For example, an example of a study that would be ideally suited for JEP would be the one conducted by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance called Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort,” (Dynarski et al., 2007). In fact, this type of research is often disappointing, in that simply making good experimental design leaves out answering the important questions of what individual teachers do with technology, and considering the full interactions of how technology, content matter, and pedagogical approach interact. For a full critique of the study, please see our editorial.

Another problem with the idea of doing “good experimental design” when it comes to technology research, was best illuminated by my own effort to get published in JEP when I was a graduate student. Armed with a nicely designed hypermedia environment, I tried to study its ability to perhaps impart better understanding to learners. I made the best control group possible, giving other learners videos, and documents about the same material. The Editor at the time called this type of research “disappointing” and a classic example of what was wrong with technology research in that it “compared apples to oranges.” *SIGH* Wasn’t that the point?

Since then, I published it the Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, and have found the Journal of Cognition and Instruction to be a good place to publish high-quality technology research.

As far as the JEP goes, let’s hope times are changing. I for one will hope for the best but expect the worst.