500

How might ethical issues be managed?

I think researchers should follow the golden rule, “Do unto others as they would do unto you.” All researchers should think of possible scenarios that could happen during their research and hypothesize what they might do in those cases. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) say that qualitative researchers should consider ethics before the research begins “to ensure that you will be prepared to respond in an ethical, caring manner if difficult situations arise” (p. 22).

Researchers need to discuss these possibilities with participants before seeking their consent to participate in the study. Because qualitative research can be more unpredictable than quantitative research, researchers must ensure that they continue an open and honest dialogue with their participants as the study progresses. The study should never be valued more than the welfare of the participants. This includes the avoidance of physical and emotional harm. In order to ensure that researchers adhere to certain ethical standards, they should submit their research proposal to a governing body such as UBC’s Behavioural Research Ethics Boards.

Researchers need to be fair in how they report data but at the same time protect confidentiality of the participants. Flinders (1992) suggests this may be more difficult in qualitative research due to its descriptive nature. I think participants should be informed of how they will be portrayed before research is published.

Reflect on how our individual and collective ideas about education research have evolved over the past thirteen weeks.

I’ve learned to look at all research with a critical eye no matter who conducted it or who published it. This includes looking at the research methods and at the logic of the study. The ability to think critically is a skill I want to share with my students because I think it is important for to have in life. Students should question authority and analyze information given to them instead of accepting it passively as truth.

Flinders, David J. (1992). In search of ethical guidance: constructing a basis for dialogue. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(2), 101-115

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

I chose to discuss ethical issues in Beck and Fetherston’s article because after I read it, I couldn’t help but feel very badly for the participating teacher. In the chapter on ethics, Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) give an example of students who reported negative comments about the teaching methods of their math teacher which sounds very similar to the complaints about the writing process from the students in Beck and Fetherston’s study. Gay et al. say that researchers can avoid these awkward situation if they reflect on their values at the beginning of the study. There is no indication of this in Beck and Fetherston’s study. In fact, I hypothesize that the first time the teacher heard about the private comments made about her was probably when she read the study. No where in the article does Beck and Fetherston mention that they discussed the students’ attitudes towards the handwriting program with the teacher. Gay et al. say that “researchers must consider whether participants would have consented to the study had they known about the type of data collected…” (p.23)

Because a small number of students were selected from a split year ¾ class, it would be obvious to other teachers and administrators of the district who the participating teacher was. Therefore, the confidentiality of the teacher was not well protected. Gay et al. say that “Confidentiality is important for protecting research informants from stress, embarrassment, or unwanted publicity…” (p. 23)

I argue that the publication of this article would have caused harm to the participating teacher. Flinders (1992) says researchers need to ensure that their participants are not physically harmed. However, he goes on to elaborate “harm” as including psychological stress and even damage to one’s reputation.

On a side note, the text describes a study done in the 60s when “researchers lied to participants, telling them to apply high levels of electric shock to another (unseen) person who as apparently in agony, although no shock was really applied and the unseen person was simply pretending” (Milgram, 1964 as cited by Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2009, p. 19). Then, in the next paragraph, the text says that this type of study wouldn’t be conducted today due to ethical issues. However, I just watched a documentary on the Passionate Eye (tv show) that did, in fact, replicate this study but in front of a live audience in the form of a game show. The point was to assess how long people would obey authority even if it goes against their values. University researchers participated in the study but I’m not sure how it was funded so perhaps it was able to happen because it didn’t have to seek funding from a peer review board. Here’s the link: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2011/gameofdeath/

Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 139-161. Retrieved from: https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/Module02/module_2/BS0.pdf.

Flinders, David J. (1992). In search of ethical guidance: constructing a basis for dialogue. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(2), 101-115

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

The following concept map is based on the observations below:

https://cacoo.com/diagrams/NkOYl9HLpHtHyWB3

2:51 I am sitting at picnic table with my daughter who is in an orange umbrella stroller which I positioned in front of me to conceal my notepad and pen on my lap. We are at a new “play for all” playground which was recently installed in front of an old neighbourhood rec. centre. The playground is accessible to the physically disabled so there are many low set features like swings or spinning chairs that someone in a wheelchair could access. It is also a great park for small children for this reason. It is chilly with grey skies today so the playground is empty. I’ve been here for about ten minutes and have seen many small children walk by with one of their parents but they continue into the rec centre.

2:52 A mom with two small children around the age of three and four, and a dog pass by the playground. The children want to play but the mom hustles them along saying, “It’s too cold.” Two boys about the age of 11 or 12 come darting out of the rec centre to the playground. Boy 1 jumps on the tallest feature on the playground and immediately goes to the top. He is wearing a maroon puffy down jacket, jeans, and white sneakers. He has sandy coloured hair, buck teeth, and big eyes. He looks gangly because he is tall and thin. Boy 2 is wearing the same jacket but navy blue. He has darker jeans on and black winter boots. He has brown hair. He is heavier set than the other. There are no parents around.

PC: I wonder if they’re brothers because they have the same jacket?

Boy 2 runs to one of the two low circular shaped swings and stands on it. Boy 1 follows and stands on the other circular swing next to the first boy. Both grab the ropes suspending the swings and use their bodies to get them moving.

2:54 Boy 1 lies down on the swing while it’s still in motion. Then he gets off and gets back on the swing but facing the rec centre this time. Boy 2 is still swinging but also turns direction to face the rec centre. Boy 1 is going much higher than Boy 2.

Boy 2 looks at me. Boy 1 jumps off his swing and is oblivious that I’m here. Boy 2 gets off and walks to a different structure in the shape of a sea serpent which he climbs. Boy 1 is still swinging fairly high.

Two little children and their mom walk by.

PC: I wonder if there is a swimming lesson going on since these two look to be the same age as others who’ve walked by since I’ve been here.

Boy 1 moves to a small, red spinning seat. Boy 2 climbs on to the head of the sea serpent. He seems cautious and starts to cautiously lower himself to a lower part of the head instead of jumping from the top. Once to the lowest part of the head, he calls to his friend (brother?) to get his attention. Boy 1 doesn’t see him and goes back to the circular swing.

PC: Boy 2 was trying to get his friend’s attention so Boy 1 would watch him jump off the head.

Boy 2 walks to the other circular swing and stands by it. Boy 1 jumps off his. They’re talking but I can’t hear what they’re saying. Then Boy 1 says, “Let’s see who can jump the farthest!”. Both get on the swings in a standing position. Boy 1 starts swinging first and is going very high. Boy 1 says, “Bet I can get higher than you! You can jump whenever you want.” He jumps and falls (on purpose). He then stands where he fell to mark his spot. Boy 2 jumps but not very far at all. He hops a bit further once on the ground then quickly moves to the spinning seat.

PC: Boy 2 was trying to make his jump look longer by taking small hops after he initially touched the ground. He was trying to avoid playing the game again by moving to a different structure.

Boy 1 pushes him around on the seat then goes to a structure that looks like a boat. Boy 2 goes to a swing made to hold a wheelchair and balances on it while standing. He doesn’t swing. Boy 1 goes to the spinning seat and spins himself.

Boy 2 looks at me. Boy 1 doesn’t.

PC: I wonder if Boy 2 feels self-conscious that I am here. He must notice me watching at them. He is obviously not as athletic as the other boy and an audience might make him feel nervous. I wonder if Boy 1 is unobservant or confident enough in his athleticism that he doesn’t care who watches.

Boy 2 lies down on the swing while Boy 1 moves to that structure and pushes him. Boy 2 looks back at him because Boy 1 is behind him. Boy 1 changes the side that he is pushing on to face Boy 2 now.

PC: I think these two have a fairly respectful relationship even though they are quite different. I don’t think they would choose to play together at recess at school because Boy 1 would choose a sports game and Boy 2 would probably choose to read or walk around. This further strengthens my guess that they are brothers.

Boy 1 moves to a spinning pole and then walks away, exploring other small noise making features with his hands as he goes. Boy 2 is still swinging on the wheel chair swing but is going slower now because no one has pushed him for a bit.

Boy 1 is standing by a feature that you shout into. It looks like a periscope. He says, “I have a secret to tell you that I’ve never told anyone.” He walks over to the wheelchair swing to help Boy 2 who is struggling to get off. Boy 2 looks at me as he gets off the swing awkwardly.

Boy 2 walks over to a different periscope. Boy 1 says, “I can not tell anyone.” Then he speaks into the periscope feature. Boy 2 makes noises (animal sounds) back into it. Boy 1 says, “Come on. Let’s go.” They both walk off the playground and boy 2 gives a noogie to boy 1.

PC: I feel bad for Boy 2 because it must be tough for him to be around other boys at school who are more rough and tumble than him. I find myself thinking he is probably successful in academics. However, that shows me that I can stereotype students as either being athletic or academic.

End 3:05

I plan to do an action research case study on the integration of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in my lesson planning. From being in the MET program, I’ve learned a lot about learning theories and have realized that I have prepared many teacher-led IWB lessons. My goal is to shift my teaching practices to reflect student centred lessons. The broad theory of constructivism will serve as the foundation for these lessons. I also want to structure my lessons so they use the affordances of the IWB. I don’t want to use the IWB as a traditional presentation tool. Some guiding questions I have for my self-study are:

Will I lose valuable class time by focusing on student-centred learning with the IWB?
What will the other students be doing when some are at the IWB?
What are the affordances of the IWB?
Are my students able to use the unique affordances of the technology or are they too young?
Will my students become bored by the IWB over time?
Are my students more motivated by the affordances of the technology or the hands-on tasks?
Is it more effective to use the IWB in small group or whole class instruction?
How do my students use the IWB differently when I am present compared to when I am not?

I intend to collect data by using a reflective journal, video tape, and student questionnaires. I would like to share my results with my staff because IWB are becoming increasingly popular at my school and I don’t feel that there has been enough Pro-D available for teachers to analyze the above questions. Pro-D that I have participated in was strictly about how the IWB functions and not about teaching practice. I want to record my journey of pedagogic change that IWBs enable to potentially help others do the same.

For extra practice, I thought I’d start an informal critique thread for the article by Tatar and Robinson (2003). Feel free to also comment on the pros and cons of quasi or experimental research.

Cons of the study:

-lack of random assignment of students to groups
-multi-aged groups whose experience would affect results. We don’t know how many students of each age were in each class (differential selection of participants).
-novelty effect- were the students motivated by the newness of the digital cameras? Maybe the study should’ve been carried out over a longer period of time until the students got used to the cameras.
-table 3- the control group has 19 students and the experimental group has 10. Why? Am I reading that correctly?

Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 89-95

This survey is designed to assess teacher’s level of comfort and capability in using technology at Glenmore Elementary School.

Please circle all of the statements below that apply to your use of technology:

a. I use the Internet for email.

b. I use a wordprocessor like Microsoft Word.

c. I use search engines for looking up websites and/or information.

d. I maintain a class website.

e. I can set up and use a projector.

f. I can set up a tv/dvd and/or vcr.

g. I can use a digital camera to take photos.

h. I can download photos to print, email, and/or make a slideshow.

i. I can use a video camera to take footage.

j. I can download video footage to make a video clip.

Please circle all of the statements below that apply to your use of technology with your students:

a. I show and/or direct my students to websites for entertainment.

b. I show and/or direct my students to academic websites related to curriculum.

c. My students use Successmaker in the computer lab.

d. My students use computers to type word assignments.

e. My students use computers to create and/or present projects with digital story telling tools, powerpoint, video, or other software that includes visuals.

f. My students use social media for our class. i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Delicious, Blogs etc.

If you have a smartboard, please write a brief statement below that describes how you use it during class time with your students. If you don’t have a smartboard, please leave this question blank.

Please describe below what support and/or resources you would need to increase your comfort level with technology.

Hart (1998) states that a literature review should “demonstrate that you understand the history of your topic” which I felt MacArthur et al. (2001) accomplished. They reviewed diverse literature that spanned fifteen years.

The purpose of a literature review is to identify what has been done in order to inform future research. McArthur et al. (2001) show that they reviewed literature which “addressed the efficacy of technology for students with disabilities” (p. 273) and go on to say that their literature review will take a different twist by focusing on “research on literacy and technology for students with disabilities” (p. 273).

I see a clear sequence in the introduction of the review by McArthur et al. (2001) which is:

1. Show importance of research topic
2. Identify gaps in past literature
3. Define key terms
4. Narrow topic and/or research and explain why
5. Show how research was found
6. Introduce synthesis and analysis (p. 274, para. 3)

#6 might also include brief mention of a critique of the literature when McArthur et al. (2001) said, “Furthermore, the quality of the research methodology is uneven” (p. 274, para. 3). However, I wasn’t sure about that.

Hart, Chris (1998). Doing a literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.

Lauman’s (2000) literature review is related to the use of home computers and learning with technology in school. I thought the background section gave the reader a strong sense of the author’s connection to the topic. The author was clear in outlining her objectives in the introduction. There was no mention of how the author selected the articles she reviewed. I think Lauman (2000)) should have used short titles, formatted in an apa headings system, instead of her research questions as headings. I would have preferred to see academic research in place of some of the citations. For example, she quoted something out of an Alberta Learning brochure and someone named “Buck” via personal communication but didn’t give us his/her background. Lauman (2000) outlined the conclusions and some detail like sample size and research focus of various studies she reviewed. However, she neglected to mention the methods used in these studies. More importantly, Lauman (2000) didn’t synthesize or criticize the literature. She could’ve offered explanations for differences between studies. Also, I would’ve liked to see research that refutes that having a home computer is an advantage for students. Lauman (2000) noted what gaps exist in the literature and suggested what future research should take place. I commend her for proposing that the future research could lead to a necessary action plan to make parents aware of the importance of their role as educators because this indicates the purpose and importance of such future research.

Lauman, D. J. (2000). Student home computer use: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 33(2), 196-203.

1. Purposes of a Literature Review.

We review literature in an area of research interest in order to understand what is known and not known already in the area. Ultimately all education research connects to and is compared with previous studies that have been reported. Further, as we have pointed out in the Overview to this Module, literature reviewing is in itself a form of research, in particular document analysis. So there is no escape — reviewing the literature is an integral part of understanding and conducting education research. Readpages 1-3 of the excerpt from Hart titled “Writing the review, and pages 1-4 of the Hart excerpt titled “The role of the literature review” (Read pp. 78-102 in Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2009). Compare what these authors have to say about the various purposes for conducting a review of literature, and the significance and value of the literature review as part of the research process. Keep these purposes in mind as you complete Activities 1 in this Module.

2. Distinguishing Elements of the Review Process.

In this activity we focus on the structure, organization, and presentation of a literature review. The goal of this activity is to provide you with some tools and an approach you can use to evaluate the qualities of literature reviews that you will read in this course and in the future. These same tools and approach will be useful when you plan and write your own literature reviews. To be a critical reader (and writer) of literature reviews you need to be aware of, and able to recognize the key elements that make up the review process. The four key elements of the review process are: Summary, Analysis, Synthesis, and Critique. These are described in the table that follows.

Key Element of the Review Process

Summary: Reviewer reports on what, when, how research was conducted; provides overview of the literature and research.

Analysis: Reviewer selects, differentiates, dissects, breaks apart; unpacks something into its constituent parts in order to infer or determine the relationship and/or organizing principles between them; thereby isolating the main variables.

Synthesis: Reviewer integrates, combines, recasts, formulates, reorganizes; rearranges the elements derived from analysis to identify relationships or show main organizing principles or show how these principles can be used to make a different phenomenon. Reviewer determines what messages emerge from literature.

Critique: Reviewer scrutinizes literature and research for faulty assumptions, questionable logic, weakness in methodology, inappropriate data analysis, and unwarranted conclusions.

These elements bring structure to a literature review and their presence determines the qualities of any given review. Learning to read and prepare literature reviews begins with recognizing these key elements of the review process.

Note that distinguishing between review elements that represent Summary and Synthesis may seem confusing at first glance. To clarify, the term “Summary” is being used here to indicate places in the review where the author is summarizing aspects of a single study within the review. The term “Synthesis” refers to places in the review where the author is bringing together ideas from a number of studies he or she has summarized and/or critiqued in their review article. We recognize this application of these terms may be a bit different than how you have used them in the past. The definitions being applied here are intended to provide a structure to help you examine and analyze a review article.

Procedure:

• Begin by reading the introductory section to the paper (pages 273-274 in MacArthur et al., 2001) to provide you with the context of this literature review. Think about what these authors are ‘doing’ (in terms of organizing their writing) in this introduction to set up the rest of their review.
• Summary Task: Individually post to the “Module 3: Lesson 1-Literature Review” Discussion Forum a short statement summarizing one or two ideas or issues you discovered from this analysis activity. Some issues you might comment on include: What else is present in a review besides the four key elements we searched for? Where does each of these elements occur in this review? Is their an overall sequence, pattern, or plan evident in the structure of the review?

3. Conducting an Analysis of a Literature Review.

Literature reviews like other published forms of research should be read with a critical eye. Again the best way to do this is in a systematic fashion. We have created a Checklist for Analyzing a Literature Review that you can use for evaluating the qualities of a literature review.

Read Lauman’s article (in the Custom Copy Package) and assess the quality of this review using the ETEC 500 Checklist for Analyzing a Literature Review Write a short statement (250-word maximum) analyzing the quality of this literature review and post it. In your statement highlight both the strengths of the literature review and the areas needing further work.

For further ideas on how to critique research we recommend you read Chapter 22, pages 532-542 (2009) in Gay, Mills, and Airasian. They provide an array of evaluative questions you can use to judge individual research reports or reviews.

One advantage of doing historical research would be that there are other historians analyzing similar artifacts with whom you can compare notes to confirm your interpretations. On the other hand, because I have different experiences from other researchers, they might interpret the photos differently.

I found it challenging to name norms of society by looking at the photos because I know that the photographer captured a moment in time. I would more confidently be able to make generalizations with more documentation. I have some knowledge of that era which influenced my interpretations. I’m not sure if that would be an advantage or disadvantage because some of it comes from media, like movies, which are not always reality.

I see the advantages of approaching history in the classroom in this way. As it would “make the study of history more personal, more interactive and therefore more interesting.” (Milson & Downey 2001; Grant & VanSledright 2001; Barton, 1997 as cited by Sandwell, 2003, p. 1). A disadvantage of using these documents in the classroom might be that the students miss learning an important piece of information about the time period they’re studying because it isn’t shown in the document. For example, I couldn’t learn about that time period’s economy from the photos but I would’ve been able to had I read about it.

Sandwell, R. (2003). Reading beyond bias: Using historical documents in the secondary classroom. McGill Journal of Education, 38(1), 168-186.