A Critique of the article authored by Miller, Schweingruber & Brandenburg (2001)
regarding Middle School Students’ Technology Practices and Preferences
Bob Esliger
University of British Columbia
ETEC 500 – Dr. Clifford Falk, Professor
February 28th, 2011
Synopsis
In their research Miller, Schweingruber & Brandenburg (2001) used student survey data gathered from eight Houston area public and private schools from October 1998 to April 1999. The survey sample consisted of 512 eleven to fifteen year old middle school students selected from both urban and suburban schools from a total student population of 2,435. The students selected were representative of the range of socio-economic diversity present in those schools. Miller et al. (2001) conducted focus groups with the general student body to create a 68 item survey containing both open and closed-ended questions intended to take no longer than 30 minutes to complete. Survey questions focused on student self-perception of computer skills and acquisition, exposure to technology at home and at school, and computer application preferences. The authors sought to determine evidence of technology acculturation from males to females and whether computer prevalence and increased exposure could translate into any noticeable closing of the previously documented technology gender gap.
Survey data indicated that no significant gender differences were reported in student computer usage or access to computer technology. Student self-confidence in using computer technology as well as the use of games was determined to be nearly equal by both males and females. Miller et al. have determined that the increase in the presence of computer technology and increased access to the internet, both at home and at school, has contributed to the narrowing of the technological gender gap.
Analysis
The literature review appeared thorough, relevant to the research questions and current, for the most part, to the timeframe of the study. The sampling technique sought to ensure that gender and socio-economic status were representational in an attempt to validate the selected sample. The research article was appropriately structured, included data tables and examples of survey questions. However, some key issues in the study leave the reader questioning the validity of the findings.
The first issue is the use of phrases such as “digital divide”, “computer acculturation among adolescents”, “digital culture”, “gender gap” and “computer use” (Miller, Schweingruber & Brandenburg, 2001 pg. 126, 135 & 136). Including definitions of key terms would have lessened the possibility for misunderstanding the research design.
The second issue pertains to the briefness of the method, and design and procedure sections of the research report. The exact method for selecting the school districts and schools is missing from the research report. More information about the survey development process and a copy of the survey instrument would assist the reader in better understanding the research findings.
The process of determining student socio-economic status based solely on participation in free or reduced lunch programs causes the reader to question the validity of this attribute. In addition, the attributes of ethnicity and academic achievement do not appear to have been considered. Furthermore, the final sample of 512 students consisted of 222 males and 290 females and the researchers didn’t elaborate on the rationale for not balancing the sample.
The third issue concerns the survey instrument development, length and delivery. The authors state that the survey questions were developed from a series of focus groups held with the general student population; however, they don’t discuss where and how the focus groups were formed. In addition, it appears that student reading ability was not taken into consideration. It is common knowledge that students with low socio-economic status may be at a disadvantage in terms of reading ability compared to their mid and higher socio-economic status peers. Therefore, a 68 item survey with an estimated completion time of 30 minutes would appear to put many students at risk for loosing attention to the task and therefore alter research data.
Lastly, there was no mention of who delivered the survey to the students. If the science and computer technology teachers delivered the survey themselves there was no indication that they were trained in consistent delivery of the survey instrument. This issue, in and of itself, could render the data collected to be invalid.
Therefore, in summary, this research article has some strengths; however, the validity of this research is questionable due to the many identified issues.
References
Miller, L. M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg, C. L. (2001). Middle School Students’
Technology Practices and Preferences: Re-Examining Gender Differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-40.
