ERIC EJ670894: Teacher Research: The Key To Understanding the Effects of Classroom Technology on Learning.

6 Pages·2002·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

124 Teacher Research: The Key to Understanding the
Effects of Classroom Technology on Learning
s
e Karen Kortecamp and Kathleen Anderson Steeves
di
u
t
S
y
g
o As teacher educators we’re particularly knowledge. Significant differences between the
ol
n interested in what research on technology two exist. Information is discrete; knowledge
h
c
e reveals about its value in promoting learning. is arranged in meaningful webs. Information
T
of The early reviews of technology studies by can be transmitted; knowledge needs to be
al Clark (1983) and Kozma (1991) revealed that constructed. Information is demonstrated by
n
r
u most research on technology and learning does reproduction; knowledge is demonstrated by
o
J
e nothing more than compare media in which novel application. Transforming information
h
T the central questions are which is faster, lasts to knowledge requires tutelage and a
longer, or holds more data. They cautioned that community of learners (Salomon, 2000). If
this kind of research does not tell us anything knowledge is the goal of education, the teacher
about the influence of technology on learning. as tutor, facilitator, and manager of the
Not surprisingly, our review of studies transformative process is essential. This view
conducted over the last decade indicates that was confirmed in the Research Report on the
research on the use of technology in education Effectiveness of Technology in Schools (Sivin-
continues to be misguided. Our analysis did Kachala & Bialo, 2000): “A growing body of
not provide any support for the positive value research shows...that the effectiveness of
of technology alone as the medium that educational technology depends on a match
enhances student learning. In this regard, between goals of instruction, characteristics of
educators are largely operating on perceptions learners, the design of the software and
of what technology will do for learners and technology implementation decisions made by
learning rather than evidence. educators” (p. 15). We urge further research
Does this mean that spending money to on the role of the teacher in developing media
put computers into classrooms is akin to and methods to promote learning. Technology
tossing coins into a bottomless well? Are use in education settings must be based on its
technology advocates simply engaging in ability to support rather than determine desired
wishful thinking? On one level, it would be outcomes. The aim ought be uncovering what
fair to answer yes to both questions because technology should be doing and how we should
the connections between technology and be using itin order to prepare learners who are
improved learning are not well supported. Yet, independent and mindful thinkers able to solve
our feeling is that such a response is misleading. complex problems. Who better to do this
Researchers have failed to show new ways research than teachers?
technology can promote learning because they Tosome extent, teachers engage in research
continue to ask the same questions in the same whenever they’re in their classrooms working
way. Studies in which we examine which with students. As a function of preparing,
medium is better for which learners and for delivering, and assessing lessons, teachers gather
what purpose may well provide different results data, through formal and informal means, from
and, in fact, this proved to be the case in their students, colleagues, and others in order
Kozma’s (1991) review. Micro studies that to make sound instructional and managerial
include the characteristics of learners and the decisions. For example, did students’ responses
learning environment and that address to questions demonstrate their understanding
multimedia have a greater opportunity to of new material? Will my colleague’s approach
provide valuable information about technology to motivating students work as effectively with
and learning. my students as it does with hers?
The point is that the process of asking
Teachers as Researchers questions followed by gathering and examining
Weentered our study with the belief that data in order to make informed decisions is a
the teacher plays a critical role in promoting natural function of teaching. We argue the
learning with technology. This belief is need for teachers to formalize this process by
supported by our understanding that applying the tenets of action research in order
computers provide information—not to better understand the role of technology in
the classroom and its potential impact on Our focus is computer technology and its 125
student learning. impact on learning, though action research
need not be confined solely to this arena. The T
h
e
Action Research model we propose is designed specifically for J
o
Action research, by its nature locally teachers who are experienced using computers u
r
n
appropriate, cyclical in process, and and who want to know if using that technology a
o l
cooperative in execution, is the most important in certain ways enhances the learning of T f
e
type of research for the questions of technology students. While this model consists of six parts, c
h
and learning. Kurt Lewin, credited with they fall within the four “moments” described on
ol
suggesting this type of research in the 1940s, by Kemmis and McTaggart. g
y
believed that knowledge should be created • Developing an action plan involves: S
t
u
from problem solving in real-life situations 1. Assessing current use of technology. d
ei
(Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994). 2. Formulating research question(s). s
Several features of action research make it 3. Establishing a research framework.
particularly appropriate for teachers. All actors • Implementing the plan requires:
in the research are equal participants. The 4. Gathering data in a variety of ways.
students who respond to the survey are as • Observing the effect of the
involved as the teacher asking the questions. implementation relies on:
The research is typically done in a unique 5. Thorough data analysis.
context—one classroom, rather than many • Reflecting on the effects as a basis for
classrooms or many schools. further action enhances:
Action research is cyclical in nature, with 6. Informed decision making.
four phases: plan, act, observe, and reflect.
(The last phase may lead to planning for further Developing an Action Plan
action.) Because the research relies a great deal Teachers and students utilize computer-
on observation, it is important to triangulate based technology in numerous ways for
data sources—where interviews are balanced instructional and managerial purposes. Our
against surveys and observations against interest is with instructional use that may
documents. There is less reliance on the include basic-level applications such as
trappings of traditional research such as integrating curriculum-related software and
validity, reliability, and generalizability. In the using Web-based resources or more advanced
case of a teacher researcher, the results of an applications such as generating computer-
action research study can provide enough assisted presentations and creating and
contextualization to guide another teacher in maintaining Web sites to support classroom
his or her own study. Working within one instruction.
department or one school, teachers can process
the outcomes of their research to benefit their Assessing Current Use of Technology
local areas. “There is an expectation with Inorder for teachers and students to begin
action research that it will result in some an assessment, they should address the
practical outcome related to the lives or work following questions:
of the participants” (Stringer, 1996, p. xvi). • What technology do you currently use in
your classrooms to promote learning?
Research Model for Teachers • How do you use that technology?
The model we propose for teacher action • Why do you use it in that way?
research follows the cyclical structure outlined • How do you know that using technology
by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988). The four in this way leads to desired outcomes?
“moments” of action research defined by Kemmis Byway of example, suppose a teacher in
and McTaggart guide our model: (a) develop a a high school physics of technology class has
plan of action to improve what is already recently learned about WebQuests1. A
happening, (b) implement the plan, (c) observe WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in
the effect of the implementation in the context which students conduct a focused search of the
of your classroom, and (d) reflect on the effects Internet to find specific information. The
as a basis for further planning or other action. WebQuest provides a clearly defined task, the
1Developed by Bernie Dodge with Tom March. See San Diego State University Web site (http://webquest.sdsu.edu/
webquest.html)for information.
126 process students will use, and predetermined well as who needs to be informed and what
resources needed to complete the task. Over conditions need to be met prior to
s the course of a year, our high school teacher implementation. Questions to be answered
e
udi engages his students in 30 experiments are:
t
y S designed to help them understand how physics • What measures are best suited to this
g
o is applied to modern problems. He often study?
ol
n introduces new experiments by requiring • What population do you intend to study?
h
c
e students to design and create a product that • What is the timeframe for this study?
T
of will be used to conduct the experiment. He • Are there any conditions that need to
al challenges them by providing little or no be met prior to implementation (e.g.,
n
r
ou guidance about the process or about the parental permission, administrative
J
e technology needed to complete the task. His support)?
h
T expectation is that students will use the Internet Initially, our teacher decides that
and/or library resources (what)to figure it out. administering a simple survey to his students
This method has worked fairly well in the will provide him with the information he
several years he has been teaching this course, needs. After sharing his research plan with
but he is intrigued by the WebQuest approach his department chair, he recognizes that relying
(why) and would like to try it with the next on a single source of data may not be sufficient
experiment. The teacher decides that he will to establish confidence in the results. He
design a WebQuest (how) on constructing modifies his framework to include pre and
pinhole cameras to measure distance to the sun posttests and observation.
as part of the unit on light and optical systems. Since this is our physics teacher’s first
After implementing this new approach, he attempt at action research, he decides to
wonders if the time he spent creating the focus his study on a single experiment for
WebQuest will make a difference in students’ one of his physics of technology classes
ability to grasp the content and produce the (population). He chose this as a first step in
product (how he knows). determining the value of a WebQuest before
using it as regular practice for all
Formulating Research Questions experiments. He would like to explore the
Uncertainty about a new approach can possibility that this method will improve
lead to questions about its value, encouraging students’ learning about the topic and their
a teacher to develop some measure of its ability to produce the required product.
impact. In our example, the primary question Since these students have completed several
is, Will the use of a WebQuest that identifies experiments this year already, the teacher has
the resources that students need to complete some basis for comparing the effectiveness
the task versus leaving the process open to the of this new approach (structured inquiry)
students’ discretion make a difference in the to what he’s done with previous experiments
students’ ability to create the pinhole camera? (independent inquiry).
Additional evidence of the value of the Decisions about when he will implement
WebQuest will be available when students use the study (timeframe)are influenced by when
the cameras they’ve created because the the material is addressed within the unit of
accuracy of the instrument impacts the study. In this case, he plans to spend one 90-
outcome of the experiment. In developing a minute class session with the WebQuest,
framework to research this, additional allowing two additional class periods for
(secondary) questions arise: How will the construction of the pinhole camera and
teacher measure change in students’ knowledge another for conducting the experiment. Our
about the topic? Will this question best be teacher enlists the support of an assistant
answered by a survey; observations; student principal in conducting the observation. He
products? What role will students play in informs students that they will be involved in
answering these questions? a research project at some point during the
semester and he will be asking them for their
Establishing a Research Framework. input. As a final step, he confers with
The structure of the research will influence administrators about the need for student
the value of the findings. Therefore, it is permission to participate in the research project
important to consider multiple measures, as before proceeding (conditions).
Implementing the Plan content knowledge and how they felt about 127
Gathering the Data the new approach. The pre and posttests give
Once the research framework is established the teacher information on knowledge gained T
h
e
and the measures identified and/or about the concepts and themes presented in J
o
constructed, a teacher is ready to move to data the experiment and product developed. In u
r
n
collection. In our sample case, the teacher his analysis of the tests, the teacher looks for o la
administers a pretest measure of students’ changes in the amount of information students T f
e
content knowledge about pinhole cameras and included in their responses and the degree to c
h
n
their use in measuring great distances and their which those responses reflect an understanding o
ol
attitudes about that subject. Content questions of the scientific principles embedded in the g
y
capture the major themes and concepts of experiment. In analyzing student attitudes S
t
u
the experiment. Questions about content about the topic, the teacher develops a d
ei
ask for open-ended responses to measure frequency distribution of pre and posttest s
what students already know about the topic Likert scales in order to make comparisons.
and where they learned it. Students use a The student responses on the survey to the
Likert scale to respond to questions about method of presentation are compared with the
their attitudes toward the subject of light and observations of the assistant principal.
optical systems as a topic of study. The teacher
does not look at the pretest data prior to Formulate Conclusions
presenting the WebQuest to assure the validity Before formulating any conclusions,
of his research. researchers need to assess the strength of the
Our teacher presents the lesson, explaining evidence. Multiple measures, as in our example,
the parameters of the WebQuest process and increase the trustworthiness of the findings.
providing students with guided instruction. Complementary results allow the researcher
Students complete the WebQuest, then to have confidence in the conclusions,
conduct the experiment using their cameras. whereas conflicting results suggest a need for
Following this, the teacher administers a further study.
posttest that includes both content knowledge Our physics of technology teacher has
and attitude toward the subject measures. He multiple measures, both quantitative and
also examines the students’ products (pinhole qualitative. He believes the evidence is strong
cameras) for accuracy. To gauge the degree to enough that he can draw some preliminary
which students found the process effective, he conclusions. He determines there is an increase
constructs and administers a brief survey asking in student knowledge. The observation of the
questions specific to the WebQuest. He also students supports their on-task behavior.
has data from the observation conducted by However,he is not certain that this change is a
his assistant principal who agreed to sit in on result of the WebQuest method because the
the WebQuest and experiment class sessions additional information about student attitudes
and take notes about students’ level of toward the process is mixed. Table 1 is a
engagement as indicated by attention to summary of our framework for action research.
instruction, active questioning, active
participation, and on-task behavior (process). Reflecting on the Effects as a Basis
for Planning
Observing the Effect of the Informed Decision Making
Implementation Atthis point, the teacher researcher reflects
Data Analysis on the conclusions of the analysis to determine
In this phase, the researcher reviews and future actions. What are the implications for
analyzes the test and observation data in order one’s own practice and continued study? The
to draw conclusions. For our teacher, the focus purpose of reflecting on the analysis is to better
is on whether the use of a WebQuest helped inform instructional decisions. While this type
students develop an accurate instrument of research is limited regarding its
through structured inquiry (content). generalizability to large populations, it can be
In part, this can be determined by the effectively applied to make informed decisions
accuracy of students’ measurements using the at the classroom level, share at the team or
pinhole cameras. Additionally, our teacher department level, and expand to a system level
wants to know whether the students acquired through replication.
128 Table 1. Framework for Teacher Action Research on Classroom Technologies
and Learning
s
e
di Steps of the Plan Example
u
t
y S ■Develop a Plan of Action: ■Develop a Plan of Action:
og ✧ 1. Assess Current Technology Use 1.The teacher answers questions about what type of technology
ol
n he uses at present; why he thinks this works; & how he knows.
h
c Leads to other questions.
e
T ✧ 2. Formulate Research Question(s) 2. The teacher’s new knowledge about WebQuests raises questions
al of about how or if this newer method might be better. In
n particular, will the use of a WebQuest make a difference in
r
u
o students’ ability to learn the content or develop the product?
J
e (research question)
Th ✧ 3. Establish Research Framework 3. The teacher now decides: which classes to study (population);
what time it will take to conduct the study (timeframe); how to
gather data (measures—surveys, observation); what permissions
or support are needed (other conditions that need to be met).
■Implement the Plan ■Implement the Plan
✧ 4. Gather Data 4.The teacher applies the pretest to learn about prior knowledge
and attitudes;
The teacher uses the Webquest to support instruction on the
topic under study;
The teacher and administrator observe during lesson;
The teacher administersposttest of content and attitude;
The teacher administers survey of attitude toward process.
■Observe Effect of Implementation ■Observe Effect of Implementation
✧ 5. Data Analysis 5.The teacher compares pre and posttest data about students’
attitudes and content;
Observations and surveys are analyzed to confirm or challenge
students’ responses;
Multiple measures make teacher more confident of results and
teacherdraws conclusions about the value of this method.
■Reflect on Effects as Basis for Planning ■Reflect on Effects as Basis for Planning
✧ 6. Informed Decision Making 6. The teacher finds results are not definitive. This encourages the
teacher to study the method further and share information with
colleagues and administrators as the basis for planning about
technology use in their school.
Note. Model follows the structure outlined by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988).
In light of his analysis and conclusions, having a new knowledge of the way the teacher
our teacher acts in several ways. Since the data thinks about instruction and the importance
are not definitive, he is encouraged to do of their role in his decision making.
further research with other classes and other
experiments. He explains the results of the Conclusions
study to his colleagues and encourages them Because comparison studies have yielded
to do similar studies so they may compare the little substantive data on the impact of
results. He also shares the results with the computer technology on student learning and
administrator observer and with the student earlier reviews by Clark (1983) and Kozma
participants. (1991) led them to urge researchers to focus
The administrator, recognizing that she on the teacher as the mediator of instruction,
has a teacher interested in doing research on wedevised a scheme that involves the teacher.
technology and its impact on instruction, can The action research model we outline here
now facilitate a number of related involves the teacher and his or her students in
opportunities for the teacher. The students as the analysis of technology use for classroom
participants in this action research benefit by learning. In this case, the importance of the
role of teachers as researchers and students as questions about technology use for instruction. 129
participants cannot be overstated. Anyone Learners, not technology, are the focus of the
familiar with teaching recognizes that teachers study, an approach Clark (1983) and Kozma T
h
e
are making decisions in their classrooms daily (1991) endorsed. We believe this type of J
o
as they plan, deliver, and assess instruction. research will provide more consistent and u
r
n
Typically those decisions have relied on reliable data on the impact of teacher-mediated o la
anecdotal data, as has much of the research on technology on student learning. T f
e
technology and learning. We recognize that the c
h
questions about instructional technology are Karen Kortecamp is an assistant professor in the on
ol
going to continue to be important in Graduate School of Education and Human g
y
discussions of education practice. It is Development at The George Washington S
t
u
incumbent upon teachers to get involved in University, Washington, DC. d
ei
those discussions. The action research model s
establishes a framework for more deliberate Kathleen Anderson Steeves is an associate professor
consideration of the role of technology in the in the Graduate School of Education and Human
learning process; teachers work with their Development at The George Washington
students to develop their own answers to the University, Washington, DC.
References
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative
practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Clark, C. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research,53(4), 445–459.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner.Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research,61(2), 179–211.
Salomon, G. (2000, July). It’s not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of ED Media 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (2000). Research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed.).
Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.