500

A naive philosophy of action research by Bob Dick

Dick, B.  (1997) The naive philosophy of a naive philosopher [On line].  Available at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/naive.html

The webpage is a supplementary resource for a program called Areol Action Research and Evaluation. The author writes informally about his personal philosophy applied to action research in response to prior students’ complaints that philosophy wasn’t studied in the Areol program. The content is biased. The author admits he isn’t qualified to teach on such a subject and doesn’t find it important. The site is maintained by the author who I assume is a lecturer at Southern Cross University, where the course Areol is offered. The page was last edited in 2000. There is a link to a text version provided but it does not work. The page is not well supported by other resources as it only has one reference.

Eric Journal

Carrington, V. (2008). “I’m Dylan and I’m not going to say my last name”: Some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 151-166.

Eric Document

Britton, S. M. (1992). Mobile technology education laboratory: An alternative for elementary technology education in a restructuring school district in central California. (Master’s dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC (EBSCO). (ED387079)

How is the article structured?

Dr. Middleton’s article starts with reference for the article, title, author name, article, short bio on Dr. Middleton, and a list resources.

Beck and Fetherston’s article is the same as the above except it includes an abstract, a conclusion, has a headings system and does not contain any bios.

What is the author’s intent? Who is the audience?

Dr. Middleton’s article is intended to inform other professors and researchers about publishing their work in electronic journals. It cites advantages and challenges of the increasing movement from traditional to electronic journals.

The authors Beck and Fetherston report on how grade three students’ attitudes towards writing change as they incorporate a word processor to the writing process. They could be writing a paper for their own education degree which they’d share with other teachers.

What authority do the authors have to make their claims?

Dr. Middleton has a variety of research experience. He is the Associate Director for a research centre. This leads me to believe that his descriptions and predictions of the changes happening with journals are reliable. His article was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Beck and Fetherston did a literature review and have a large resource section which makes their writing seem well informed. It is unclear if their article was peer-reviewed. The Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual is a magazine and not a journal.

How would you characterize (label or describe) each article? Why (that is, what criteria did you use for your characterization)?

I would label Dr. Middleton’s article as a narrative because he is reflecting on what he has observed and experienced over time in his career.

Beck and Fetherston’s article combined a literature review and case studies including observations and interviews.

Which of these articles would you use in a review of research literature? Why?

I would use Dr. Middleton’s article in my review.

I would not use Beck and Fetherston’s article because their case studies do not seem reliable. For example, the teaching methods of the teacher in the study is what caused the students to not like writing with a pencil and paper. If they didn’t have to be extremely neat when writing, the students may have liked the process more. The word processor may not have improved their attitudes had the teaching strategy been different.

Apparently the students in this study had adequate keyboarding skills which didn’t take away form typing the stories. As a grade three teacher, my students would be very frustrated if I asked them to type out a story especially if they had to create it as they went along (without a first copy).

I think it is biased that the students had access to pictures on the word processor and not when using paper and pen to write their stories. Writing with pictures is always beneficial for sequencing and adding detail to writing.

Since the students were allowed to use the spell check feature in the software program, their conventions mark would be higher using the word processor.

It seems like the study should’ve compared the effects of using the software program, “Story

Book Weaver Deluxe (1994)” on writing instead of a word processor.

I thought the voice with which the authors wrote was too informal for the type of report they intended to write. I also thought the amount of quotations in their writing was distracting.

Try to write out one research question or topic for each of the 4 paradigms. Label your questionsusing the Sipe and Constable categories of: positivist, interpretivist, critical theory and deconstructivist.

I teach grade 2/3 French Immersion (except I’m on maternity leave right now) which means that I teach every subject in French and students are suppose to speak French to me and each other all day. Primary in B.C. means grades 1 to 3. Students are between the ages of 5 and 9.

My topics refer to teaching and learning French which could be further broken down into spelling, writing, oral language, reading etc. To simplify things a bit, I’m just referring to French, in general.

Positivist – Are primary French Immersion (F.I.) teachers in British Columbia using smartboards to encourage student centred learning of the French language?

Interpretivist – What do primary F.I. teachers think is the best way to use smartboards to teach French?

Critical Theory – How can school boards encourage primary F.I. teachers to use smartboards in a student centred way to teach French effectively?

Deconstructivist – What is the most effective way to teach French in the primary F.I. classroom?

or

How can teachers most effectively teach French in the primary F.I. classroom using smartboards and a student centred approach?

I cheated and gave two questions for the deconstructivist topic. I still a bit puzzled about this one. Deconstructivism seems to say there are no truths so initially I thought I’d leave out the assumption that smartboards and student centred learning are the best techniques for teaching French. Maybe I’m reading to much into it.