Month: February 2011

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.