Theme 3 - Research and Theory (part 1)

Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

To understand what theory is, we can go back to it's roots. The word "theory" stems from the ancient Greek word "thea" (a view), evolved into "theōros" (spectator) and later on to "theōria" (contemplation, speculation). In modern times the definition of theory has broadened into several different related meanings, but briefly it can be explained as a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Gregor (2006) provides us with some insight by distinguishing five interrelated types of theory:
Theory for analyzing (descriptive, what something is), explaining (explains how or why some phenomena occurs), predicting (what will be), explaining + predicting (EP, a combination of the first three types), and theory for design and action (how to do something).

The word "theory" is often misunderstood and used in the wrong context. Sutton and Staw (1995) lists references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses as words that are often confused for theory. The difference between theories and hypotheses, for example, is that a hypothesis attempts to explain or predict phenomena by proposing or guessing an explanation. Theory on the other hand is eventually formed after extensive scientific testing of hypotheses. A hypothesis can be right or wrong while a theory is considered true (until disproven) based on scientific methods. Sutton and Staw (1995) concludes their text by arguing that today's quantitative research lacks in theoretical emphasis and that empiricism in qualitative endeavors isn't appreciated enough. I agree and can imagine that many interesting theories have been rejected too soon in the process of revision, mainly because they were too theoretical according to today's standards.

Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I have chosen a paper from the journal 'Computers & Education', an interdisciplinary technically-based computing and communication related forum with focus on all aspects of cognition, education and training. The impact factor of the journal is 2.621.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications.

"The power of play: The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills"

This paper is written by Valerie J. Shute, Matthew Ventura and Fengfeng Ke. It is recent study that was received 11 May 2014 and accepted 23 August 2014. It is due to be published in Computers & Education, Volume 80, in January 2015.

Looking at the title, the object of the study becomes quite self-explanatory. 77 undergraduates were randomly assigned to play either a video game (Portal 2) or a brain training game (Lumosity) for 8 hours. Before and after the game-play, participants completed tests related to problem solving, spatial skill, and persistence. Results showed that Portal 2 players had a significant advantage over Lumosity in all three categories and that Portal 2 players actually improved in spatial skills from pretest to posttest.

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

The major theory in the study is that some cognitive and non-cognitive skills can be improved by playing video-games or using digital learning platform similar to games. The theories mainly applied could be characterized as prediction. The authors analyze the structure of the games and predict the results based on earlier theoretical findings in a similar context. They present the concepts and cognitive aspects involved but they don't explain why effects occur.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

By predicting a result based on earlier research and testing it, the study can function as a complement to a larger research field and provide a basis for future research. What this study doesn't perform well is explaining or contemplating why the acquired effects occur. The result of this is that the study becomes strictly empirical and in a way loses it's depth. By having a larger emphasis on the theoretical parts, like Sutton and Staw (1995) suggested, I think that the study would have been more interesting.