More Research in the Research of Teaching English

A summary of what I’ve worked up today:

In ten years of RTE annotated bibliographies, there have been 1178 annotated entries. Of those, 155 have been for the “Digital Technology / Tools” or “Technology” category (with assorted name transformations over ten years). 225 studies have been annotated for the Writing category.

But according to my code (which I have operationalized and working, but have yet to describe in prose here), there have only been 66 “dttw” studies.  This is what I refer to as “the overlap” in my previous post.

Hey. Let’s see those percentages:

All annotated entries 2002-2011 n = 1178

“Digital Technology Tools” category n = 155

13.15%

 “Writing” category n = 225

19.10%

dttw studies in any category (my code) n = 66

5.60%

Not much writing research that takes into consideration computers, digital composing, the Internet, and a few other concerns.

A comparative note: My 5.60% is actually a smaller percentage than Juzwik et al’s (2006) 8.58%. Their study looked at different sources over a shorter period of time (six years). Within their  corpus of 1502 journal articles, their analysis shows that 129 were about writing and technology. Juzwik et al were surprised at how small that number was. (I’m not sure yet if I’m similarly suprised.) My study is not an attempt to replicate their study, and has some significant methodological differences, but the similarly small numbers tell a familiar story in the aggregate.

5.6% ain’t much.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s