scholarly journals A caution about causation

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Henderson ◽  
Petrea Redmond ◽  
Eva Heinrich

Educational technology research, like all education research, is dominated by explicit or implicit claims of causation.  The dominance of cause-effect models in research is not surprising, and for many it is unnoticed and unquestioned. However, regardless of the cause-effect model being applied or the methodology in measuring it, we are unable to detect cause-effect directly. It is in this context that we need to be cautious in our interpretations of educational technology interventions and their implications for the future. Claims of causation are unlikely to decrease in the face of the increasing calls for “evidence-based” policy and practice. With this in mind it is even more important to consider how we can resist deterministic or mechanical claims of cause and effect. This dilemma should not stop our drive for evidence based approaches, but it is a reminder that we need to take care in the rigour of our research, and equally, in the way we describe it. 

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sakinah Alhadad ◽  
Rachel A Searston ◽  
Jason M Lodge

Evidence-based educational practice and policy relies on educational research to be accessible and reliable. For educators, creating the next generation of critical thinkers, collaborators, and effective communicators, is a complex educational problem, requiring a delicate marriage of methods and approaches for understanding the mind, behaviour, and social context of the learner in the digital age. As such, educational technology research plays an important role for informing practice and policy. However, reaching across the boundaries of research, policy, and practice, is inherently challenging, and can invoke unintended consequences. Miscommunications, and mistakes, are inevitable in interdisciplinary and applied science, but advances in technology now make it possible to openly share and translate educational technology research for policy and practice. Our aim in this paper is to describe how the emerging set of practices and philosophies within the Open Science movement can make educational technology research more transparent and aid translating it into practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 1019-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Beardsley ◽  
Patricia Santos ◽  
Davinia Hernández‐Leo ◽  
Konstantinos Michos

AI Matters ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Carolyn P. Rosé

This column raises the question, as we begin to emerge from COVID 19, what is the role of the field of AI in this emerging reality? We specifically consider this in the face of tremendous learning loss and widening achievement gaps. In this wake, what specifically is the role of AI in the future of education as we move forward? This question bridges the worlds of basic research and the seemingly distant worlds of policy and practice.


Author(s):  
Justin Marquis

There is an ever-widening gap between the social classes in American society reflected in wages, living conditions, health care and access to technology. This chapter argues that a hidden agenda underlies much current educational technology research which, intentionally or unintentionally, reinforces the societal power structures which support this inequitable access. In order to demonstrate this subtle discrimination some of the work of well-known educational technology researcher Larry Cuban is examined in order to highlight the ways in which his choices of research sites and methodology help to perpetuate the digital divide through generalization and a failure to acknowledge the existence of persons who lack technology access in their homes. After the critique a methodology for conducting “socially responsible” educational technology research that employs a postmodern critical perspective to mitigate the discriminatory factors present in much contemporary research will be proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document