This document provides an overview of writing for publishing in technology enhanced learning research. It discusses credentials for writing on this topic, key questions researchers should be able to answer about their work, common issues in technology research studies, and how to structure papers effectively by writing for the audience, clearly identifying issues and goals, rigorously applying methods, and drawing clear conclusions. The document aims to help researchers strengthen their writing and publishing.

1. Writing for Publishing in Technology
Enhanced Learning Research
Dr. Iain Doherty
Associate Professor
eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit,
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning,
The University of Hong Kong
29th June 2012

2. Overview
• Do I Know What I’m Talking About?
• What Will I Cover In This Presentation?
• How Will This Presentation Help You To Write Better
Papers?
• Questions and Answers.
2

3. What Are My Credentials
• I have acted in an editorial role for significant
journals.
• I have reviewed extensively for both conferences
and journals.
• I have a reasonably successful track record with my
publications.
3

4. Just Say Yes
• Can you answer yes to all these questions for your
research?
– Was an important educational technology issue
identified?
– Were the goals of the research clearly specified?
– Was the method rigorously applied to the intervention?
– Are the research results clear and significant?
– Are the research conclusions clear and important?
4

5. Reeves on Technology Research
• “[Technology research studies] do not constitute
basic research in the classic scientific sense, nor are
the studies focused on enhancing practice in an
unambiguous manner. The main criterion for success
of this research is that papers about it are accepted
for presentation at conferences largely attended by
other researchers and/or published in academic
journals that few people read” (Reeves, 2000, p.4).
5

6. Reeves on Technology Research
• “A detailed analysis of such studies (Reeves, 1995) found
that most are riddled with problems such as specification
error, lack of linkage to theoretical foundations,
inadequate literature reviews, poor treatment
implementation, major measurement flaws,
inconsequential learning outcomes for research
participants, inadequate sample sizes, inaccurate
statistical analyses, and meaningless discussions of
results” (Reeves, 2000, p.4).
6

7. Answering “Yes” Is Not Enough
• Let’s say that answering “Yes” to all these questions
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting
published.
• In other words answering “Yes” means that you’ve
got a solid bit of research.
• However, you still have to write up that research in a
way that will get you published.
• Writing up the publication can be thought of as a
science i.e. there is a formula.
7

8. 1. Write For Your Audience
• Researchers know what they did in their research.
• The audience is interested in knowing what the
researchers did in their research.
• This means you must constantly ask the question,
“Will the reader fully understand what I did, why I did
it, what I learned from doing it and what they might
learn?”.
• Write with the aim of leaving the reader with nowhere
negative to go in terms of questioning the research.
8

9. 2. Was An Important Issue Identified?
• This relates to the background section of your paper:
– What was the issue that you identified?
– Why did you consider it to be important?
– Did you locate the issue in the relevant literature?
– Why did you decide to progress with research having
carried out the literature review?
– What did you consider to be the potential value added
from conducting the research?
9

10. 3. Were Research Goals Clearly Specified
• This relates to the method section of the paper:
– Theoretical goals through reasoning logically about
e.g. different pedagogical theories in relation to
technology use in education;
– Empirical goals through testing hypotheses about what
might happen as the result of a particular technology
education intervention;
– Action goals such as determining the impact of a
particular technology intervention in a local context.
10

11. 4. Was A Research Method Identified?
• This relates to the method section of the paper:
– Quantitative involving collection of data + statistical
analysis;
– Qualitative such as observations, interviews, and case
studies that involve the collection of qualitative data;
– Literature review to synthesize extant literature in the
field;
– Mixed method involving both quantitative and
qualitative methods.
11

12. 4. Was The Method Rigorously Applied?
• This relates to the method section of the paper:
– No matter which method you choose, you need to
show that you have applied it rigorously;
– If you choose to collect data using a randomized
control trial then show that the trial was conducted
appropriately;
– If you choose to apply a mixed method approach using
design research then show that the mixed method
approach was rigorous.
12

13. 5. Reporting Results
• This relates to the results section of your paper:
– Only report results that are justified by the data that
you gathered;
– Avoid muddying results in the result section with
discussion.
– Signpost readers to the discussion section when
findings are particularly important;
– Use tables, graphs etc. where appropriate to help
readers’ understanding of your results.
13

14. 6.Engaging in Discussion
• This relates to the discussion section of the paper:
– The discussion section provides you with the
opportunity to comment on significant findings;
– This section also provides you with the opportunity to
hypothesize about reasons for particular findings.
– Sometimes results are contrary to what was expected
and you can provide possible explanations for this
phenomenon;
– Remember that readers will undoubtedly question your
findings to try to pre-empt.
14

15. 7.Coming to Conclusions
• This relates to the conclusion section of your paper:
– This is a critical section in your paper;
– This is the section where you can sum up why your
research is important;
– You can also signal where you might go next with your
research;
– The conclusion should speak to the introduction i.e.
your introduction provides a signpost to what you
ultimately discovered.
15

16. Not Too Many Idealists Around These Days
• “A commitment to development research may also
put careers at risk. I believe that most IT researchers
desire to focus their research on more important
problems, but knowing that their work is ultimately
judged by tenure and promotion committees on the
basis of quantity rather than quality, they are
compelled to take the path of least resistance and
conduct whatever studies yield the most publications”
(Reeves, 2000, p.11).
16

17. Final Comments
• In the end good research is required in order to write
a good paper.
• When the research is solid the structure and the
content of the paper follow naturally from the
research that was conducted.
• This is not to deny that writing skills are needed but
writing skills can not (or at least should not) be able
to carry the day.
• Good luck 
17

18. References
• Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical
and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex
Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-148. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466837
• Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004).
Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological
Issues. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1),
15-42. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/1466931
18

19. References
• Kember, D. (2003). To Control or Not to Control: The
Question of Whether Experimental Designs are
Appropriate for Evaluating Teaching Innovations in
Higher Education. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 28(1), 89-101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930301684
19

20. References
• Laurillard, D. (2008). The Teacher as Action
Researcher: Using Technology to Capture Pedagogic
Form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139-154.
Routledge. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070801915908
20

21. References
• Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the Worth of
Instructional Technology Research through “Design
Experiments” and Other Development Research
Strategies. Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (pp. 1–15). New
Orleans, LA, USA. Retrieved from
http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/
21

22. References
• Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design Research From A
Technology Perspective. In J. van den Akker, S.
Gravemeijer, S. McKenny, & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
Educational Design Research (pp. 52-66). London:
Routledge.
• Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing Learning Theory
by Refining Conjectures Embodied in Educational
Designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
22

23. Contact Details
• Email: idoherty@hku.hk
• HKU Website:
http://www.cetl.hku.hk/elearning-pedagogical-support-uni
• Personal Website: http://www.iaindoherty.com
• Linkedin: http://hk.linkedin.com/in/iaindoherty
• SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/iaindoherty
23