A Systematic Mapping of E-Learning Research: An Interdisciplinary and Multi-paradigmatic Perspective from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

Authors

  • Mitchell Peters Universitat Oberta de Cataluyna
  • Antoni Perez-Navarro Universitat Oberta de Cataluyna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7037-0635
  • Sergi Fabregues Universitat Oberta de Cataluyna

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.4.2327

Keywords:

e-learning, systematic mapping, educational technology, systematic review, interdisciplinary research

Abstract

E-learning research is a dynamic and ever-expanding interdisciplinary field. Research in this area is often conducted at the intersection of social science, cognitive science, learning sciences, as well as engineering and computer science. Common concerns in the field include ambiguity and confusion toward how best to approach methodological design as well as tensions around whether the field is coherent or fragmented. E-learning research has been characterized as a multi-paradigmatic knowledge field with distinct theoretical foundations and a horizontal knowledge structure composed of “specialist” languages. There has been a remarkable increase in systematic literature reviews in the field, representing a burgeoning research industry. Although there is a clear division between technical and social scientific approaches, there is a scarcity of literature which attempts to synthesize the evidence on how e-learning research is conducted across disciplines and within distinctive research communities from a multi-paradigmatic perspective. The objective of the current study is to systematically map research done in the field of e-learning in higher education at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) within the frame of an institutional analysis. The aim is to identify key features and distinctive approaches to research across disciplines in this area from a multi-paradigmatic perspective. A systematic mapping review has been conducted, synthesizing research published between 2015-2020 by authors affiliated with the UOC. The study identified 291 articles, the majority of which use quantitative approaches following both design-based research methods as well as design and development research aims across three distinct research areas (a) educational research, (b) discipline-based education research and (c) learning engineering research. Fragmentation was identified across distinct research areas and communities of practice, particularly between research aims and the methods used to achieve these aims. By empirically examining the claims about methodological capacity and coherence in e-learning research, recommendations are offered for reorienting the field by: (a) increasing interdisciplinary collaboration through integrated research agendas; (b) supporting the expanding profession of the ‘learning engineer’; and (c) promoting methodological capacity, clarity and innovation. 

Author Biographies

Antoni Perez-Navarro, Universitat Oberta de Cataluyna

Antoni Perez-Navarro is a lecturer in the IT, Multimedia and Telecommunications Department as well as a Postgraduate programme coordinator at the UOC. His research interests are focused on indoor positioning and applications of GIS, mainly in e-health as well as engineering education e-learning research. 

Sergi Fabregues, Universitat Oberta de Cataluyna

Sergi Fàbregues is an Associate Professor of Research Methods at the Department of Psychology and Education of the UOC, Associate Editor of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, and Associate Member of the University of Michigan Mixed Methods Program. His qualitative and mixed methods research interests include quality appraisal, integration, analysis, and the process of carrying out systematic methodological reviews.

References

Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Md Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M. & Ale Ebrahim, N. 2013. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9, 18-26.

Baydas, O., Kucuk, S., Yilmaz, R. M., Aydemir, M. & Goktas, Y. 2015. Educational technology research trends from 2002 to 2014. Scientometrics, 105, 709-725.

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O. & Kerres, M. 2020. Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17.

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, 12-63.

Bozkurt, A. 2020. Educational technology research patterns in the realm of the digital knowledge age. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020.

Bulfin, S., Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F. & Selwyn, N. 2014. Methodological capacity within the field of "educational technology" research: An initial investigation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 403-414.

Caballé, S. 2019. A computer science methodology for online education research. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 548-562.

Castañeda, L., Salinas, J. & Adell, J. 2020. Towards a contemporary vision of educational technology. Digital Education Review, 240-268.

Czerniewicz, L. 2010. Educational technology - mapping the terrain with Bernstein as cartographer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 523-534.

Daenekindt, S. & Huisman, J. 2020. Mapping the scattered field of research on higher education. A correlated topic model of 17,000 articles, 1991–2018. Higher Education, 80, 571-587.

Dede, C., Richards, J. & Saxberg, B. 2019. Learning engineering for online education: Theoretical contexts and design-based examples, New York, Routledge.

Farrow, R., Iniesto, F., Weller, M. & Pitt, R. 2020. Research Methods Handbook v. 1.0 [Online]. GO-GN. Available: https://go-gn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GO-GN-Research-Methods.pdf.

Gorard, S. & Cook, T. 2007. Where does good evidence come from? International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30, 307-323.

Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108.

Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C. & Lo, C. K. 2019. Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 956-971.

Ifenthaler, D. & Yau, J. Y. K. 2020. Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1961-1990.

Kiliç-Çakmak, E., Çebi, A., Mihçi, P., Günbatar, M. S. & Akçayir, M. 2013. A content analysis of educational technology research in 2011. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J. & Moher, D. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6.

Nortvig, A. M., Petersen, A. K. & Balle, S. H. 2018. A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16, 45-55.

Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R. & Dell, N. A. 2017. Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87, 172-203.

Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S. & Persico, D. 2015. Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 488-509.

Ranking Cyd. 2020. Ranking CYD [Online]. Available: https://www.rankingcyd.org/info/universidad-oberta-de-catalunya.

Reeves, T. C. & Lin, L. 2020. The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1991-2001.

Reeves, T. C. & Oh, E. G. 2017. The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 325-339.

Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D. & Cabrera, N. 2012. Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 145-159.

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F. & Sancho-Gil, J. M. 2020. What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning Media and Technology, 45, 1-6.

Wilcox, K. E. & Sarma, S. 2016. Online education: A catalyst for higher education reform [Online]. MIT Press. Available: https://jwel.mit.edu/assets/document/online-education-catalyst-higher-education-reforms.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M. & Buntins, K. 2020. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application, Wiesbaden, Springer VS.

Zawacki-Richter, O. & Latchem, C. 2018. Exploring four decades of research in Computers & Education. Computers and Education, 122, 136-152.

Downloads

Published

11 Oct 2022

Issue

Section

Articles