doctoral research training in educational technology

Doctoral Research Training in Educational Technology Richard E, Clark

The number of skills required to conduct intelligent research has increased enormously during the past decade. It appears, however, that such skills have not been applied to the design and conduct of much research in the field of educational technology. Reviewers of research presented for publication (e.g., Clark & Snow, 1975; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Filep & Schramm, 1970; Olson, 1974; Salomon & Clark, 1977) have criticized not only the amount of that research, but also its quality and potential contribution to theory and practice.

Hall (1972) reviewed NDEA Title VII-A studies conducted between 1958 and 1968 and concluded that research designs and statistical techniques used had not improved, and in some instances had deteriorated, throughout the decade. Further, most methodological practices were extremely lim- ited and unimaginative. In a similar review I conducted with Richard Snow (Clark & Snow, 1975) of the studies published in A V Communication Review from 1969 to 1974, it was apparent that very little change had taken place in the sophistica- tion of the designs, in the appropriateness of the statistics employed, in analysis of data, or even in apparent knowledge of the requirements of the problems being addressed in individual studies. As a result, we wrote:

One is tempted to conclude that the variety of designs available to instructional technologists has not changed appreciably in the past

Richard E. Clark is professor of education at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, and associate editor for research of ECTJ. Robert Heinich, Mark Patridge, Gavriel Salomon, and Dennis Gooler read an early draft of this article and made many useful suggestions.

ECTJ, VOL. 26, NO. 2, SUMMER 1978 165

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION & TECHNOLOGY [] SUMMER 1978 : 166

CURRENT STATUS OF RESEARCH TRAINING

15-18 years, despite the many advances accomplished in closely related fields. The responsibility for this "steady state" would appear to rest in the university programs where researchers are trained. (p. 377)

This article examines some recent evidence about the current state of doctoral research training and plans for the development of doctoral study, provides some interpretation of the problems we face, and offers four suggestions for enhancing research training in doctoral programs. One of the foremost goals of all doctoral programs is to produce graduates who are both capable of and motivated toward scholarship regardless of the professional roles they assume. However, there are indications that neither faculty nor students in instructional technology account for much of the research we produce. For example, most of the studies sub- mitted for publication in AV Communication Review (approxi- mately 60%) come from researchers outside of the field of educational technology. Of the 40% that comes from within, 25% is made up of dissertations by individuals who seem never to conduct research again (at least they do not submit articles for publication in AVCR), and the remaining studies represent continuing research by scholars in this field. 1

Although it is not possible to generalize about all doctoral programs in this field, a recent survey by Mark Patridge (1977) 2 provides some interesting insight. Patridge queried faculty in nine of the largest educational technology doctoral programs in the country (Arizona State, Brigham Young, Florida State, Indiana, Ohio State, Pennsylvania State, Syra- cuse, Iowa, and Minnesota) about their demographics , academic specializations, faculty characteristics, course offer- ings, student competencies, and program goals. After data about individual programs were collected by questionnaire, they were aggregated and returned to the individual universities to be checked for accuracy. One thing immediately apparent from the data is that all these doctoral programs report that research training is one of their prime goals. However, closer inspection of the data indicates that very few faculty members teaching in these programs are prepared (by their own training) to teach (or presumably to conduct) research.

1Heinich, R. Personal communication. 2A copy of the draft of a forthcoming ECTJ article on this study can be

obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed 9" x 12" envelope and $2.00 (to cover duplicating) to: Mark Patridge, Office of Curriculum Affairs, Box 33 Mayo Bldg., 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

RESEARCH TRAINING IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY : 167

Yet almost all of the graduate programs offer a majority of their measurement, research design, and evaluation courses inside existing educational technology programs rather than send their students to other departments or schools. The most frequent professional rank in these programs is full professor; we might assume that a majority of faculty are ten- ured. Because of the recent nationwide decrease in enroll- ments in graduate programs, few new faculty members are being hired.

When faculty in graduate programs were asked to rank in order of importance five types of competendes they expected doctoral students to acquire in the programs, only one university gave measurement and evaluation first place; three gave it second place, three allocated it to third place, and one put it in last place. (The other competencies were educational technology, instructional development, management and administration, and instructional psychology.)

The future looks even more depressing. When the same university faculty were asked to rank 10 competencies of a student in an ideal program (presumably their goals for the future), competencies associated with experimental design and data analysis were placed well down the list. No one interested in the future of educational technology research could fail to be concerned by this kind of information, particu- larly the indication that the trend is even further away from training doctoral students in research methodology for the purpose of advancing knowledge. Although all doctoral programs in educational technology were not surveyed in the Patridge study, the sample does represent most of the larger programs in the country and most of those that have in the past been most closely associated with the commitment to research training and scholarly productivity. Had the sample been larger and more representative of the institutions offer- ing advanced degrees, the picture might have been worse. What caused this grim situation? Why have we apparently given up the academic ideal of scholarly inquiry as the defin- ing characteristic of graduate education at the doctoral level? 3

3Although this question might appear a bit intemperate, recall that I am making the argument that: (1) our published research is generally poor; (2) a necessary condition for adequate scholarship is adequate research training at the doctoral level; (3) Patridge's data suggest that we are not providing adequate research training; and (4) it therefore appears that we have ex- changed the goal of producing scholars for some other objective(s) in doctoral training.


ORIGIN OF OUR

PROBLEMS Although many of the programs in this field have histories dating back more than two decades, it must be remembered that educational technology is a creature of the "new" university. We have been sorely tempted by the competitive marketplace to do research for government agencies and large corporations. Some of our colleagues made extravagant and premature promises about the development potential of research knowledge (for example, the claim that programed instruction would teach 90% of the learners 90% of the time). Many of these claims were taken seriously by granting agencies, and funds previously allocated to research were switched to development. This focus on development has been coupled with a tendency for our field to attract faculty and students with a very real (and laudable) motivation to solve basic social and educational problems. The way that interest often gets expressed, however, is in the search for soft dollars in targeted projects that do not necessarily enhance the field but tend to enhance the status of the professors who are successful competitors. We become "grantsper- sons" and operators within large bureaucratic structures. Ef- ficiency, competition, and production tend to gain ascend- ancy over intellectual curiosity.

Another factor that may tend to reinforce the current situation is the declining enrollment in graduate programs as the postwar baby boom slackens and economic difficulties in the country lead graduate students (and faculty members) to be concerned about gainful employment. Is it possible that graduate faculties have generally assumed they must meet the vocational needs and expectations of today's generation of graduate students in order to attract enough bodies to jus- tify faculty numbers and salary? Is there a decrease in the growth rate of faculties, and, therefore, are fewer positions available for faculty members who may be trained in more recent research methodologies? Might existing graduate faculties lack adequate research training which in better years could have been compensated for by judicious choices in the hiring of new faculty (Sanford, 1976)?

It is ironic that the efforts made by faculty members in the field of educational technology to meet outside demands for solutions to practical educational problems do not accomplish much-- i f we are to believe our critics. The "RD&D" (research, development, and dissemination) model, beloved by federal planners and a number of our colleagues in the past,


ENHANCING DOCTORAL

TRAINING Continuing

Education for Graduate Faculty

turns out to be a gross oversimplification of educational prob- lem solving. Kerlinger (1977), in a very disturbing article, reminds us that the greatest contributions to the solving of very practical problems in related fields (medicine, for example) were made through a commitment to focused, informed, and basic research. Further, he reminds us that historically the movement toward pragmatism in training and research has roots that are basically anti-intellectual and cynical. He argues persuasively that the solutions to pressing educational problems are seldom obvious in the focus of a particular line of inquiry. He strongly suggests a reemphasis on basic inquiry skills that include a commitment to scientific method.

It is not my intention in this very brief article to present a manifesto for changing graduate education or to argue for a return to an "elitist" orientation in graduate programs. It does seem, however, that the current economic difficulties encountered by universities and the retrenchment that implies offer an opportunity to move toward some needed reconstruction. The suggestions offered in this article are necessarily incomplete and are intended to add to the dialogue rather than to present a comprehensive plan. Our first concern in existing graduate programs should be with the continuing education of faculty who teach doctoral students. If the Patridge study is accurate, it appears that very few of us have been prepared at all in the areas of research design and statistics. Granted that these are not the sine qua non of inquiry, no faculty member who hopes to provide adequate preparation for doctoral students can afford to be ignorant of them, regardless of orientation. Those who pre- pare doctoral students must be aware of the tremendous advances in statistics and research me thodo log ie s since Campbell and Stanley (1966). That includes faculty members who feel they might have been adequately prepared in their graduate programs a number of years ago but who have failed to keep up because of other pressures. New advances in mul t ivar ia te t echn iques , great variet ies of quasi- experimental designs, recent additions to the literature on threats to validity, regression, path and cluster analysis have been so dramatic that they invalidate much of what was current even a few years ago. Although these areas are difficult to master and faculty are already overburdened with com- mitments, at the very least we should consider attending the abbreviated but excellent courses offered each year prior to


Curriculum Revisions

the American Educational Research Association convention. We might also press federal planners to reinstate faculty research training programs similar to the now defunct NDEA Title XI plans. Title XI came into existence because public school teachers needed updating in new subject matter and professors needed updating in use of newer media. In this decade, the need for retraining of college and university faculty in research is even more acute. New positions are not generally available for doctoral graduates who have up-to- date training, and we are faced with the need to improve the competence of current faculty. Knowledge of advanced research techniques is needed to enhance all methods and approaches in this field. Informal methods such as survey, case study, participant observation, and ethnography can only benefit from these new techniques, as can more formal and exper imenta l ly or iented problems (Schwen, 1977). No graduate faculty member can provide adequate instruction for future scholars in many of the diverse areas that comprise educational technology without a solid knowledge of the wide range of current techniques available. A second area obviously in need of work is the graduate curriculum. Anyone who surveys the research on graduate training immediately comes to the conclusion that we know very little about the components of a superior doctoral curriculum. Most lists of essential features would include the mastery of a discipline (or associated disciplines), the acquisi- tion of appropriate methodologies, the close professional relationship between students and faculty members that includes collegial research activities, and increased opportunities for doctoral students to undertake independent research in problems they find intrinsically interesting. In my experience, however, these matters are seldom discussed when the curriculum is reviewed.

It is vital to point out that the usual discussion among graduate faculty members deals with the question of whether we should be producing practitioners or researchers. The ar- guments on both sides of the issue falsely assume that it is a valid question to begin with. We must remember that the researcher/practitioner distinction implies an a priori separa- tion between two kinds of knowledge when in fact the distinction is about careers. Some of our graduates may spend their professional lives as practitioners; some may make career choices that involve research. However, the expecta-


Cooperative Faculty/Student

Research

tion of all doctoral students in this field is that they should do some of each and that their graduate programs should pre- pare them for both. Presumably, the practitioner who has a doctorate is able to improve his or her (and others') practices by scholarly analysis. We delude ourselves if we believe that students who choose more practice-oriented careers need less research training.

Perhaps we should not try to provide research training within educational technology programs. Patridge's finding that most research training occurs within programs by faculty who are often inadequately prepared is disturbing. If we acknowledge that the research curriculum is interdisciplinary, we should be able to send students to courses in other departments for part of their training. This presumes that we form linkages with those areas and carefully monitor the ex- periences of our students.

How do we give an equal emphasis to training in research and practice? Since there is an increasing amount to learn about research in order to be adequately prepared to do it, one way to achieve that end would be to select skilled practitioners as doctoral students. Another approach is to focus on practice in master's degree programs and allow the major part of the three to four years graduate students spend in doctoral study to be devoted to research training and experience, with some portion of that training delegated to departments outside educational technology. Next, it is necessary that all faculty members in doctoral programs conduct ongoing research and include doctoral students in those activities. One of the most important features of doctoral programs is the opportunity for students to work with, and model, graduate faculty who are conducting research. All doctoral programs should provide a variety of opportunities for students to engage in the full range of research experience--from the inception of an idea through the design, data gathering, and analysis stages, to the reporting of findings. In a healthy doctoral program, graduate students should first be engaged as assistants and later be encouraged toward more independent activity based on their individual curiosities. What characterizes this activity is a close working relationship with one or more faculty members that entails colleagueship, systematic inquiry, and internship experi- ences. Many welMrained and talented researchers have been siphoned off from research to soft-money development proj-


Funding To Serve Research Training

REMAINING QUESTIONS

ects. Federal programs (specifically those administered by the National Institute for Education) should make research more attractive to individuals who have demonstrated their abili- ties to make contributions. It is also important to recognize that productive inquiry is most often conducted without the benefit of federal support.

A reemphasis by faculty members on the conduct of inquiry will accomplish more than providing a welcome addi- tion to our tested knowledge about our field. We cannot ex- pect students to value inquiry unless faculty behave as if they hold it in high regard. Finally, it seems necessary for doctoral programs to insist that soft-money acquired by contracts serve research training, and not vice versa. The most realistic approach is to assume that many doctoral programs will continue to require a large amount of outside funding to exist. Rather than risk annihila- tion, realistic faculty will acknowledge the necessity of contracts and grants but will also employ their considerable tal- ents to search out funding that meets the agenda of pre- determined inquiry programs rather than suffer the situation in which the soft-money tail wags the doctoral-program dog. Although there is pressure in Washington to increase the number of dollars allocated to the relatively flexible research grant (rather than contracts), it seems clear that the trend of the last few years toward the "Request for Proposal" and targeted-program approaches to research will continue. There are growing indications that a number of agencies (the National Institute for Education and a number of founda- tions) are planning major increases in their research expendi- tures in areas of interest to faculty in our field. Those who have existing programs in solid research will be those most obviously favored in the ensuing competition for funding.

It must be acknowledged that many questions about the future of our graduate programs remain unanswered. For example: How do we communicate about the rapid changes in methods and methodology? How do we determine the type of training our students require to address problems with creativity and technical skill? How do we monitor future directions in the diverse programs that currently exist? How might we address the long-term consequences of various approaches to research training? What are the most realistic and effective alternatives for improving programs? These questions and the problems discussed earlier are real enough to


have disturbed a number of faculty in doctoral programs. There are ways that solutions could be sought, but a useful first step would be the formation of an association of doctoral programs in educational communications and technology. Such an association would provide a forum for collecting and exchanging descriptions of programs, for making plans for curriculum focus and development, for discussing values and goals for research training, for considering divisions of labor between different types of programs, and for forming research agendas and training needs so that federal planners can be informed of our needs.

REFERENCES Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Clark, R. E., & Snow, R. E. Alternative designs for instructional technology research. AV Communication Review, 1975, 23, 373- 394.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington Press, 1977.

Filep, R., & Schramm, W. A study of the impact of research on the utilization of media for educational purposes: NDEA Title VI 1958 -1968 (Final report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 042 064) July 1970.

Hall, D. C. Research methodology of NDEA Title VII-A: A descrip- tive and critical analysis. AV Communication Review, 1972, 20, 117-134.

Kerlinger, F. N. The influence of research on education practice. Educational Researcher, 1977, 6(8), 5-12.

Olson, D. R. Introduction. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), Media and symbols, the forms of expression, communication and education (NSSE Year- book). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Patridge, M. I. Graduate education in instructional systems: A review of selected programs. Unpublished master's thesis, Univer- sity of Minnesota-Minneapolis, 1977.

Salomon, G., & Clark, R. E. Re-examining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. Review of Educa- tional Research, 1977, 47(1), 99-120.

Sanford, N. Graduate education then and now. American Psycholo- gist, 1976.

Schwen, T. M. Professional scholarship in educational technology: Criteria for judging inquiry. AV Communication Review, 1977, 2~, 5-24.

Shulman, L. S. Reconstruction of educational research. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40(3), 371-396.

doctoral research training in educational technology

Documents