Abstract
Scholars from diverse fields and research traditions agree that the conceptual framework is a critically important component of disciplined inquiry. Yet, there is a pronounced lack of shared understanding regarding the definition and functions of conceptual frameworks, which impedes our ability to design effective research and mentor novice researchers. This paper adopts John Dewey’s instrumental view of theory to discuss the prevalent definitions of a conceptual framework, outline its key functions, dispel the popular misconceptions regarding conceptual frameworks, and suggest strategies for developing effective conceptual frameworks and communicating them to the consumers of research. Examples of hypothetical and existing empirical studies in the field of educational technology are used to illustrate the analysis. It is argued in this article that conceptual frameworks should be viewed as an instrument for organizing inquiry and creating a compelling theory-based and data-driven argument for the importance of the problem, rigor of the method, and implications for further development of theory and enhancement of practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S.-Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46.
Avis, J. (2003). Work-based knowledge, evidence informed practice and education. British Journal of Education Studies, 51(4), 369–389.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Jong, T., Weinberger, T., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 883–901.
DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 281–312.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Yu, J. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2011). Students’ confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural wiki-based collaborations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 213–228.
Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hofer, B. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–382.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. New York: Harper and Row.
Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation and interpretation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 539–556.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. N. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Educational and Teaching International, 44(1), 93–105.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2007). The ontology of concepts—abstract objects or mental representations? Nous, 41(4), 561–593.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
National Science Teachers Association (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://standards.nsta.org/AccessStandardsByTopic.aspx.
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119.
Newton, X. A., Poon, R. C., Nunes, N. L., & Stone, E. M. (2013). Research on teacher education programs: Logic model approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 36(1), 88–96.
Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(3), 237–255.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. R. (2004). Research on and research with emerging technologies revisited: The role of disciplined inquiry in the study of technology innovation. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm research. London: Sage Publications.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. In M. R. Simonson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the association for educational communications and technology, research and theory division (pp. 459–470). CA: Anaheim.
Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.
Reeves, T., McKenney, S., & Herrington, J. (2011). Publishing and perishing: The critical importance of educational design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 55–65.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press: New York.
Sangari Active Science (2013). IQWST interactive digital edition. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://sangariglobaled.com/iqwst-tablet-edition/.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208.
Shields, P. M., & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate theory: The missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), 313–334.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stevenson, A., & Waite, M. (2011). Concise Oxford English Dictionary (12th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H.-N., Liang, J.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757–769.
Tyler, R. W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492–501.
Winn, W. D. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their helpful feedback on an early version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Antonenko, P.D. The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 53–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4