Navigating Online Learning Through “Technological Frames"

IF 2.8 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Merve Basdogan, Curtis J. Bonk
{"title":"Navigating Online Learning Through “Technological Frames\"","authors":"Merve Basdogan, Curtis J. Bonk","doi":"10.24059/olj.v27i4.4030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. ","PeriodicalId":54195,"journal":{"name":"Online Learning","volume":" 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i4.4030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. 
通过 "技术框架 "指导在线学习
本研究是一个更大的批判性话语分析(CDA)的一部分,该分析考察了技术增强的学习环境,如在线学习、电子学习、基于网络的学习、计算机辅助学习、计算机中介学习以及开放和远程学习。本定性研究的目的是分析教育技术学者如何在教学和学习情境中感知和解释技术。利用卡尔·米查姆的技术框架类型学,将技术分为四类:(1)对象,(2)知识,(3)活动,(4)意志,我们确定了教育技术学者用来定义学习环境的技术框架类型。对9个半结构化访谈的内容分析表明,学者们主要将技术与意志(即个人对技术的动机、欲望、意志、文化和同意)联系在一起,其次是活动(即与技术相关的行动,如设计、起草、制作、编程和分析)和对象(即工具),而技术作为知识(即事实、显性和隐性技能、配方、规则、信念、描述性法律、原则、技术和技术)。体验)是被提及最少的技术方面。此外,我们还发现了技术的一个新方面,叫做“空间”。研究结果为在线和远程学习技术框架的文献提供了理论和实践见解。重要的是,本文提出了未来十年在线学习研究的可能方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Online Learning
Online Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
15.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信