Blog #2

As I research what I am thinking about proposing I am finding more and more refinements and problems with my research question. So far I have refined my question to Does technology being actively used in a classroom make the students more motivated and achieve better?

So far, I have one really good hit from my research.(http://www.waynecountyschools.org/150820127152538360/lib/150820127152538360/impact_on_student_achievement.pdf )  The impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement, what the research says by John Schacter. This study is from a school doing a meta-analysis study on the almost the same topic. The really great part is at the end where I was able to mine through all their sources, and find another great hit! http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7spWIqyYdVIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&ots=UL2lO52c2b&sig=_c3PQ9cdU6-OM7sGkqbaegHNxD4#v=onepage&q&f=false ) The meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction by James A. Kulik.

The last research problem I found was Is technology enabling students to stay motivated and achieve better due to high order thinking?

The last study I found was on just that. ( http://eec.edc.org/cwis_docs/Vivians/Hopson_et_al.pdf ) However, the wrench they throw into my research is whether or not using a computer at home as well, as school enables the student to already be thinking with higher order thinking. But perhaps, this just backs up my research statement because if the students already have this skill set then teachers should definitely be using it.

My refined research statement is something like this, although I do not think this quite sums up what I am thinking "Are our teachers prepared to teach with technology in the classroom, in order to use the higher order thinking skills our  21st  century students already have, in order to let the students take more control of their learning, to be motivated to have more achievement

Both of these articles are really interesting because they both point to the fact that technology does make a difference in the achievement of students in the classroom.  However, the first one does bring up a research problem for me. It discusses a study called ACOT (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow), which  came to the conclusion that neither traditional nor technology based classrooms made any difference for students.  The second article is like a gold mind that pins down different levels of students compared to what the students were studying, their achievement levels in the traditional classroom, and achievement levels in the technology classroom. It is a very cut and dry, quantitative, hard facts,  kind of study. I actually think, the most important thing that came out of this study was not their facts but the problem they discussed in the review section. Does the type of testing being done have more of an effect on the student then the technology or traditional based classroom? Meaning are we teaching the students to use the technology or the materials we want them to learn, or for a traditional classroom are we teaching them to take the test or remember the materials we taught them?

After these articles, I just had to find out more about ACOT and see if I agreed with the author of the first article I found. After reading this article, I do not believe that what the author said is completely true, and to be honest I do not think the author finished reading the article. The ACOT article is very critical to understanding if technology in a classroom works. I say this because after a ten year study, Apple was able to stage out the use of technology in the classroom. What I mean is they were able to actually label the types of use of the technology based on the teachers feedback. The point where the teachers found the technology ineffective in the classroom was in the very beginning of its use or their "Entry" level. On this level, the teachers and students were still working out the kinks of how to use the computers in the classroom. So I believe this opinion to be very dated, it comes from teachers in 1986 when most people did not know how to use computers as we do today. I think that many teachers may not even start at such a level in the classroom anymore because of the modern day experience with computers. In the last stage, " Appropriation" students and teachers began to use the technology in a natural way, and a teacher reports that the motivation of the students did improve!  So now my research problem comes down to our we enabling our teachers in teacher prep programs to step directly into  this "appropriation stage", since  most students now are able to use the computer quite easily and naturally. (http://www.psfshl.pudong-edu.sh.cn/E-Learning/ACOT/rpt08.pdf )

On my search to find if the teacher prep programs needed to enable teachers to step in that stage I found an article that says that the number 2 reason for computer based instruction to work right in the classroom is due to the preparation the teacher received in school. So far now we can see that, If technology based instruction is to be enabled so that students can begin becoming the masters of their own education, teachers must be correctly taught how to use technology properly in the classroom. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:LnG4yJ5ZTLcJ:scholar.google.com/+becker,+H.J.&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47 )

Blog 1

The area of interest I have chosen is motivation in the classroom. Specifically, I would like to look at the motivation of high school students in classrooms actively using technology versus the motivation of high school students in a traditional classroom. To define the classrooms, I would say that a classroom with technology is one where students are actively participating with the technology. One without technology, would be one where students are given a regular lecture type of lesson, this would be including a lecture given via powerpoint, since the students are not actually using the technology, only viewing the instructor's lesson on the powerpoint. The decision on how to test this variable would determine the outcome of the type of study, quantitative or qualitative.

If I were to look at qualitative, I would observe the exact same class on two different days, one with technology, and the next day without.  I would ask the teacher how well he or she thought the students participated in each lesson. I would also ask the students how willing were they to participate? How willing were they to do their assignments? As well, I would ask which lesson sparked their curiosity more, the first day or the second day? As well, I would ask the teacher about the grades on any assignments connected to lessons. This way I would be able to tell which lessons students were able to retain more information from.

If I decided to go with quantitative for this study, I would ask the teacher to give the exact same lesson to two classes again, one with technology, one without. Then after each lesson, I would have the students fill out a survey about one they felt about their motivation for doing their work in class. I would have the answers be on a scale of 1 being not motivated at all to 5 being completely immersed in the lesson. With these answers, I would be able to come up with an average of the motivation for each lesson. And then have an outcome of whether or not technology can make a difference in the motivation of high school students.

The difference between these two types of study lie mostly in the methods. Qualitative studies tend to lean toward open ended questions and the responses of the participants. Where as quantitative studies go more toward number crunching and what the average response is. Qualitative studies looks more deeply about each response. A quantitative study is more about telling you what the average response of the participants would be. As well, in a qualitative study you would be able to see more of the differences between each participant do to their responses, not just the average, or who got the top spot, but how far away were the participants in the anwser. Or sometimes, participants when being interviewed can tell you more than just a yes or no and give you more valuable information.

I am not sure which method I would choose if going with this area of interest. Both ways seem very viable to me. I like that quantitative gives you the "hard facts", but I also like that qualitative lets you see whats going on in between those facts.