International Review of Research in Open and D istributed Learnin g Volum e 16, Num ber 1 February – 2015 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Aras Bozkurt, Ela Akgun-Ozbek, Sibel Yilmazel, Erdem Erdogdu, Hasan Ucar, Emel Guler, Sezan Sezgin, Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Nazife Sen-Ersoy, Nil Goksel-Canbek, Gokhan Deniz Dincer, Suleyman Ari, and Cengiz Hakan Aydin Anadolu University, Turkey Abstract This study intends to explore the current trends in the field of distance education research during the period of 20 0 9-20 13. The trends were iden tified by an extensive review of seven peer reviewed scholarly journals: The Am erican Journal of Distance Education (AJ DE), Distance Education (DE), The European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (EURODL), The Journal of Distance Education (J DE), The Journal of Online Learning and Technology (J OLT), Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL) and The International Review of R esearch in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). A total of 861 research 330 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin articles was reviewed. Mainly content analysis was em ployed to be able to analyze the curren t research. Also, a social network analysis (SNA) was used to interpret the interrelationship between keywords indicated in these articles. Them es were developed and the content of the articles in the selected journals were coded according to categories derived from earlier studies. The results were interpreted using descriptive analysis (frequencies) and social network analysis. The reporting of the results were organized into the following categories: research areas, theoretical and con ceptual fram eworks, variables, m ethods, m odels, strategies, data collection and analysis m ethods, and the participants. The study also identified the m ost com m only used keywords, and the m ost frequently cited authors and studies in distance education. The findin gs obtained in this study m ay be useful in the exploration of potential research areas and identification of neglected areas in the field of distance education. Ke yw o rd s : Distance education trends; distance education issues; research evaluation; content analysis Introduction There has been a profoun d change globally, particularly in term s of scientific developm ents and social changes. One aspect of this is the way in which technology has becom e an essential part of our lives. The im pact that this has had on society in general is becom in g m ore and m ore visible, with the result that techn ology is now very m uch expected to be used in the proliferation of inform ation. As a direct consequence of these expectations, there has been a parallel paradigm shift in education. According to Harasim (20 0 0 ), the invention of the Web technologies m ade online education increasingly accessible, open, flexible; allowed new pedagogical m odels to em erge and reasoned the revolution in digital knowledge age that enabled greater and faster hum an com m un ication and collaboration and led to fundam entally new form s of econom ic activity that produced the knowledge econom y and required basic changes in education . Educators em braced the revolution, and the increased educational opportun ities and especially the n ew learnin g m odels that have em erged are now influencin g education and society as a whole. The 21st century thus begins with a paradigm shift in attitudes towards online education . Online learning is no lon ger peripheral or supplem entary, yet an integral part of m ainstream society. Our new understanding of the very nature of learning has affected the definition, design, and delivery of education. Paradigm shift in education has resulted in: new m odes of educational delivery, new learning dom ains, n ew principles of learning, new learning processes and outcom es and new educational roles and entities. Distance education (DE) as a m ultidisciplinary field has reacted to these chan ges; it has and is still evolving and orienting itself to fulfill this dem an d. Thus, as the dem ands of educators and This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 331 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin learners evolve, it is crucial to understand and get a deeper insight of trends and issues in DE so as to keep abreast of these constant changes. This study was conducted in direct response to this dem and and aim s to help educators and researchers spot recent DE trends by studying written scholarly docum ents, that is to say to provide a com prehensive list of “m ute evidence” (Hodder, 1994) in the field. Literature Review In recent years, research has been conducted to investigate DE research trends. One of the first studies to in vestigate trends in DE was carried out by Berge and Mrozowski (20 0 1), who exam in ed research literature in DE over a ten-year period from 1990 to 1999. Categorization of the articles (N=890 ) was based on Sherry’s (1996) ten research issues, nam ely redefin ing the roles of key participants, technology selection and adoption, design issues, strategies to increase interactivity and active learning, learner characteristics, learner support, operational issues, policy and m anagem ent issues, equity and accessibility, and cost/ benefit trade-offs. According to the results obtained, it was seen that pedagogical them es such as design issues, learner characteristics, and strategies for active learnin g were the m ost frequent topics used in the field. Also, the m ost prevalent research m ethodology was descriptive m ethodology. Lee, Driscoll and Nelson (20 0 4) also exam ined research topics, m ethods and citation trends in four journals: The Am erican Journal of Distance Education (AJ DE), the Journal of Distance Education (J DE), Distance Education (DE) and Open Learning : The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL). Three hundred and eighty-three articles e-published between 1997 and 20 0 2 were selected from these journals and they classified the articles into six them es: designrelated, developm ent-related, m anagem ent-related, evaluation-related, institutional and operational-related, and theory and research-related. The them atic analysis m ethod was used to explore core m eanin gs. The results of this research yielded six topics: general research topics, research specific topics, the research m ethod, the statistical m ethod used in experim ental studies, a citation of the authors, an d the cited books and articles/ chapters. A series of studies were conducted by Zawacki-Richter to explore the DE research dom ain . The first study (Zawacki-Richter, 20 0 9) used a Delphi technique to develop a classification of research areas. The second study (Zawacki-Richter, Bäcker an d Vogt, 20 0 9) identified gaps and priority areas and analyzed 695 articles published in five prom inent DE journals between 20 0 0 and 20 0 8 . The third study (Zawacki‐Richter and von Prüm m er, 20 10 ) carried out an analysis of the im pact of gender and collaboration patterns am on g researchers in research m ethods, research topics and research productivity. In his study, Zawacki-Richter (20 0 9) developed a categorization of research areas in DE and identified the m ost im portant and the m ost neglected research areas in DE. Havin g conducted an This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 332 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin extensive literature review and a Delphi study with expert responses from editorial board m em bers from the m ajor DE journals from Septem ber-Decem ber 20 0 8, Zawacki-Richter identified 15 research areas which were organized into 3 broad categories. The participants of the study were 19 voluntary experts with an average of 27 years of professional experience in DE who had m ade significant contributions to DE literature. Based on the experts’ responses, ZawackiRichter grouped the 15 research areas into three categories. In the second roun d of the Delphi study, presented in Table 1, each category was prioritized by the experts. After com paring the results of the study with a previous study by J egede (1994) in Australia, Zawacki-Richter concluded that the priority of DE research areas have not chan ged drastically, yet it was noted that innovations in online learn in g led to a shift from technology centered research to a research of m anagem ent and change in DE institutions. It was noted that the em ergence of onlin e distan ce learning highlights a pressing n eed for educational institutions to em brace innovation and change. Delphi experts agreed that the areas of innovation and change and quality assurance should be prioritized as research areas while faculty support and professional developm ent along with “Web 2.0 applications, m obile devices, and synchronous tools afford for teachin g, learning, and assessm ent” also deserved further attention. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 333 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 1 Classification of Research Areas in Distance Education (Zaw acki-Richter et al., 20 0 9) Macro level: Distance education systems and theories. 1. Access, equity, and ethics: The democratization of access to distance education afforded by new media and by finding ways to deliver high-quality education to those who have limited resources and poor infrastructure; issues that refer to the (sustainable) provision of distance education in developing areas. What is the impact of distance education (e.g., via mobile learning) on narrowing the digital divide and what is the role of ICT (information and communication technologies) and/or OER (open educational resources) in terms of access to education? 2. Globalization of education and cross-cultural aspects: Aspects that refer to the global external environment and drivers, the development of the global distance education market, teaching and learning in mediated global environments, and the implications for professional development. 3. Distance teaching systems and institutions: Distance education delivery systems, the role of institutional partnerships in developing transnational programmes, and the impact of ICT on the convergence of conventional education and distance education institutions (hybrid or mixed mode). 4. Theories and models: Theoretical frameworks for and foundations of distance education, e.g., the theoretical basis of instructional models, knowledge construction, interaction between learners, or the impact of social constructivism learning theories on distance education practice. 5. Research methods in distance education and knowledge transfer: Methodological considerations, the impact of distance education research and writing on practice, and the role of professional associations in improving practice. Literature reviews and works on the history of distance education are also subsumed within this area. Meso level: Management, organization, and technology. 6. Management and organization: Strategies, administration, and organizational infrastructures and frameworks for the development, implementation, and sustainable delivery of distance education programmes. What is required for successful leadership in distance education? Distance education and policies relating to continuing education, lifelong learning, and the impact of online learning on institutional policies, as well as legal issues (copyright and intellectual property). 7. Costs and benefits: Aspects that refer to financial management, costing, pricing, and business models in distance education. Efficiency: What is the return on investment or impact of distance education programmes? What is the impact of ICT on the costing models and the scalability of distance education delivery? How can cost effective but meaningful learner support be provided? 8. Educational technology: New trends in educational technology for distance education (e.g., Web 2.0 applications or mobile learning) and the benefits and challenges of using OERs, media selection (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous media), technical infrastructure and equipment for online learning environments, and their opportunities for teaching and learning. 9. Innovation and change: Issues that refer to educational innovation with new media and measures to support and facilitate change in institutions (e.g., incentive systems for faculty, aspects referring to staff workloads, promotion, and tenure). 10. Professional development and faculty support: Professional development and faculty support services as a prerequisite for innovation and change. What are the competencies of online teachers and how can they be developed? 11. Learner support services: The infrastructure for and organization of learner support systems (from information and counselling for prospective students about library services and technical support to career services and alumni networks). 12. Quality assurance: Issues that refer to accreditation and quality standards in distance education. The impact of quality assurance and high quality learner support on enrolments and dropout/ retention, as well as reputation and acceptance of distance education as a valid form of educational provision. Micro level: Teaching and learning in distance education. 13. Instructional design: Issues that refer to the stages of the instructional design process for curriculum and course development. Special emphasis is placed on pedagogical approaches for tutoring online (scaffolding), the design of (culturally appropriate) study material, opportunities provided by new developments in educational technology for teaching and learning (e.g. Web 2.0 applications and mobile devices), as well as assessment practices in distance education. 14. Interaction and communication in learning communities: Closely related to instructional design considerations is course design that fosters (online) articulation, interaction, reflection, and collaboration throughout the learning and teaching process. Special areas include the development of online communities, gender differences, and cross-cultural aspects in online communication. 15. Learner characteristics: The aims and goals of adult learners, the socioeconomic Background of distance education students, their different learning styles, critical thinking dispositions, and special needs. How do students learn online (learner behavior patterns, learning styles) and what competencies are needed for distance learning (e.g., digital literacy)? Zawacki-Richter’s study is lim ited to English speaking experts, but it is significant to note that the participants reflect the ideas of DE professionals across different countries and continents This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 334 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Fiji, Germ any, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, UK, and USA). Therefore, although the results m ay not be valid for som e non-En glish speaking settings, the fact that the participan ts com e from different schools of thought m akes the study rigorous in reflecting the m ajor research areas of study in DE. In their follow up study, Zawacki-Richter et al. (20 0 9) used their typology of issues to categorize 695 articles, published between 20 0 0 and 20 0 8 in The Am erican Journal of Distance Education (AJ DE), Distance Education (DE), The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), The Journal of Distance Education (J DE) and Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL). The articles were drawn from a wide variety of topics within the scope of DE research. They concluded that issues about instructional design , interaction and com m un ication patterns in com puter-m ediated com m un ication, learner characteristics, and educational technology dom inated DE research. One of the m ajor findin gs of this research was their attem pt to tabulate the diversity of research m ethods em ployed in DE. Zawacki-Richter et al. (20 0 9) found that qualitative research m ethods were m ore widely used than other m ethods. Another significant trend is collaboration am on g researchers. The researchers concluded that the proportion of single-authors was 44.2% in the period between 20 0 0 and 20 0 8. Another research by Mishra (1997) concerning the collaboration of authors concluded that 61.5% of articles were published by a single author between 1991 and 1996. Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (20 14) went one step further and provided a com prehensive survey on the state of online distance education as an independent field of in quiry, while also offerin g a clear orientation for future research. In their book Online Distance Education: Tow ards a Research Agen da these research areas were discussed by leadin g DE researchers to draw on their expert knowledge and professional experience to give an overview of the state of the art in each research area an d derive research n eeds based on that. Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (20 11), additionally, conducted a study to analyze the relationships and influences of 12 DE journals usin g bibliographic description and social n etwork analysis to investigate the structure and patterns of inform ation exchange within the field of DE research. Purpose and Research Questions DE is prone to continuous change in lin e with developm ents in technology and learning sciences, a situation that opens the field up to new research areas in very short tim e spans. Moreover, recent developm ents in open educational resources and m assive open online courses (MOOCs) have given the field a new dim ension which has brought its own dynam ics with it. Therefore, there is a need to m irror the DE field to be able to understand and interpret the new dynam ics, nam ely DE trends. Berge and Mrozowski (20 0 1) between 1990 -1999 and Zawacki-Richter et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 335 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin (20 0 9) between 20 0 0 -20 0 8 presented research trends in DE. Therefore, the year 20 0 8 was chosen as cutoff date for this study and authors exam ined the articles published between 20 0 920 13 as a follow up research. The m ain goal of this study was to analyze the research articles published in seven widely accepted journals in the field to be able to explore the current trends in the field of DE research during the period 20 0 9-20 13. For this purpose the following research questions were considered: What are the m ost frequent/ ly 1. indicated keywords, 2. chosen research areas, 3. em phasized theoretical/ conceptual backgrounds, 4. em ployed research designs, 5. used data collection instrum ents and data analysis techniques, 6. focused variables, 7. targeted population and/ or participant groups, 8. cited references, 9. cited authors in DE research articles between 20 0 9 and 20 13? Methodology Research Design For the purposes of the study, the authors chose to use content analysis to study em pirical docum entation. Content analysis has been defin ed as a system atic, replicable techn ique for com pressing m any words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding (Berelson , 1952). Since content analysis is a m ethod of analyzin g written, verbal or visual com m unication m essages which includes both qualitative and quantative approaches (Elo & Kyngäs, 20 0 8), it was deem ed to be the m ost appropriate for the intent of this study. The authors developed and set the criteria for the them es to be studied and the content of articles in the selected journals was then coded according to these pre-set categories. Following the content analysis, the findings were reported using descriptive analysis. Later, a social n etwork analysis This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 336 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin was em ployed to analyze keywords in the selected articles to achieve a deeper com prehension and distinguish the lin ks between them . Sample Seven journals were reviewed for this study: The Am erican J ournal of Distance Education (AJ DE), Distance Education (DE), European J ournal of Open Distance an d e- Learnin g (EURODL), J ournal of Distance Education (J DE), J ournal of Online Learning and Technology (J OLT), Open Learning: The J ournal of Open, Distance and e-Learnin g (OL), The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learn in g (IRRODL). The selection of the journals was based on a prelim inary review of journals in DE and educational technology. In the first round, 8 2 journals were identified. The journals to be reviewed were filtered using the followin g criteria: • a specific focus on DE and open and distance learn ing context, • refereed journals that are indexed by prom in ent databases, • a publication history of 10 years or m ore, • publication of articles in English (with the exception of J ournal of DE which also publishes a very lim ited num ber of articles in French). Following the selection of the journals, a thorough review was m ade of all articles published between 20 0 9-20 13 (N = 1,225). Of these, 861 were identified as research articles and the others, that is to say 364, were identified as other (editorials, book reviews, interviews, concept papers, position papers, reflection papers, field notes, techn ical notes, etc.). For this study, only the research articles were used. The research area classification schem a that is used in this study is based on Zawacki-Richter’s (20 0 9) study, explained in the introduction and shown in Table 1. This research category and area schem a was adopted since it is rigorous due to its being based upon the views of experts in the field of DE. Categories related to m ethodology for coding largely follow those identified in Creswell (20 12). When a study did not fit in to the categories identified by Creswell, the nam e of the m ethod that the writer of the article used was added into an existing category based on sim ilarity of m ethod with others in that category. Reliability To increase reliability, thirteen researchers who have the sam e background in the Distance Education Departm ent at Anadolu University participated in this study. The researchers were trained before conducting the study and the pre-set categories were defined before the review process. Review of the articles took place in two rounds. Articles published annually were reviewed by two researchers in the first round and a different set of two researchers cross-checked and reviewed the selected articles again in the secon d round. Disagreed issues were discussed This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 337 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin within the group and coded only after the researchers who had reviewed those articles reached a concensus. The research question regarding research areas (Table 1) in DE was coded in the first round with 10 raters (20 0 9: A-B; 20 10 : C-D; 20 11: E-F; 20 12: H-I; 20 13: J -K). In the second round, the sam e raters (20 0 9: L-M; 20 10 : O-P; 20 11: Q-R; 20 12: S-T; 20 13: V-W) were assigned as pairs for different years. Inter-rater reliability for 2009, between rater A and L, was κ = .740; between B and M, it was κ = .714. For 2010, between rater C and O, it was κ = .744; between D and P, it was κ = .760 . For 20 11, between rater E and Q, it was κ = .813; between F and R, it was κ = .783. For 2012, between rater H and S, it was κ = .728; between I and T, it was κ = .837. For 2013, between rater J and V, it was κ = .842; between K and W, it was κ = .826. Table 2 Cohen's Kappa Values for Inter-Coder Reliability Ro u n d s Ye a rs 20 0 9 2 0 10 2 0 11 2 0 12 2 0 13 ro u n d A an d L, κ = .740 C an d O, κ = .744 E an d Q, κ = .813 H an d S, κ = .728 J an d V, κ = .842 2 nd ro u n d B an d M, κ = .714 D an d P, κ = .760 F an d R, κ = .783 I an d T, κ = .837 K an d W, κ = .826 1s t Altm an (1991) proposed that the extent of agreem ent can be qualified as poor (< 0 .20 ), fair (0 .21 to 0 .40 ), m oderate (0 .41 to 0 .60 ), good (0 .61 to 0 .8 0 ) and very good (0 .81 to 1.0 0 ). Thus, the reliability of raters A-L, B-M, C-O, D-P, F-R and H-S can be considered as acceptable. Besides, the reliability of raters E-Q, I-T, J -V and K-W can be considered as quite acceptable. Findings and Discussion For this study, 1,225 articles were exam in ed (Table 3). A total of 364 articles were excluded and 861 articles were included to content analysis and exam ined through the criteria determ in ed. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 338 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 3 Journals and N um ber of Articles JOURNALS American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE) Distance Education (DE) European Journal of Open, Distance and ELearning (EURODL) Journal of Distance Education (JDE) Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL) The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL) ALL ARTICLES EXCLUDED* INCLUDED 2009 29 32 16 2010 25 25 12 2011 24 33 12 2012 25 31 30 2013 31 28 23 TOTAL (N) 29 59 31 76 23 54 13 29 10 45 106 263 26 27 27 17 25 122 85 39 79 75 80 358 276 110 166 235 66 169 252 89 163 220 41 179 242 58 184 1225 364 861 134 149 93 *Editorials, book reviews, interviews, concept papers, position papers, reflection papers, field notes, technical notes, FYIs, CIDER notes Keywords Indicated The first findin g of the research is based on a descriptive keyword analysis with an assum ption that keywords indicated in the articles provide a holistic reflection of the research paper topics. In this study a total of 4,0 88 keywords (633 field specific and 3,455 research related) were included in the study and ran ked according to their frequency. Later, the field and the research specific keywords were also analyzed separately. Figure 1 shows the field specific keywords. As can be observed in Figure 1, the term “distance education” is a generic term used to define this field. Another interestin g finding concerns the word “onlin e” which is used as a descriptive term . It m ay be concluded that DE is getting m ore dependent on the onlin e technologies and there is a shift from traditional learning environm ents or m edia to online learn ing environm ents or m edia. As a final rem ark, the term open and distance learnin g (ODL) has appeared in increasing frequency especially in the last two years in congruence with a decrease in the use of the term DE in the sam e tim e span . This change from DE to ODL as a generic term m ight be a consequence of the openness m ovem ent in general and the use of OER, MOOCs, Web 2.0 and open spirit on networked Web environm ents in particular. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 339 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Figure 1. Field specific keywords (N=633). The second findin g is about the use of research specific keywords (Figure 2). For this analysis, all keywords were collected from papers and ran ked according to their frequency of appearance in the articles in general. As The Journal of Distance Education doesn’t provide keywords for the articles, researchers defined keywords for the articles in this journal. For this analysis, all the keywords were ran ked and the top 40 keywords were included in this research. Keywords that shared the sam e rank were ordered alphabetically. This descriptive keyword analysis dem onstrates a five-year trend from m any points of view, such as “OERs” as a m ovem ent, “m obile learnin g” as a technology based approach and “collaborative learnin g” as a pedagogy which are all noteworthy. Links im plied between keywords is a further area deserving attention , for instance, the term s OERs, MOOCs and Web 2.0 ; interaction and social presence; CoI (com m unity of inquiry) and social networks m ay be related to one another and could be evaluated as a group of keywords rather than term s havin g solo m eanings. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 340 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Figure 2. Top 40 keywords indicated m ore often than others (N=3455). The frequency count presents a descriptive analysis of the top 40 keywords. On the other hand, to understand and quantify the influence and im portance of the relationship am ong these keywords, social network analysis (SNA) was conducted for the top 40 keywords and a com plete network m odel was visualized based on their relations using cen trality distribution. SNA is the m appin g an d m easuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organization s, com puters, or other inform ation and knowledge processing entities (Krebs, 20 0 2, para. 1). The m ain goal of SNA is detecting and interpretin g patterns of social ties am ong actors (De Nooy, Mrvar and Batagelj, 20 11, p. 5). These n etworks usually visualized in a social network diagram , where nodes are represented as points and ties are represented as lines to conceptualize and to analyze them . For this analysis, the relationships of top 40 keywords (nodes) were identified on a 40 x40 m atrix and then these nodes were tied to each other m anually by using SNA software. Following that, the raw data was visualized applying centrality m easure an alysis. As a result of this analysis, 40 nodes and 914 ties (edges) were observed. In term s of node between ness centrality, used to m easure the load and im portance of a n ode, the keywords “learn in g” and “education” appeared as im portant nodes (Figure 3). This finding also confirm s Zawacki-Richter and Anderson’s (20 14, p. 9) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 341 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin conclusion that the m ajority of published research deals with topics and issues with regard to “teachin g” and “learning” processes in online distance education. Figure 3. A circular node between ness centrality diagram . Research Areas As has been m entioned, in this study, the classification developed by Zawacki-Richter (20 0 9) is used to define the research areas in DE. Upon analysis of the count num bers highlighted per year in the m eta-levels of DE research classification, it can be seen that there is a strong im balance between research areas an d high over-representation of the m icro level perspective. This findin g also dem onstrates sim ilarities to previous research findings (Zawacki-Richter et al., 20 0 9) and confirm s the results of their content analysis. It is also interesting to note that interaction and com m unication in learnin g com m unities (13%), learn er characteristics (12%), and instructional design (11%) from m icro levels and educational technology (15%) from m eso level constitute 51% This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 342 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin of all research areas (Figure 4). The m eso level finding for “Educational technology” also confirm s that DE is strongly related to technological developm ents. In addition to this peak in m eso level, the peaks in m icro level reflect the very nature of DE research. For instance, the result for “interaction and com m un ication in learnin g com m unities” is based on web-based learning environm ents and social n etwork sites; “learner characteristic” is a consequence of individual and learner centered approaches; and “instructional design” is a result of the em ergin g digital learnin g en viron m ents. Figure 4. Classification of research areas. Theoretical/Conceptual Backgrounds Since every research study should have adequate theoretical or conceptual backgrounds, investigatin g the theoretical/ conceptual backgrounds indicated in the research articles can provide an insight about the current trends on what kinds of topics the researches are focusing on in any field. Therefore, in this study the theories and/ or concepts stated in the articles were gathered and the top ten theories/ concepts were ranked according to their frequency. Theories/ concepts that share the sam e ran k are ordered alphabetically. Those findings dealin g with the theoretical/ conceptual background of the articles indicate the nature of the new learn ing paradigm of 21st century that focuses m ore on the learner rather than instructor or adm inistrator. CoI as a theory of knowledge form ation and the process of scientific This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 343 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin inquiry rank as the m ost frequently used theoretical perspectives. Collaborative learning em phasizing active interaction between learners follows theoretical perspectives in the ran kings. Constructivism , which argues that hum ans generate knowledge and m ean ing from interactions between their experiences and their ideas, is in third place. Conn ectivism as a learning theory for the digital age, though it has a very recent history, is also in third place and this m ay be a result of the growin g im pact of technology and networks on learning. It is clear that theories that explain how learning occurs on networks (connectivism , social netw orking) through collaboration in a com m un ity (com m unity of inquiry , collaborative learning, social learning theory , activity theory ) by interaction , based on im m ersion (critical thinking) and experience (constructivism , problem based learning, social constructivism theory ) are favored by DE researchers. In addition to this, researchers focused on delivery m ethods (blended learning, m obile learning) that use m ultim edia elem ents (cognitive load theory ) in which psychological distance (transactional distance theory ) and presence (social presence theory ) are im portant as well as learner dedication (self-regulated learnin g, self-directed learning, m otivation theory ). From this perspective, design (instructional design theories) for effective and efficient learn ing gained im portance. After all, it wouldn’t be correct to attribute one single dom inant theory that reflects theoretical trend in DE, but it would be a better approach to evaluate them as a whole since each theory intersects or overlaps at som e points. On the other hand, Table 4 also shows that DE research is still, naturally, based on the concepts and the theories derived from the field of education. However, DE practice uses concepts, principles, m odels and theories of m any other fields, such as engineerin g, com m unication , m anagem ent, sociology an d psychology. Therefore, it, m ost probably, would not be wron g to say that as DE researchers we m ust widen our search for theoretical/ conceptual base to other fields than education and bring their concepts and theories into our field. That m ight help us develop the m aturity of DE as a scientific field of study. Table 4 Theoretical/ Conceptual Background R* 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 F** 22 16 15 15 14 14 11 10 10 8 THEORY Community of Inquiry Collaborative Learning Constructivism Connectivism Blended Learning Transactional Distance Theory Mobile Learning Activity Theory Social Presence Theory Self-regulated Learning R* F** 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 THEORY Cognitive Load Theory Motivation Theory Problem Based Learning Self-directed Learning Social Constructivism Theory Social Learning Theory Social Networking Critical Thinking Instructional Design Theories R*: Rank, F**:Frequency This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 344 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Research Designs Employed Sim ilar to m any other fields, in a DE research study we m ight em ploy a quantitative, qualitative, or m ixed research design . Table 5A presents what kin ds of research design categories researchers in the field of DE preferred over the last five years. Table 5B and 5C provide the preferences on yearly bases. As shown in these tables the researchers in DE m ostly conducted qualitative (47%) and quantitative (37%) studies, and just a few em ployed m ixed (16%) designs. Zawacki-Richter et al. (20 0 9) reported rates of 29.1% quantitative, 19.9% qualitative, 12.9% m ixed and 38 .1% other researches for 20 0 0 -20 0 8 research trends (N=695). When com paring the results of 20 0 0 -20 0 8 with 20 0 9-20 13, it m ay be seen that there has been a shift in the preference to qualitative and quantitative research design while m ixed research design rem ains the sam e. Table 5A Percentage Of Research M ethods Betw een 20 0 9-20 13 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 345 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 5B Bar Chart Of R esearch Methods (Percentage W as Calculated Separately For Each Year) Table 5C Line Chart Of Research Methods (Percentage W as Calculated Separately For Each Year) As an extension of the previous findin gs, this section of the content analysis presents the DE trends regarding research m ethodology (designs). Of all qualitative research designs, case studies (66%) that focus on a descriptive, exploratory or explanatory analysis of a person, group or event stand out. Design-based research (9%), phenom enology (7%), action research (5%), grounded theory (4%), ethnography (3%), content analysis (2%), m eta synthesis (1%), narrative (1%), This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 346 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin historical (1%) and heuristic (1%) research m odels constitute 44% of the research m odels while case studies constitute 66% of all qualitative research design (Table 6). Berge and Mrozowski (20 0 1) also reported that case study is the m ost preferred qualitative research design m odel (12.58%) between 1990 and 1999. Of all quantitative research design m odels, a great m ajority of studies preferred survey (58%) as a basic descriptive research m odel. The use of a correlational (29%) m odel that dem onstrates the relationship between variables and the experim ental (11%) m odel used to test cause-and-effect relationships between variables hold the next rankin g positions. Finally, m eta-analysis (2%) is seen to constitute a m inor part of quantitative research design (Table 6). This data reveals that there is a need to conduct m ore quantitative correlational and experim ental researches to understand and dig deeper into DE. These findings exhibit sim ilarities with Berge and Mrozowski’s (20 0 1) study for the research trends of 1990 -1999. They reported a percentage of 74.83% descriptive, 6.63% correlational, 5.96% experim ental researches, all of which were quantitative research design m odels, and 12.58% case study, a qualitative research design m odel (N=890 ). Based on these data, it can be assum ed that m ost of the quantitative DE researches are descriptive statistics which show or sum m arize sam ple data rather than inferential statistics which are used to test hypotheses and m ake estim ations using sam ple data. This finding also supports and dem onstrates a sim ilarity to Panda’s (1992) conclusion for Indian distance education literature. He reported that m ost studies were descriptive surveys or experim ental studies with poor m ethodological footin g. Of all the m ixed research design m odels, the exploratory (55%) m odel, in which researchers interpret how quantitative results build on in itial qualitative results, and the explanatory (31%) m odel, in which researchers interpret how qualitative results help to explain initial quantitative results, constitute the m ajority of preferred research m odels. Con vergent parallel (8%), em bedded (4%) and m ultiphase (2%) follow as the other m ixed research m odels that are preferred by the researchers (Table 6). Saba (20 0 0 ) reported that, in contrast to pure experim ental researches, DE goes beyond the narrow confines of experim entation and as a consequence began to use new m ethods in both qualitative and quantitative form s. These findin gs confirm Saba and also dem onstrate a radical decrease in experim ental research when com pared to research conducted after the 50 s. It is also interestin g that in qualitative (case studies), quantitative (survey) and m ixed studies (exploratory), on e dom inant research m odel has been used. However, assum in g that DE is an interdisciplinary field, a wide spectrum of research m odels m ay be used. All in all, the findin gs obtained in this research reveal som e interesting facts. In contrast to the m odern paradigm , the world in which we live is n ot bipolar, but the research nature of DE This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 347 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin basically evolves around qualitative and quantitative research design s. On the other hand, within a post-m odern perspective, m ore m ixed research designs in which qualitative and quantitative data collection m ethods are used m ay be em ployed. Table 6 Research Designs and Models %1 Heuristic %2 Historical %3 Narrative %4 Meta-Synthesis %5 Content Analysis %7 Ethnography %9 Grounded theory %66 Action research Case Study Design-based research Phenomenology Qualitative %47 (N=349) %1 %1 %1 Prediction Comparative Relatio nship Causal comparative %11 %2 %0 Experime ntal Quasiexperiment al National assessment Community needs Attitudes and practices Group Comparison Program Evaluation Panel Trend Cohort %29 Cross-sectional Meta-analysis %58 Longitudinal Experimental Survey Correlational Quantitative %37 (N=278) Mixed %16 (N=122) Exploratory sequential %55 Explanatory sequential %31 Convergent parallel %8 Embedded Multiphase Transformative %4 %2 %0 Data Collection Tools and Strategies Used The data collection instrum ents were also in vestigated in this study. As one can easily interpret by looking at Figure 5, the surveys, interviews and docum ent analyses are the m ost preferred tools in the DE studies. A further analysis has shown that in the quantitative studies, the researchers m ost frequently used questionnaires and in the qualitative studies they preferred docum ent analyses and interviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 348 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Figure 5. Data collection (instrum ents). Davies, Howell and Petrie (20 10 ) presented trends in research and scholarship between 1998 and 20 0 7. They reported that the m ost frequently used data collection tools were survey (qualitative and quantitative) (N=194), interviews (N=128), existing artifacts (docum ent an alysis) (N=59), observations (N=17), researcher created assessm ents (N=16), existing test scores (N=16) and standardized assessm ents (N=15). When com pared, it is clear that there is a strong sim ilarity with current findings. However, it was interesting to note that log statistics were not used as m uch as they should have been since one of the latest and hottest topics discussed in the field is the learner analytics and use of available data to be able to get an insight about learner behaviors in online learnin g environm ents and to help them offer better, m ore custom ized learn in g opportunities. Data Analysis Techniques Employed in the Studies Table 7 presents the num ber of the data analysis techniques that were explicitly reported in the investigated articles. This was one of the m ost difficult analysis due to the fact that there were quite a num ber of articles that did not clearly inform about the data analysis technique(s) used, and also som e, includin g those m ixed m ethod studies, com prised a variety of techniques. Despite these difficulties, the analysis has shown interesting fin dings. As can be observed in Table 7, one half of the quantitative studies included descriptive statistics (51%) and m ainly used variability, central tendency and relative standing tests. Nonetheless, a m ajority of the researchers (N=72) reported that they used descriptive statistics but didn’t report which one of them was em ployed. In term s of inferential statistics (49%) param etric tests such as variance analysis, t-test, correlation, factor analysis, regression analysis, reliability analysis and structural equation m odeling were extrem ely (85%) preferred while only in a few (15%) of the This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 349 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin articles that included quantitative studies, non-param etric tests such as Wilcoxon test, Mann Whitn ey-U, Kruskal Wallis test, chi-square and Friedm an’s two way analysis were em ployed. Qualitative interpretive analysis gen erally uses content, them atic and discourse an alysis in which raw qualitative data is transcripted, coded, categorized and interpreted. These findin gs dem onstrate a sim ilar tren d in term s of quantitative statistical tests when com pared to Davies, Howell and Petrie’s (20 10 ) research regardin g trends in distance education scholarship at research universities in North Am erica between 1998 and 20 0 7. They reported that m ost of the studies in their sam ple used descriptive data analysis predom inantly. Table 7 Tests and Analy ses QUANTITATIVE Statistical tests Inferential (49%) Parametric (85%) Non-parametric (15%) Descriptive (51%) Variability (Variance-Standard Deviation- Range) Central Tendency (mean-median-mode) 163 108 Descriptive statistics (not specified) 72 Relative Standing (percentage/ z-score) 11 Variance analysis (ANOVA/MANOVA/MANCOVA) t-test 71 Wilcoxon Test 16 52 Mann Whitney U 15 49 Kruskal Wallis Ttest 12 48 Chi-square 6 Regression analysis 41 Friedman's two way analysis 2 Reliability analysis (Cronbach's Alpha) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 24 3 Correlation (Pearson) Factor Analysis (Confirmatory/Exploratory) QUALITATIVE Interpretive Analysis (N=155) Content analysis Thematic analysis Discourse analysis 76 74 5 Variables Focused in the Studies Variables reported in the research studies exam ined were coded into m ain categories and ran ked by frequency of appearance. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 350 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 8 Variables Focused Most Often in the Articles Exam ined R* F** VARIABLES 53 Perception 2 43 Satisfaction 3 39 Gender 4 30 Interaction 5 25 Motivation 6 21 Age 6 21 Participation 7 18 Attitude 8 16 Experience R*: Rank, F**:Frequency 1 R* F** 9 14 14 13 12 11 10 10 10 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 VARIABLES Effectiveness Self-efficacy Collaboration Communication Delivery Academic-performance Impact Social-presence As can be seen in Table 8 , variables usually focus on the feelin gs, em otion s and behaviour of the learners. ‘Satisfaction’ an d ‘learner perception’ are the m ost often focused variables about learners’ em otions and feelin gs while ‘gender’ an d ‘age’ are dem ographic non-param etric variables that have been exam ined m ore than other dem ographics in the investigated studies. These results can easily be linked to increasin g attention to learners, their individual differences and the learn er-centered approaches. Population and/or Participant Groups The research question regarding participants reveals interestin g facts. As can be seen in Figure 6, participants of the studies exam in ed are m ostly undergraduate students (31%), post graduate students (10 %) and academ icians (10 %). The fact that a total of 51% constitutes higher education also explains why the field specific keyword (higher education) ranks fourth in the list (Figure 1). This data reveals that DE focuses largely on higher education and there are only a few studies conducted in K-12 settings. An im portant portion of the researchers reported that their target groups were teachers (10 %) and students (7%); on the other hand, researchers didn’t specify from which education level they cam e. Adult learners (4%), adm inistrators (4%) and K-12 students (3%) appear in the list, respectively. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 351 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Figure 6. Target groups an d participants. In conn ection with these findin gs, DE education has roots in lifelon g learnin g philosophy and covers form al, inform al and non-form al learn ing, a findin g which reveals that any age or occupation area can be a target group of these researches. On the other hand, K-12 students representin g the form al education level prior to higher education and adult learn ers representin g the latter education or learning process followin g higher education constitutes only 7% of total target groups. One explanation for the connections m ay be that it is m ore conven ient to work with students from higher education since the researchers work in the sam e institutions. However, K12 is another setting in which DE is gettin g popularity (Lips, 20 10 ; Queen & Lewis, 20 11). It was interesting to find that the research studies have not reached the expected level in K-12 settings, yet. One easily can predict that there will be m ore DE research in K-12 settings in near future. Authors Cited Most Often In this part of this research, leadin g contributors in the field were determ in ed in term s of the num ber of citations (Table 9). The total num ber of citations was 53,80 0 . A total of 10 5 authors who have been cited at least 30 tim es are included in the table. Authors that share the sam e ran k are ordered alphabetically. It was quite interestin g to note that UNESCO is 38 th on the list. It m ay m ean that as an institution, UNESCO has a key role for DE and lifelong learn ing. A full list of the m ost cited authors (N=10 5) is given in Appendix A. In contrast to som e researches (Lee et al., 20 0 4), to identify their significant im pact to the field, not only first authors but also second, third an d other co-authors were counted with an assum ption that every author contributes to these works. Therefore, one should assum e that collaborative works are m ore advantageous than solo works since the authors who have m ore collaborative works counted m ore than once in Table 9. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 352 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 9 List of Most Cited Authors (Top 20 ) R* F** R* F** 1 520 GARRISON, D.R. 8 129 SWAN, K. 15 94 ARBAUGH, J.B. 2 405 ANDERSON, T. 9 109 ROVAI, A.P. 16 90 WENGER, E. 3 208 MOORE, M.G. 10 105 ALLEN, I.E. 17 88 CLEVELAND-INNES, M 4 207 ARCHER, W. 11 103 SIEMENS, G. 18 81 WILEY, D. 5 145 SEAMAN, J. 12 102 DOWNES, S. 19 79 KANUKA, H. 6 135 SHEA, P. 13 101 BONK, C.J. 20 77 SALMON, G. 14 100 GUNAWARDENA, C.N. Author 129 ROURKE, L. 7 R*: Rank, F**:Frequency Author R* F** Author Another result we obtained from these findings is com m on citation m istakes. It is im portant to cite references properly as well as to explain the research process in detail in order to help readers reading and to show respect to the researchers who contributed to the relevant study and to the field. It was observed that researchers whose nam e an d surnam e consist of three parts (e.g. D. R., Garrison ) or who have n am es of Far East origin (e.g. Chih-Hsiung Tu) were usually cited incorrectly. To give an exam ple, in som e papers D.R. Garrison is cited as Garrison , D. R., Garrison , D., or Garrison, R. and Chih-Hsiun g Tu is cited as Tu, C.H., Tu, C-H., or Tu, C. Though not a research trend in itself, this problem is on e of the points that m ade the analysis of the citation trends quite difficult. References Cited Most Often This part of the content analysis regardin g citation trends presents the m ost cited works (articles, books, web sites, etc.) within the articles analyzed in the study. We believe that this list presents a com prehensive citation trend and m ay help researchers as a reference guide and as a readin g list for those who study in this field (Table 10 ). This table was created by filtering 28 ,50 0 references that have been cited at least 10 tim es. Studies sharing the sam e rank were ordered by the publication date and if two studies had the sam e rank and publication date, they were ordered alphabetically. Older studies were ran ked at the en d and newer studies are ranked at the beginn ing. References were also categorized accordin g to their type (article, book, book chapter, etc.). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 353 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Table 10 The R eference List of Most Cited Studies (Top 15) References R* F** T*** 1 62 A 2 53 B Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press 3 51 B Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A Systems View. Canada: Wadsworth. 4 43 A Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. 5 40 C Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance educatio (p 22-38) New York: Routledge. 6 35 B Jean. Lave, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. 6 35 B 7 34 R 7 34 R 7 34 A 7 34 A 7 34 B 8 33 B 9 32 W 10 31 B 11 30 R 12 28 R 12 28 A 12 28 A 12 28 B 13 27 A 14 24 A 15 23 B Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferenc in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2), 87-105. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and futur directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Psychology Press. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Taylor Francis. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium Newburyport. Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, 2009. Evergreen Education Group. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1), 93-135. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 29-44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. OECD Publishing. R*: Rank , F**:Frequency, T***:Type (A: Article, B:Book, BL: Bulletin, C:Chapter, P: Paper, R: Report, W: Web Page) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 354 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Summary and Future Implications The results of this study reveal research trends an d issues in DE em erging from scholarly publishing in seven prestigious journals. This study in tends to present the curren t situation and provides a research direction for future research. The results can be sum m arized as follows. The generic term defining the field is “distance education” and another term “open and distance learnin g” has been used m ore and m ore as a consequence of the paradigm shift in education. The analysis of research specific keywords clearly indicates that DE dem onstrates quick responses to em ergin g research topics. A holistic analysis of these keywords through social network analysis dem onstrates that “learnin g” is the m ajor topic in the field naturally. Open education resources (OERs) and m obile learnin g are new topics over the last five years DE researchers also focused on along with older topics, such as collaborative learn ing and teacher trainin g. The analysis of research areas portrays that education al technology from m eso level, interaction and com m unication in learning com m unities, learn er characteristics, and instructional design from m icro levels are the m ost studied areas and constitute 51% of all fifteen research areas. Another result obtained through this study is that DE researchers em ploy different theoretical fram eworks to explain and explore the DE field which also reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the field. In term s of m ethodology, DE usually preferred qualitative, quantitative, or m ixed research designs, respectively. Most of the qualitative studies used case study, quantitative studies used survey, and m ixed studies used exploratory and explanatory research m odels. It can be also seen that qualitative researches preferred interviews (one-to-one and focus group), docum ent analysis and observation while quantitative researches used questionnaires and scales to collect data. In the quantitative research studies, descriptive and inferential statistics were used alm ost equally. In the qualitative research, content and them atic an alysis to interpret the data collected were generally preferred. Variables focused in the studies are usually concerned with learners’ feelin gs, em otions and behaviors. Gender and age seem to be indispensable dem ographic variables of the studies. The m ain participants of these research studies still appeared to be learners in higher education, but there is a trend of focusing m ore on participants from the K-12 settings. In the final part of the study, the m ost cited authors an d references were presented. In addition to providing leading researchers and im portant referen ces, descriptive analysis of citation trends proved once again that DE uses knowledge of the past and present to be able to foresee the future. Regarding the results of this study, the followin g im plications can be taken into consideration for future researches: • There are m any term s defining the DE field. Even though they all look sim ilar, they reflect unique aspects of the field. Thus, researchers need to select appropriate field specific term s that reflect the core of the study. However, it seem s the term ‘open and distance learnin g’ is a This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 355 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin better nam e for our field of study since it reflects the core assum ptions of the field: openness, accessibility, flexibility, m assiven ess, and quality learn ing opportun ities to all. • This study presented the m ost and the least studied research areas in the field. Considering that DE is a system , those neglected areas should be studied m ore in order to contribute to and im prove the field. The authors of the present paper believe further study into why som e research areas appear to be less popular would contribute richly to future research. The studies should not focus on only general characteristics of the learn ers, such as gender and age, but also various individual differences includin g cognitive processes, learn in g strategies, cultural differences. Additionally, we need studies exam in in g the learning processes in inform al, non -form al learning en viron m ents as well as OERs and MOOCs to be able to provide better learnin g opportunities. Brin gin g con cepts, principles, m odels and theories from a variety of fields – especially from those that we use in DE practices often – m ight be beneficial for the developm ent of the field. Especially, graduate students m ust be encouraged to use theoretical/ conceptual backgrounds from different fields. For instance, business m anagem ent field is a rich field of study that m ight help enlighten som e of the issues of our field such as busin ess m odels for MOOCs, OERs, recognition of prior learn ing. • As an interdisciplinary field, we believe that rather than using specific research designs and m odels, researchers m ay use a variety of them to understand and to delve m ore deeply into the area. Especially m ixed designs m ight help scientific developm ent of the field. It is seen that participants and target groups are generally adult learners from higher education. However, we believe that research that targets K12 students m ight be con ducted m ore considerin g the increasin g use of e-learn in g in K12 settings. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 356 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin References Altm an, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for m edical research. London: Chapm an & Hall. Berelson , B. (1952). Conten t analy sis in com m unication research. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press. Berge, Z. L., & Mrozowski, S. (20 0 1). Review of research in distance education , 1990 to 1999. Am erican Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 5-19. Creswell, J . W. (20 12). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Davies, R., Howell, S., & Petrie, J . (20 10 ). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at research un iversities in North Am erica, 1998-20 0 7. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 11(3), 42-56. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (20 11). Exploratory social netw ork analy sis w ith Pajek (Vol. 27). Cam bridge Un iversity Press. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (20 0 8 ). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced N ursing, 62(1), 10 7-115. Harasim , L. (20 0 0 ). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learnin g. The Intern et and Higher Education, 3(1), 41-61. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of docum ents an d m aterial culture. Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage. J egede, O. J . (1994). Distan ce education research priorities for Australia: A study of the opinions of distance educators and practitioners. Distance Education, 15(2), 234-253. Krebs, V. (20 0 0 ). Social network analysis, a brief introduction. Retrieved from http:/ / www.orgn et.com / sn a.htm l Lee, Y., Driscoll, M. P., & Nelson, D. W. (20 0 4). The past, present, and future of research in distance education: Results of a content analysis. The Am erican Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 225-241. Lips, D. (20 10 , J anuary 10 ). How online learnin g is revolutionizin g K– 12 education and benefitin g students. Backgrounder, 2356. Mishra. S. (1997). A critical analysis of periodical literature in distance education. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 6(1&2), 39-53. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 357 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Panda, S. (1992). Distance educational research in India: Stock-taking, concerns and prospects. Distance Education, 13(2), 30 9– 26. Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (20 11). Distance education courses for public elem entary and secondary school students: 20 0 9-10 (NCES 20 12-0 0 9). U.S. Departm ent of Education , National Center for Education Statistics. Saba, F. (20 0 0 ). Research in distance education: A status report. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecom m unications, 1(4), 337-65. Zawacki-Richter, O. (20 0 9). Research areas in distance education: a Delphi study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (3). Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (20 11). The geography of distance education-bibliographic characteristics of a journal network. Distance Education, 32(3), 441-456. Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (20 14). Online distance education: Tow ards a research agenda. Edm onton , Canada: AU Press. Zawacki‐Richter, O., & von Prüm m er, C. (20 10 ). Gender and collaboration pattern s in distance education research. Open Learning, 25(2), 95-114. Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vogt, S. (20 0 9). Review of distance education research (20 0 0 to 20 0 8): Analysis of research areas, m ethods, and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 10 (6). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 358 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Appendix A List of the m ost cited authors (N =10 5) R* R* F** R* F** 1 520 GARRISON, D.R. 34 51 JONASSEN, D.H. 50 35 KOP, R. 2 405 ANDERSON, T. 35 49 BOROKHOVSKI, E. 50 35 McISAAC, M.S. 3 208 MOORE, M.G. 36 48 CAVANAUGH, C. 50 35 OLIVER, R. 4 207 ARCHER, W. 36 48 ICE, P. 51 CONRAD, D. 5 145 SEAMAN, J. 36 48 HOLMBERG, B. 51 34 34 6 135 SHEA, P. 37 47 CASPI, A. 51 34 LAURILLARD, D. 7 129 ROURKE, L. 37 47 CRESWELLJ, W. 51 34 LAVE, J. 8 129 SWAN, K. 38 46 ROBLYER, M.D. 51 34 TINTO, V. 9 109 ROVAI, A.P. 38 46 UNESCO 52 LAN, W.Y. 10 105 ALLEN, I.E. 39 45 BROWN, J.S. 52 33 33 11 103 SIEMENS, G. 40 44 RICHARDSON, J.C. 52 33 RICHARDSON, J.T.E. 12 102 DOWNES, S. 41 43 GORSKY, P. 52 33 VELETSIANOS, G. 13 101 BONK, C.J. 41 43 GRAHAM, C.R. 53 32 BATES, A.W. 14 100 GUNAWARDENA, C.N. 41 43 MASON, R. 53 HILL, J.R. 15 94 ARBAUGH, J.B. 41 43 MURPHY, E. 53 32 32 16 90 WENGER, E. 42 42 MAYER, R.E. 53 32 MISHRA, P. 17 88 CLEVELAND, INNES, M 43 41 BERGE, Z. 53 32 PERRATON, H. 18 81 WILEY, D. 43 41 DEWEY, J. 53 32 PINTRICH, P.R. 19 79 KANUKA, H. 43 41 KIRSCHNER, P.A. 53 32 TAIT, A. 20 77 SALMON, G. 44 41 SABA, F. 53 32 TAYLOR, J. 21 68 CONOLE, G. 45 40 RUMBLE, G. 54 COLLIS, B. 21 68 PRATT, K. 45 40 TU, C.H. 54 31 31 22 66 HILTZ, S.R. 45 40 ZIMMERMAN, B.J. 54 31 OLIVER, M. 23 65 ABRAMI, P.C. 46 39 CLARK, T. 54 31 POTTER, C.S. 24 63 SWELLER, J. 46 39 LINCOLN, Y.S. 55 CHICKERING, A.W. 25 62 PALLOFF, R.M. 46 39 MCLOUGHLIN, C. 55 30 30 26 61 BARBOUR, M.K. 46 39 PICKETT, A. 55 30 FAHY, P.J. 26 61 BERNARD, R.M. 47 38 DAVIS, F.D. 55 30 MEANS, B. 27 58 BERGE, Z.L. 47 38 PICCIANO, A.G. 55 30 NACHMIAS, R. 28 57 KEARSLEY, G. 48 37 SHARPLES, M. 55 30 PAAS, F. 29 56 DRON, J. 49 36 LIU, X. 55 30 PAULSEN, M.F. 30 54 BANDURA, A. 49 36 LOU, Y. 55 30 PETERS, O. 31 54 KEEGAN, D. 49 36 REEVES, T.C. 55 30 PRENSKY, M. 32 52 SIMPSON, O. 49 36 SWAN, K.P. 55 30 TRAXLER, J. 50 35 HURD, S. 55 30 VAUGHAN, N. Author VYGOTSKY, LS. 33 51 R*: Rank, F**:Frequency Author F** Author HARA, N. PICKETT, A.M. KELLER, J.M. JOHNSON, D.W. DANIEL, J. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 359 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin Appendix B The reference list of m ost cited w orks References Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2), 87-105. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. R* F** T*** 1 62 A 2 53 B 3 51 B Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A Systems View. Canada: Wadsworth. 4 43 A Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. 5 40 C 6 35 B 6 35 B 7 34 R 7 34 R 7 34 A 7 34 A 7 34 B 8 33 B 9 32 W 10 31 B 11 30 R 12 28 R 12 28 A 12 28 A 12 28 B 13 27 A 14 24 A 15 23 B 16 22 R 17 22 A 18 21 A 18 21 A 18 21 B 19 20 A 19 20 A 19 20 A 19 20 A Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education. (p 22-38) New York: Routledge. Jean. Lave, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Psychology Press. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Taylor & Francis. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, 2009. Evergreen Education Group. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1), 93-135. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 29-44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. OECD Publishing. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39-A41. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M. & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of educational research, 74(3), 379-439. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1), 21-40. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12(3). Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). An examination of social presence in online learning: Students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1-6. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 360 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin References R* F** T*** 20 19 A 20 19 B 20 19 A 20 19 B 21 18 B 21 18 A 21 18 B Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 21 18 B Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. 22 17 R 22 17 R 22 17 A 22 17 B Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Falmer. 22 17 B 23 16 A 23 16 B 23 16 B 23 16 A Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance education, 27(2), 139-153. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. John Wiley & Sons. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, inc. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42. 23 16 B 24 15 A 25 14 R 25 14 A 25 14 A 25 14 A 25 14 B 25 14 A 25 14 A 25 14 A 25 14 B Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, inc. 26 13 B Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons. 26 13 B Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge. 26 13 R Tabs, E. D., Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Psychology Press. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities (pp. 1-84). Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education,7(2), 95-105. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. OLCOS. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Austria: OLCOS Project Consortium. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The Effects of Distance Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153162. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 361 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin R* F** T*** 26 13 A 26 13 B 26 13 A 26 13 B References Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197-211. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. John Wiley & Sons. Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Bates, A. T. (1995). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge. 26 13 B Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications, inc. 26 13 C 26 13 B 27 12 R 27 12 A 27 12 A 27 12 A 27 12 R 27 12 B 27 12 A 27 12 B 27 12 A 27 12 BL 27 12 C 27 12 B 27 12 C 27 12 B 27 12 B 28 11 A 28 11 A 28 11 A 28 11 A 28 11 A 28 11 A 28 11 R 28 11 B Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport. Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402-416. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multiinstitutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(1). Clark, T. (2001). Virtual Schools: Trends and Issues. A Study of Virtual Schools in the United States. San Francisco, CA: Western Regional Educational Laboratories. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 12, 8-22. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Bullen, M. (1999). What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education by Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis. The Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 109-112. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C.C. Gibson (ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp.97-112). Madison, Wi.: Atwood. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications, inc. McIsaac, M.S. & Gunawardena, C.N. (1996). Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, inc. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1979). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 5(2). Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning, 19(1). Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331. Ronald, P., & Jamie, M. (2000). Quality on the line-Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Perraton, H. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. Routledge. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 362 Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013 Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin R* F** T*** 28 11 A References Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International journal of educational telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill International. 28 11 B 28 11 B Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. 28 11 B Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston : Allyn and Bacon. 28 11 B 28 11 A Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education. Psychology Press. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of educational research, 45(1), 89-125. Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Networked Learning Conference (pp. 266-275). University of Lancaster. Bissell, A. N. (2009). Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open Learning, 24(1), 97-106. 29 10 P 29 10 A 29 10 B 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 B 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 C 29 10 B 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 A 29 10 B 29 10 B Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. V. (Eds.). (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. MIT Press. Rice, K. L. (2006). A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K-12 Context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4). Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65-77. Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2004). Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based, Computer Conferencing. Journal of distance education, 14(2). Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education,16(2), 83-97. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332. Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 5(1), 21-34. Jonassen, D. (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Russell, T. L. (1999). No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina University Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 397-431. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations from the Field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Pretince Hall. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Pretince Hall. R*: Rank , F**:Frequency, T***:Type (A: Article, B:Book, BL: Bulletin, C:Chapter, P: Paper, R: Report, W: Web Page) © Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilm azel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, GokselCanbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 363