that researchers have tended to conduct studies concerning problems which are close to theirinterests. Researchers probably accessed these sample populations because they were most suited to the types of inquiry beingconducted (Goktas et al., 2012).
Among the data collection tools used in the studies, questionnaires were used themost, followed by documents, and attitude, perception,personality, and aptitude tests. Questionnaires and the attitude, perception, personality, and aptitude tests were most frequently preferredin quantitative studies. Interviews, documents, and questionnaires were frequently preferred in qualitative studies. And questionnaires andinterviews were most commonly used in mixed studies. In previous analytical surveys, questionnaires and interviews were found to be themost preferred data collection tools (Akca-Ustundag, 2009; Alper & Gulbahar, 2009; Bozkaya et al., 2012; Goktas et al., 2012; Hew et al.,2007; Simsek et al., 2009). Questionnaires were likely used with the greatest frequency because they are a cheap, easy, and fast datacollection tool (Baker, 2003).
Regarding the types of sample selection, the purposive and convenience types were mainly used. Other findings in the literature alsosupport this result (Akca-Ustundag, 2009; Alper & Gulbahar, 2009; Goktas et al., 2012; Simsek et al., 2009). The types of sample selection didnot differ among the three indexes. Regarding the distribution of sample sizes compared to methodologies, 31–100 samples were typicallyused in quantitative, mixed and other category studies, and 11–30 samples weremost often used in qualitative studies. Of particular concernis the impact of having a small sample in studies that show no statistically differences or relationships, especially because so manyeducational studies employ relatively small samples. However, whenever there is a small sample; other factors have a greater likelihood ofinfluencing the results, such as bias in the sample or the presence of confounding variables (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The number ofstudies conducted with more than 1000 samples was low for all three methodologies. The low number of quantitative studies with morethan 1000 samples may be due to time restrictions, official and ethics processes, and the fact that researchers aim to acquire data overshorter periods of time and as easily as possible (Erdogmus, 2009; Goktas et al., 2012).
Descriptive statistics, which is a quantitative method, was frequently used in all the indexed articles. Frequencies, percentages, and tableswere the most preferred types of descriptive statistics. These techniques were followed in popularity by means and standard deviations. T-tests and ANOVA/ANCOVAwere themost commonly usedmethods among the predictive statistics in all three indexes. Content analysis wasfrequently used in qualitative research studies. Various studies in the literature show similar results (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Keser & Ozcan,2011; Masood, 2004; Simsek et al., 2009).
To summarize, the present study is more comprehensive, compared to previous studies on Educational Technology research trendsconducted in Turkey, because it surveys a far greater number of articles and different index types. This range of studies published betweenthe years 1990–2011 more fully reflects the developments and changes in the field. The publishing policies of journals are important inshaping the research field of Educational Technology. Hence, revealing research trends by the three indexes will contribute to shaping thefield. Finally, the following conclusions and suggestions can be made in the light of the findings obtained from the present study:
� Canalizing researchers in the field whose works appear in leading specialist journals can make important contributions to thedevelopment of the Educational Technology field.
� Focus on the less studied subjects can contribute to the development of the field. The three subject areas of design and development,systemic change, and administration in particular could be more comprehensively studied.
� Qualitative andmixedmethodologies could be usedmore in following the administrative trends in the field. Thesemethodologies couldfurther our knowledge by facilitating a more in-depth examination of different cases. Researchers may need to become more knowl-edgeable about qualitative and mixed methodologies in order to conduct these types of studies.
� Research methods which are never used or which are less preferred (single subject, ex-post facto, historical analysis, cultural analysis,concept analysis, secondary data analysis, critical study, grounded theory, etc.) can be addressed more in post-graduate researchmethodology courses, to encourage more frequent usage.
� Purposive and convenience samples were preferred in the studies. But a random sample selection method is preferable for generalizingresearch results.
� Studies on samples from different fields and from a wider variety of groups may help to expand the relevance of study results.� Increasing the number of samples may help to produce studies with a lower rate of error.� Choosing statistical analysis methods which are more appropriate for the data would lead to more reliable results.� A more detailed examination could be made to determine the subject trends in the field of Educational Technology.� Repeating this type of studyperiodicallywould allow researchers to be better informed and to keep updated concerning trends in thefield.
References
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2004). Definition. In A. Januszewski, & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational Technology: A definition with com-mentary). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Akca-Ustundag, D. (2009). Evaluation of the theses in the master of science program of computer education and instructional technologies in Turkey in terms of contents andmethods. Ankara: Gazi University. Unpublished master’s thesis.
S. Kucuk et al. / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 42–5050
Alper, A., & Gulbahar, Y. (2009). Trends and issues in educational technologies: A review of recent research in TOJET. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2),124–135.
Baker, M. J. (2003). Data collection– questionnaire design. The Marketing Review, 3(3), 343–370.Bauer, M. W. (2003). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. W. Bauer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). London: Sage
Publication.Bozkaya, M., Erdem-Aydın, _I., & Genc-Kumtepe, E. (2012). Research trends and issues in educational technology: A content analysis of TOJET (2008–2011). The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 264–277.Bray, K. E. (2003). Perceived value of journals for academic prestige, general reading and classroom use: A study of journals in educational and instructional technology. USA:
University of North Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Caffarella, E. P. (1999). The major themes and trends in doctoral dissertation research in educational technology from 1977 through 1998. Educational Media and Technology
Yearbook, 25, 14–25.Costa, F. A. (2007). Educational technologies: Analysis of master dissertation carried out in Portugal. Educational Sciences Journal, 3, 7–24.Driscoll, M. (1995). Paradigms for research in instructional systems. In Gary J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed).). Englewood: CO: Li-
braries Unlimited.Erdogmus, F. U. (2009). Research trends in CEIT MS and PhD theses in Turkey: A content analysis. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University. Unpublished master’s thesis.Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.Goktas, Y., Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacik, O., Yildirim, G., & Reisoglu, I. (2012). Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009
decade. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 177–199.Gulbahar, Y., & Alper, A. (2009). A content analysis of the studies in instructional technologies area. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 42(2), 93–111.Hannafin, R. D., & Young, M. (2008). Research on educational technologies. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 731–739). NY: Routledge.Hew, K. F., Kale, U., & Kim, N. (2007). Past research in instructional technology: Results of a content analysis of empirical studies published in three prominent instructional
technology journals from the year 2000 through 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 269–300.Hranstinski, S., & Keller, C. (2007). An examination of research approaches that underlie research on educational technology: A review from 2000 to 2004. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 175–190.Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.Keser, H., & Ozcan, D. (2011). Current trends in educational technologies studies presented in World Conferences on Educational Sciences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15, 3989–3998.Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (2000). Trends and shifts in research methods. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp.
35–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Klein, J. (1997). ETR&D-Development: An analysis of content and survey of future direction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 57–62.Latchem, C. (2006). Editorial: A content analysis of the British Journal of Educational Technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 503–511.Ma, Y. (2000, February). Research in educational communications and technology at the University of Wisconsin: A study of dissertation completed since the inception of the
program. In Paper presented at the 22’rd National Convention of the Association for Educational Communiations and Technology.Masood, M. (1997). A ten year analysis: Trends in traditional educational technology literature. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 1(2), 1823–1844.Masood, M. (2004). Trends and issues as reflected in traditional educational technology literature: A content analysis. United States Indiana: Indiana University. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation.McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry (7th ed.). New York: Longman.Price, R. V., & Maushak, N. J. (2000). Publishing in the field of educational technology: Getting started. Educational Technology, 40(4), 47–52.Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.Sert, G. (2010). Articles in the field of instructional technologies adressed in Turkey: A content analysis. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University. (Unpublished master’s thesis).Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry, a dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications.Simsek, A., Ozdamar, N., Becit, G., Kılıcer, K., Akbulut, Y., & Yıldırım, Y. (2008). Current trends in educational technology research in Turkey. Selcuk University Journal of Social
Sciences Institute, 19, 439–458.Simsek, A., Ozdamar, N., Uysal, O., Kobak, K., Berk, C., Kılıcer, T., et al. (2009). Current trends in educational technology research in Turkey in the new millennium. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(2), 941–996.
Sevda Kucuk is Ph.D. student and research assistant at the Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology at Ataturk University. Her research interests are in thecomputer-based instruction, teacher education, distance education, instructional design, instructional strategies, and research methods.
Melike Aydemir is Ph.D. student and research assistant at the Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology and online program coordinator of the DistanceEducation Center at the Ataturk University. Her research interests are in the distance education, interaction among learners to aid learning during distance education, instructionaltechnology and instructional design.
Gurkan Yildirim is Ph.D. student and research assistant in Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology at Ataturk University. His focusing areas are distanceeducation, motivation theories, learning management systems and internet applications in education. Besides he attended many studies about e-books, tablet PC in education.
Omer Arpacik is Ph.D. student and research assistant at the Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology at Ataturk University. His research interests areinstructional technology, assistive technologies for learning disabilities.
Yuksel Goktas is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology. He has completed his B.S. degree in Department ofComputer Education from Gazi University. He also received a M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Computer Education and Instructional Technology from Middle East Technical University in Turkey.He was a visiting scholar at Purdue University’s Educational Technology Program during 2005–2006. His research interests include Web 2.0, technology integration and usage,instructional design, problem-based learning, and research methods.
Recommended
