The research we have is not the research we need
- PDF / 756,989 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 106 Downloads / 200 Views
The research we have is not the research we need Thomas C. Reeves1 · Lin Lin2
© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2020
Abstract The special issue “A Synthesis of Systematic Review Research on Emerging Learning Environments and Technologies” edited by Drs. Florence Martin, Vanessa Dennen, and Curtis Bonk has assembled a noteworthy collection of systematic review articles, each focusing on a different aspect of emerging learning technologies. In this conclusion, we focus on these evidence-based reviews and their practical implications for practitioners as well as future researchers. While recognizing the merits of these reviews, we conclude our analysis by encouraging readers to consider conducting educational design research to address serious problems related to teaching, learning, and performance, collaborating more closely with teachers, administrators, and other practitioners in tackling these problems, and always striving to make a difference in the lives of learners around the world. There is incredible potential for digital technology in and beyond the classroom, but it is vital to rethink how learning is organized if we are to reap the rewards. - Geoff Mulgan quoted in Burns (2012) A story in the USA Today newspaper (García Mathewson and Butrymowicz 2020) was titled “Online programs used for coronavirus-era school promise results. The claims are misleading.” The article highlighted the fact that many online education providers who market their products to K-12 educators claim that their online programs are “proven” to be effective by scientific research, but that the evidence for such claims is typically very weak or even nonexistent. The article went on to state that this problem has been exacerbated by a virtual stampede to provide online learning opportunities in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. School district administrators and other decision-makers have had to rush to find resources to support teaching and learning activities that have suddenly been forced online, and in this scramble they are likely to have been susceptible to false advertising. The authors pointed out that whereas the Food and Drug Administration in the USA
* Lin Lin [email protected] Thomas C. Reeves [email protected] 1
Professor Emeritus of Learning, Design, and Technology College of Education, The University of Georgia, 222 River’s Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602, USA
2
Texas Center for Educational Technology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
T. C. Reeves, L. Lin
restricts what pharmaceutical manufacturers can claim about their drugs and supplements, merchandizers of digital educational technologies have no such restraints. The authors of the USA Today article are staff writers from The Hechinger Report, an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan organization focused on educating the public about education and how it can be improved. Perhaps there would be little need for The Hechinger Report if the What Works Clearinghouse that was esta
Data Loading...
