Navigating Online Learning Through “Technological Frames"
A Qualitative Examination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i4.4030Abstract
This study is part of a larger critical discourse analysis (CDA) that examines technology-enhanced learning environments, such as online learning, e-learning, Web-based learning, computer-assisted learning, computer-mediated learning, and open and distance learning. The goal of this qualitative research was to analyze how educational technology scholars perceive and interpret technology in teaching and learning contexts. Using Carl Mitcham's typology of technological frames, which categorizes technology into four groups: (1) object, (2) knowledge, (3) activity, and (4) volition, we identified the types of technological frames that educational technology scholars use to define learning environments. The content analysis of nine semi-structured interviews showed that scholars primarily associate technology with volition (i.e., individuals’ motivations, desires, will, culture, and consent regarding technology), followed by activity (i.e., technology related actions such as designing, drafting, crafting, programming, and analyzing) and object (i.e., tools), while technology as knowledge (i.e., facts, explicit and implicit skills, recipes, rules, beliefs, descriptive laws, principles, and experiences) was the least referenced technological aspect. Additionally, we discovered a new aspect of technology called “space.” The findings provide theoretical and practical insights into the literature on technological frames in online and distance learning. Importantly, insights into possible directions for research on online learning in the coming decade are offered.
References
Abdelnour-Nocera, J.L., & Sharp, H. (2012). Understanding conflicts in agile adoption through technological frames. International Journal of Sociotechnology Knowledge. Development, 4, 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jskd.2012040104
Basdogan, M. (2021). Critical discourse analysis of open and distance education concepts from a postphenomenological perspective. Indiana University.
Basdogan, M., Birdwell, T., & Harris, T. (2022). Technological frames in classroom: A case study for a faculty professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v30.2678
Bijker W., E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs, towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
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. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 12-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12730
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.05.001
Carroll, L. S. L. (2017). A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological perspective. Social Sciences, 6(4), 126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4189637
Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y
Chism, N. 2006. Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Sage.
Dağhan, G., & Gündüz, A. Y. (2022). Research trends in educational technology journals between 2000 and 2018: A web scraping study. Education and Information Technologies, 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10762-2
Davidson, E. (2002). Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26, 329–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4132312
Davidson, E. (2006). A technological frames perspective on information technology and organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886305285126
Ekici, S., & Yilmaz, B. (2013). FATİH Projesi üzerine bir değerlendirme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 27(2), 317-339.
Elle, M., Dammann, S., Lentsch, J., & Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of SCOT in technology development. Building and Environment, 45(1), 135-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.011
Emery, A., & Anderman, L. H. (2020). Using interpretive phenomenological analysis to advance theory and research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 55, 220 - 231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1787170
Frechette, J., Bitzas, V., Aubry, M., Kilpatrick, K., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2020). Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1609406920907254
Frennert, S., Aminoff, H., & Östlund, B. (2020). Technological frames and care robots in eldercare. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 311-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00641-0
Goglio, V., Bertolini, S., & Parigi, P. (2022). The perceived labour market value of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in Europe and the USA. Journal of Education and Work, 36, 37 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2022.2162020
Graetz, K. A. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. Educause Review, 41(6), 60–75.
Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 4(4), 134–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2020.09.001
Huvila, I., Cajander, Å., Moll, J., Enwald, H., Eriksson-Backa, K., & Rexhepi, H. (2021). Technological and informational frames: Explaining age-related variation in the use of patient accessible electronic health records as technology and information. Information Technology & People, 35(8),1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2020-0566
Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. SUNY Press.
Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37, 790–805.
Keirl, S. (2018). Mitcham’s fourth: A case for foregrounding volition when framing Design and Technology education. In N. Seery, J. Buckley, D. Canty, & J. Phelan (Eds.), Proceedings of 36th International students’ attitudes towards technology conference (pp. 59–64). Athlone Institute of Technology.
Keller, J. M. (1987) Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction. 26 (8), 1-7.
Liang, R.Y., & Chen, D.V. (2012). Online learning: Trends, potential and challenges. Creative Education, 3, 1332-1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38195
Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 49-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000521
McLuhan, M. (2006). The medium is the message. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.) Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (Revised Edition) (pp. 100-07). Blackwell Publishers.
Mengesha, N. T. (2010). The role of technological frames of key groups in open source software implementation in a developing country context. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2010.tb00305.x
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
Niederhauser, D. S., Howard, S. K., Voogt, J. M., Agyei, D. D., Laferrière, T., Tondeur, J., & Cox, M. J. (2018). Sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives: Research-informed practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23, 507-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z
Noon, E. J. (2018). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: An appropriate methodology for educational research? Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6, 75-83. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i1.304
Olesen, K. (2014). Implications of dominant technological frames over a longitudinal period. Information Systems Journal, 24(3), 207-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/isj.12006
Olsen, O. E, & Engen, O. A. (2007). Technological change as a trade-off between social construction and technological paradigms. Technology in Society, 29(4), 456–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.006
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/196734.196745
Oyarzun, B., & Martin, F. (2023). A systematic review of research on online learner collaboration from 2012-21: Collaboration technologies, design, facilitation, and outcomes. Online Learning, 27(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3407
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004
Prell, C. (2009). Rethinking the social construction of technology through ‘following the actors’: a reappraisal of technological frames. Sociological Research Online, 14(2), 36-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.1913
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Royakkers, L., & van de Poel, I. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Sedlack, D., & Tejay, G.P. (2011). Improving information security through technological frames of reference. Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 153–157.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and research. London: Sage.
Spieth, P., Röth, T., Clauss, T., & Klos, C. (2021). Technological frames in the digital age: Theory, measurement instrument, and future research areas. Journal of Management Studies, 58(7), 1962-1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12720
Talbert, R., & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02967
Treem, J. W., Dailey, S., & Pierce, C. (2013, May). When social media meets workplace settings: Differing technological frames and expectations of organizational members. Paper presented at the International Communication Association (ICA) Conference, London, UK.
Treem, J. W., Dailey, S. L., Pierce, C. S., & Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Bringing technological frames to work: How previous experience with social media shapes the technology's meaning in an organization. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 396-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12149
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Merve Basdogan, Curtis Bonk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
