Editors’ Notes

By Kara Dawson and Swapna Kumar, University of Florida Special Issue Co-Editors

A Peer-Reviewed Publication The official publication of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) for leaders in education and training. 320 W. 8th St., Suite 101 Bloomington, IN, 47404-3745 Phone 812-335-7675 • Fax 812-335-7678 Toll-free 877-677-AECT email [email protected] AECT Board of Directors President Stephen Harmon President-elect Robert Branch Executive Secretary Ellen Hoffman Past President Marcus Childress

T

hank you for taking time to read this special issue of TechTrends designed to highlight the design, implementation and evaluation of hybrid or online doctoral programs in Educational Technology or related fields. Two relatively recent trends make this issue particularly relevant for those of us in the field. The first trend is the proliferation of online and hybrid graduate programs at public and private universities. While the majority of online or hybrid graduate programs in educational technology are at the Masters or certificate levels, more institutions are now offering online or hybrid doctoral degree programs. These programs are being offered because there is an increased demand for educational technologists in a variety of sectors and many of the students interested in such programs are not available to attend campus-based programs for professional or personal reasons. In particular, educational technologists are needed to support the rapid expansion of online learning in K-12 and higher education contexts. Twenty-seven states have K-12 virtual schools and several million students currently take K-12 online courses (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp, 20111). Similarly, over one-third of college students are taking at least one online course and over 62% of colleges and universities offer online degree programs. MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) offerings are also increasing across post-secondary institutions (Allen & Seaman, 20132). These new online opportunities create the need for highly skilled educational technologists who can work as instructional designers and support specialists. The learning management systems for these online experiences also create a wealth of data about the activities, patterns and performance of students and faculty (Macfadyen & Dawson, 20104; Priem, Black & Dawson, 20085). The need for educational technologists who are well versed in designing instruction and assessments, conducting research and making data-driven decisions is at an all-time high. The second trend that makes discourse about online and hybrid doctoral education particularly relevant to educational technology relates to efforts, via the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), to distinguish the goals and outcomes of Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs. In particular, CPED suggests that Ph.D. programs prepare “stewards of the discipline” while Ed.D programs prepare “stewards of practice” (Perry & Imig, 20086). That is, Ph.D. programs prepare those wishing to work in traditional faculty or research settings while Ed.D. programs prepare students currently working and intending to continue

2

TechTrends • July/August 2014

Board Members Jennifer Banas, Brian Belland, Tony Betrus, Leslie Blatt, Bob Doyle, Nancy Hastings, Tom Hergert, Roberto Joseph, Eugene Kowch, Trey Martindale, Wes Miller, Al Mizell, Megan Murtaugh, David Richard Moore, Sharon Smaldino, Susan Stansberry, David Wiley TechTrends Publisher Editor-in-Chief Associate Editor Design Director Departments Editor

Phillip Harris Daniel W. Surry Charles B. Hodges Ned Shaw Mark Lauer

Editorial Board Abbie Brown, John H. Curry, Nada Dabbagh, Ruth Gannon-Cook, Lucy Green, Steven Hackbarth, Nancy Hastings, Mary Herring, Marshall Jones, Karen Kaminski, Susan Land, Jonathan McKeown, Ross Perkins, Michael Simonson, Sharon Smaldino, Sunnie Lee Watson, Robert Wiseman, Lisa Yamagata-Lynch Column Editors Punya Mishra Deep Play Research Group Christopher Miller ect Cornerstone Professional Ethics Andrew Yeaman Tim Green Techspotting Rebecca P. Butler The History Corner TrendSetters Frederick W. Baker III Editorial material published herein is the property of AECT unless otherwise noted. Opinions expressed in TechTrends do not necessarily reflect the official position of AECT. All artwork © Ned Shaw except where noted. Permissions: Copyrighted material from TechTrends may be reproduced for noncommercial purposes provided full credit acknowledgement and a copyright notice appear on the reproduction. Other requests for reprinting should be addressed to AECT Permissions. Trademark Notice: Product and corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for explanation and to the owner’s benefit, without intent to infringe. For advertising rates and deadlines, contact the AECT offices, 812-335-7675.

Volume 58, Number 4

Subscription information: TechTrends is published six times per year by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Volume 57 (6 issues) will be published in 2013. ISSN: 8756-3894 (print version) ISSN: 1559-7075 (electronic version) Subscription Rates, Orders, Inquiries: Please contact our Customer Service department for the latest rates and information: The Americas (North, South, Central America, and the Caribbean): MAIL: Journals Customer Service 233 Spring Street New York, NY 10013-1578, USA TEL: 800-777-4643; 212-460-1500 (outside North America) FAX: 201-348-4505 E-MAIL: [email protected]; [email protected] (Central and South America) Outside of the Americas: MAIL: Journals Customer Service Springer Customer Service Center Haberstrasse 7 69126 Heidelberg, GERMANY TEL: 49-6221-345-4303 FAX: 49-6221-345-4229 E-MAIL: [email protected] Change of Address: Allow six weeks for all changes to become effective. All communications should include both old and new addresses (with zip codes) and should be accompanied by a mailing label from a recent issue. Back Volumes: Prices for back volumes are available on request. Microform Editions: Available from: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA SpringerAlert Service: The SpringerAlert service is an innovative, free-of-charge service that notifies users via e-mail whenever new SpringerLink articles and journals become available, and automatically sends the table of contents and direct links to the abstracts of a new issue of a journal in SpringerLink. Register for the SpringerAlert service at http://www.springerlink.com/alerting ©2014 Association for Educational Communications and Technology Periodicals postage paid at New York, New York and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to TechTrends, Springer, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA.

Volume 58, Number 4

working in professional practice environments. This distinction has important ramifications for educational technology programs because the field has a long history of practice-focused domains as well as research-oriented paradigms (Saettler, 1990; Reiser, 2001). Thus, it is an ideal discipline within which to differentiate professional practice degrees (i.e. Ed.D.) and research degrees (i.e. Ph.D.). A widely accepted definition of Educational Technology clearly gives prestige to both research and practice by asserting that educational technology is “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008) This special issue includes articles about online or hybrid Ph.D. programs (i.e. Michigan State University, University of Eastern Finland and University of North Texas) and Ed.D. programs (i.e. Boise State University, Indiana University and University of Florida) and addresses many important aspects of program design, implementation and evaluation. The issue begins with a brief summary of hybrid and online educational technology doctoral programs in North American universities compiled by Michael Kung and T.J. Logan. Then, Greg Jones and his colleagues provide an overview of the development process used at the University of North Texas to transition a residential Ph.D. program to an online program with a focus on elements that distinguished the online version from its residential counterpart. Factors influencing design, challenges, and lessons learned are also shared. The middle portion of the special issue addresses specific components of online and hybrid doctoral program design. The articles are organized in the chronological order in which the components would likely appear in online or hybrid programs; beginning with the admissions process and concluding with the dissertation. First, Ross Perkins and Patrick Lowenthal provide a brief overview of existing admissions procedures in online programs and share institutional considerations that informed the design of the admission process for a new online doctoral program at Boise State University. Next, Marisa Exter, Nilufer Korkmaza and Elizabeth Boling provide a design case perspective on program advising in an online doctoral program at Indiana University. Danah Henrikson and her colleagues then provide two examples of how design and implementation of hybrid doctoral coursework plays out in Michigan State’s hybrid Ph.D. program. Next, Pasha Antonenko and Swapna Kumar share how the University of Florida’s professional practice Ed.D. program supports students in designing conceptual frameworks to guide their research. Kara Dawson and Swapna Kumar then present an analysis of the first 23 professional practice dissertations completed in this online Ed.D. program. The issue concludes with three articles that take a macro-level perspective on online or hybrid educational technology doctoral programs. First, Julia Fuller and her colleagues share their perceptions as graduates of a professional practice doctoral program. Then, Jarkko Suhonen and Erkki Sutinen from the University of Eastern Finland discuss the importance of sustainability in online or hybrid doctoral programs. The issue concludes with an article on measuring the impact of an online professional practice doctoral program. Taken together, we hope these articles provide relevant and useful, though we realize not exhaustive, coverage of the design, implementation and evaluation of online or hybrid programs in educational technology and related fields. We anticipate many more online or hybrid educational technology doctoral programs will be developed in the coming years and we hope that this issue is a first step toward developing a common knowledge base and a culture of sharing related to designing, implementing and evaluating such programs. We extend our sincere appreciation to the authors who contributed to the issue, to Daniel Surry and the TechTrends staff and to our University of Florida colleagues (Pasha Antonenko, Kent Crippen and Albert Ritzhaupt) who TechTrends • July/August 2014

3

provided support and advice as we worked on this issue. We also extend sincere thanks to the following individuals who volunteered their time to peer review the submissions we received for this issue: Alyson Adams Clinical Associate Professor, School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida Patricia Arnold Professor, Academic Director of E-learning Center Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany Cathy Cavanaugh Director of Teaching and Learning in Worldwide Education Microsoft Corporation Chuck Dziuben Director of the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness University of Central Florida Robin Dickson Coordinator for the Educational Psychology and Educational Technology (EPET) hybrid Ph.D. program, Michigan State University

4

Wendy Drexler Chief Innovation Officer International Society for Technology in Education Kathryn Kennedy Senior Researcher Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute Stephen Pape Professor, Director of Doctor of Education Program Johns Hopkins University Karen Swan Stukel Distinguished Professor, University of Illinois, Springfield We welcome dialogue, comments and questions related to this special issue. Kara Dawson [email protected] Swapna Kumar [email protected]

Endnotes 1 Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice, 2011. Evergreen Education Group.

TechTrends • July/August 2014

2 Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950. 3 Instructional design (a career for which most educational technology programs prepare their students) was listed as the 38th best job in America by CNN Money: http:// money.cnn.com/pf/best-jobs/2012/snapshots/38.html 4 Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept.  Computers & Education,54(2), 588-599. 5 Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to measure community in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 65-70. 6 Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2008). A stewardship of practice in education.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(6), 42-49. 7 Saettler, P. (Ed.). (2004).  The evolution of American educational technology. IAP. 8 Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational technology research and development, 49(1), 53-64. 9 Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Routledge.

Volume 58, Number 4