EDU 807 Summer 2018 - Week 5 - Selections from Various Articles - Group 1
In the document below, I have selected key passages out of the following three articles, purposefully picked from three different decades and describing three different populations of students:
- Canelos, J., Dwyer, F., Taylor, W., Belland, J., & Baker, P. (1989). The Effect of Embedded Learning Strategies in Microcomputer-Based Instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(4), 301–318.
- Frear, V., & Hirschbuhl, J. J. (1999). Does interactive multimedia promote achievement and higher level thinking skills for today’s science students? British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 323–329.
- Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of Technology Immersion on Middle School Students’ Learning Opportunities and Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299–315.
As you read, I want you to provide at least two comments on each article (six total) as well as two replies to classmates on each article (six total). For your two initial comments on each article, please address the following:
- With the first of your comments, address some aspect of the research design. In what ways was the study framed (experimental, quasi-experimental, case study, etc)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of framing a research study about educational technology in this manner?
- With the second comment, address some aspect of the discourse surrounding educational technology. How is the technology described? What is its purpose (as a component of teaching and learning)? In what ways does this use of technology position teachers? In what ways does it position students? In short, who has power and agency as you look at the way technology is described?
Then, of course, please reply to two of your classmates in a substantive manner.
In short, your goal for discussion this week is to analyze the research designs of each study as well as to engage in substantive dialogue about what "counts" as technology, teaching, and learning in each example, drawn across multiple decades.
Canelos et al (1989)
ABSTRACT. Past research on cognition has demonstrated that cognitive learning strategies used to complement instruction can have beneficial effects on memory and subsequent achievement. The utilization of microcomputer technology to deliver instructional content to students provides an optimum environment to examine the instructional effectiveness of embedded instructional strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of an imagery cue and an attention directing strategy within a context of a microcomputer learning environment that provided both selfpaced and externally paced instruction. Achievement was measured on five different tests designed to measure different educational objectives. One hundred eighty freshman students were randomly assigned to one of nine treatment groups. The results of the study indicate that embedding an imagery cue and an attention directing strategy in an instructional sequence increases student achievement. A combination of the two embedded strategies was also effective in improving students' achievement; however, the combining of the two strategies did not have a cumulative effect. It was also determined that the effectiveness of the embedded strategies was dependent on whether the instruction was self-paced or externally paced.
THE INTEGRATION of the microcomputer into the instructional environment has led to new interest in cognitive-oriented learning strategies. Consequently, considerable research is being conducted on microcomputer based instruction (MCBI) to determine the relative merits of self-paced versus externally paced delivery strategies (Belland et al., 1985). Although much of the early research on basic programmed instruction and computer-assisted instruction attempted to adjust for learner individual differences by using self-paced instructional models, there is indication that these selfpaced models may not be appropriate for all learning conditions . For example, some researchers have noted problems with learner procrastination with completely self-paced instructional models (Reiser, 1985). Self-paced instruction has proved to be effective for some learners (Keller, 1974; Postlethwait, 1974); however, Carrier (1984) has questioned the validity of allowing students to exercise their own judgments about how much instruction they need and in what order.
Wittrock (1979) and Travers (1972) in citing the attentional and instructional research models contend that self-pacing may not be the most effective delivery strategy for all instructional and learning conditions because self-pacing may reduce the attention and motivation levels below those necessary for effective interaction with the content material. This conclusion was supported by Belland et al. (1985). Results from this study found that moderate levels of external pacing of microcomputer-based instruction were significantly more effective than completely self-paced microcomputer-based instruction in facilitating student achievement of complex concept learning and free recall of spatial problems.
Materials and Procedure
The instructional materials used in this study were developed originally by Dwyer (1972) and consisted of an 1,800-word instructional unit on the human heart describing its parts, part locations, and the internal functions during the diastolic and systolic phases.
This content was subsequently revised for this study.
This content was selected because it permitted evaluation of several types of learning objectives that are directly generalizable to those commonly taught in the classroom.
Students participating in the study were 180 first-term freshmen enrolled at Ohio State University.
Participation in the study was one of the available options for receiving extra credit in their psychology course .
After signing up for the study, names on the sign-up sheet were randomly assigned to the instructional treatment conditions, and each instructional treatment group and the control had 20 students.
Treatments
Each of the nine microcomputer-based treatment groups were designed to teach students about the parts and operation of the human heart during systolic and diastolic functioning.
The instructional content was an adaptation of the Dwyer (1972, 1978, 1987) instructional stimulus materials.
The instructional content in each of the three instructional programs and sequence of content were identical.
During the MCBI instructional programs, students viewed and interacted with 57 different instructional segments that consisted of a visual with a verbal description and arrow, or arrows, pointing out the important information in that display.
The instructional display, in its basic form without strategies, consisted of visual information, verbal labels, and a verbal description.
This information in each instructional display was generated with visual first, then part names or operation names appear, then three to eight lines of verbal text appear under the visual.
There were three types of visuals used in the instructional programs.
Each instructional display consisted of some combination of one of the visuals and a verbal explanation (Figure 1).
...
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that an imagery cue strategy embedded in the instructional content increases the amount of information acquired and the students' ability to use that information.
Similar findings also resulted when the attention directing strategy was embedded into the instruction.
A combination of the two embedded strategies was also effective in improving the students' information acquisition; however, the combination of the two strategies did not have a cumulative effect. It was also determined that the effectiveness of the embedded strategies was dependent on the basic format design of the microcomputer-based instruction, e.g., selfpaced versus externally paced.
The findings of this study may be explained in part by the fact that the imagery cue and attention directing strategies are different forms of rehearsal. Focusing attention allowed time for incoming information to remain in short-term memory long enough to be elaborated on and encoded for longterm memory (Anderson, 1980; Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Dwyer, 1987; Lindsay & Norman, 1972; Murray & Mosberg, 1982).
...
Conclusion
The program embedded learning strategies of imagery cue and attention directing can be used individually or in combination.
Both strategies tend to increase learning in terms of amount and ability to use learned information.
If information to be learned is mostly spatial, combining the two strategies would be helpful for most learners.
However, if the basic MCBI program design is self-paced, the program embedded learning strategies may not be as effective.
The results of this study fit past research results on cognitive learning strategies using imagery cue and attention directing. Further work needs to be done on cognitive learning strategies that are practical and can be easily used by students. Such learning strategies should be examined within the context of innovative instructional methods using the new electronic technologies. In addition, learning strategies should be evaluated in terms of the amount of information processing and the effect that the different levels of information processing have on student achievement of different types of educational objectives.
Frear et al (1999)
Abstract
This study examines the effects of Interactive Multimedia instruction upon the variables of achievement and problem solving skills on non-science majors in an Environmental Science course at a mid-western university.
The findings indicate that the Interactive Multimedia had a significant effect on both of the variables.
The findings are discussed in terms of the impact on self-study when students are learning outside of the classroom in a distance learning environment.
...
Introduction
During the 1990s critics and supporters alike have been questioning the effectiveness of science education within the American Education System.
Pearlman (Gandolfo, 1993) states, "In the United States alone, education costs $450 billion a year.
It is a huge burden, yet almost everybody agrees that schools are failing."
Pearlman believes schools have not taken advantage of the teaching and learning enrichment that technology tools provide and it is one of the major reasons they are failing.
Perhaps schools are having some difficulty in catching onto many of the new opportunities that technology tools offer, but computers are widespread in the schools and some good things are happening.
This article examines how schools are now using interactive computer-based multimedia as a tool to develop thinking skills needed to assimilate and transform massive quantities of information into solutions for today's fast paced changing society.
Case study
One of the problem areas for schools today revolves around the lack of student interest in science.
Enrollment is down and performance is low.
However, today's generation shows an interest in things pertaining to the environment.
In this study a package entitled Environmental Science: Computer Lab Simulations, Hirschbuhl, Bishop and Jackson (1996) an interactive multimedia (IMM) program based on actual geological field studies, was used by undergraduate non-science majors at a mid-western university.
For this study these simulations were added to one section of an environmental studies course and compared to a section that used only the traditional method of instruction (classroom lecture).
According to Trollip and Alessi (1988) one of the purposes of adding computers to classroom instruction is to facilitate learning for students by improving the quality and quantity of what they know. Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) believe an advantage of interactive multimedia instruction is the creation of meaning developed by the learner's interaction with the new information in the program.
At the time of this investigation there was very little empirical evidence regarding the use of interactive multimedia instructional technologies in higher education (Sports and Bowman, 1995 March/April). Most articles were anecdotal describing outstanding professors using the latest technological invention. The problem stems from the lack of research (Heller, 1990; Park, 1991: Park and Hannafin, 1993: Preece, 1993: Zachariah, 1995) regarding the effects of a self-paced interactive multimedia computer simulation on students' learning, motivation, and attitude. Reeves (1993) stated for a worthwhile study of interactive multimedia, a diverse population spending several hours in purposeful study should be examined.
Purpose of the study
This research examined the impact on students' grades and higher level thinking skills when computers were added to the classroom.
Interactive multimedia simulations of "real world situations" (actual field trips of a geology professor with 22 years' experience) were incorporated into one section of an environmental geology course.
The interactive multimedia modules, which promoted participation and interaction, were designed for students to gain scientific knowledge and concepts, and develop problem-solving skills without the heavy use of math.
Research design
The research design was quasi-experimental because it combined the use of "naturally assembled" intact groups (Campbell and Stanley, 1963), pre-test and post-test, and the use of a control group.
The control group research design used is shown in Table 1.
Sample
One hundred and fifty-two students were involved in the study in the spring of 1996.
The control group (113 students) received the traditional lecture method of instruction, while interactive multimedia replaced part of the traditional instruction for the treatment group (39 students).
GALT instrument
The Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) (Roadrangka et al., 1982, 1983) was designed to measure student cognitive development.
This instrument has been used by many as a predictor of student's math and science achievement (Bitner, 1986, 1988, 1991).
Roadrangka et al.
(1983) reported a coefficient alpha of 0.85 for the total test and validity was reported with a strong correlation (0.80) between the GALT and Piagetian interview results.
The GALT consisted of 21 questions of which 18 questions not only required the student to pick the most appropriate answer, but also the reason the student chose that answer. For the question to be considered correct the student must correctly choose both the answer and the reason. Students are classified as concrete thinkers with a GALT score of 0 to 8, transitional with a GALT score of 9 to 15, and those with GALT scores of 16 to 21 are recognized as formal thinkers.
Interactive multimedia instruction
Multimedia can be loosely defined as computer-based technology integrating some, but not necessarily all, of the following: text, graphics, animation, sound, and video (Barron and Orwig, 1995).
There are several definitions of IMI (interactive multimedia instruction (Galbreath, 1992)) and, as the multimedia environment changes rapidly, so may the meaning of interactive multimedia instruction.
According to Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) IMI is "instructional, multiple-sourced (ie, multiple media sources are involved) intentionally designed, and coherent" (p. 4).
Interactive multimedia modules for environmental geology
The topics of the eight units of interactive multimedia are: 1) Introduction to Environmental Science, 2) Energy from Coal, 3) Geology of Homesite Selection, 4) Minerals for Society, 5) Legal Control of the Environment, 6) Stream Pollution, 7) Streams and Floods, and 8) Radiation in the Environment.
All of the modules are based on actual field studies, and the student assumes the role of investigator, with each module presenting a different environmental problem.
All modules have a consistent screen format and each consists of an introduction to the problem to be addressed, the role that the student must play in the investigation, a means for the student to collect data relevant to the problem, a modeling book where the student enters, reviews and draws conclusions based on the collected data, a multiple choice test and an essay test. The essay test puts the responsibility of solving the problem on the shoulders of the student, who takes on the identity of an official in charge, who must make critical decisions based on the problem and data collected. The student is always in control and may access additional data, recheck data collected, access a glossary of appropriate terms, listen to audio associated with the problem, and may elect to take or repeat the multiple choice test. From the menu page a student can access any one of the eight modules, the progress report, or send the instructor email. Students must make some data collections before they are allowed to take the test or write their essays; thus forcing active participation and preventing students from rapidly paging through the modules and declaring themselves finished.
...
Summary of Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this study:
- Those students in all groups having attained a GALT score indicating a cognitive level of development equal to transitional level or higher (score of 11 or above) performed significantly better in a course for non-science majors than those with a GALT score less than 11 when grades of B or better were compared to those below B.
- There was a significant difference in pre- and post-test GALT scores for the treatment group.
- The proportion of students with a passing grade (B or better) was significantly higher for those in the treatment group when compared with those students in the control group).
Discussion
Overall, this study validates the effectiveness of the IMM treatment in significantly increasing student achievement and problem solving skills in environmental science. The following statements support this claim:
First, this study appears to validate the use of the GALT as a predictor of student performance because the probability of those students with a GALT score of 11 or above receiving a passing grade (B or better) was significantly greater than those with GALT scores less than 11.
Next, both groups had post-test GALT score gains over the pretest. The treatment group showed a significant reasoning gain while the gain for the control group did not. When the gains of the GALT scores between groups were compared the difference was not significant. Part of the increase in the GALT scores might be attributed to students taking the same GALT test for both the pre- and the post-test.
Finally, the proportion of students with a passing grade (B or better) was significantly higher for students in the treatment group when compared with those in the control group. This increase was so significant it is hard to suggest uncontrollable variables normally attributed to the difference, such as; classes meeting at different times of the day, different days of the week, being taught by different instructors, grading standards or student attendance could account for all of the variance. This result is supported by the findings of Massaro's (1995) study.
According to Wills and McNaughton (1996) educational software using interactive multimedia must actively engage the student, which is exactly what we witnessed one morning when not a sound could be heard as students were intensely engrossed interacting with the computer program in the Multimedia Lab.
This study validates the effectiveness of the use of interactive multimedia as field trip simulations for an environmental geology course. However future studies should be conducted using different research design, methodologies, disciplines and quality software to determine the long-term consequences of the use of interactive multimedia.
Shapley et al (2011)
Abstract
An experimental study of the Technology Immersion model involved comparisons between 21 middle schools that received laptops for each teacher and student, instructional and learning resources, professional development, and technical and pedagogical support, and 21 control schools. Using hierarchical linear modeling to analyze longitudinal survey and achievement data, the authors found that Technology Immersion had a positive effect on students’ technology proficiency and the frequency of their technology-based class activities and small-group interactions. Disciplinary actions declined, but treatment students attended school somewhat less regularly than control students. There was no statistically significant immersion effect on students’ reading or mathematics achievement, but the direction of predicted effects was consistently positive and was replicated across student cohorts.
...
Introduction
The present vision for educational technology imagines technology's infusion into all aspects of the educational system. Many educators, policymakers, and business leaders recognize technology's pervasive presence in individuals’ daily lives and its ties to future opportunities for students who must compete in a global, knowledge-based economy (Friedman, 2005). Providing the technological, informational, and communication skills needed by 21st century learners, however, challenges schools to move beyond conventional modes of teaching and learning as well as the traditional boundaries of the school day and school walls.
Some researchers believe widespread technology use in society is moving schools inevitably toward more extensive and innovative applications of technology in curriculum and instruction (Dede, 2007; Smith & Broom, 2003). This view acknowledges that students who attend schools today are different from those of previous years because using technology in nonschool settings is altering their “learning styles, strengths, and preferences” (Dede, 2007) New technologies are reshaping how students access information, communicate, and learn within and outside of classrooms (Smolin & Lawless, 2007). Schools, accordingly, must capitalize on students’ natural inclinations as learners.
Emerging technologies are also supporting more innovative forms of teaching and learning. For example, lessons supported by technology can involve real-world problems, current and authentic informational resources, virtual tours of remote locations, simulations of concepts, or interactions with practicing experts and global communities. These kinds of experiences are important because research shows that students learn more when they are engaged in meaningful, relevant, and intellectually stimulating work (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2003; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagoaka, 2001). Technology-enhanced learning experiences also can help students develop 21st century competencies, such as thinking and problem solving, interpersonal and self-directional skills, and digital literacy (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006).
Texas, similar to other states, recognizes that students’ long-term success is tied to their preparation as lifelong learners, world-class communicators, competitive and creative knowledge workers, and contributing members of a global society. Yet, despite high aspirations for technology, the piecemeal way in which most schools have introduced technology into the educational process has been an obstacle to the effective use of technology for teaching and learning (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2006).
Recognizing this limitation, the Texas Legislature in 2003 set forth a different vision for technology in Texas public schools. Senate Bill 396 called for the TEA to establish a Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) that would immerse schools in technology by providing individual wireless mobile computing devices and technology-based learning resources along with teacher training and support for effective technology use. In response, the TEA has used more than $20 million in federal Title II, Part D monies to fund Technology Immersion projects for high-need middle schools. Concurrently, a research study, partially funded by a federal Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs grant, has investigated whether exposure to Technology Immersion improves student learning and achievement.
The Present Study
The present article reports third-year findings for students involved in a comprehensive experimental study of the effects of Technology Immersion on schools, teachers, and students. Specifically, we contrast outcomes for two cohorts of middle school students who attended Technology Immersion schools with students in control schools on measures of technology-related learning experiences and competencies and measures of academic achievement (reading and mathematics test scores). We present longitudinal outcomes for Cohort 1 students who attended schools across three project implementation years (Grades 6–8) and Cohort 2 students who attended schools during two implementation years (Grades 6–7).
Research Questions
The overarching purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of Technology Immersion on students’ academic achievement—however, we also examined the relationships among Technology Immersion and intervening factors at the school, teacher, and student levels. The research involved 42 middle schools assigned to either treatment or control conditions (21 schools in each group). In the present study we addressed two research questions:
Research Question 1: What is the effect of Technology Immersion on students’ learning opportunities (i.e., classroom activities, engagement)?
Research Question 2: Does Technology Immersion affect student achievement?
...
Effects of Technology Immersion on Academic Achievement
Given that changes in students and their learning experiences were expected to mediate academic performance, we next estimated treatment effects on students’ TAKS T scores. Our analyses concentrated on reading and mathematics scores because students completed TAKS tests for those subjects annually, whereas they completed TAKS tests for writing, science, and social studies at intermittent grade levels. We used three-level HLM growth models to examine how students’ TAKS reading and mathematics achievement varied across time (the point at which students completed TAKS assessments each spring), students, and schools. As Table 5 shows, we estimated school mean rates of change as well as the separate effects of student economic disadvantage and the school poverty concentration on TAKS reading and mathematics performance. Each HLM analysis included approximately 3,000–3,330 students divided nearly equally between the 21 treatment and 21 control schools. Comparable proportions of students were retained in analyses across years (58%–59% of treatment students, 58%–61% of control students).
Discussion
The study of Technology Immersion is distinguished from previous research on one-to-one computing environments by its experimental design and use of a theoretical framework to investigate causal mechanisms. The theory of change assumes that treatment students experience technology-rich school and classroom environments that foster more active and meaningful schoolwork, which in turn, enhance students’ personal competencies and engagement and ultimately increase academic achievement. Before discussing results, it is important to note that teachers and students in control schools typically had access to computers and digital resources in computer labs or media centers, as classroom stations (usually 1–3 computers), or on checkout laptop carts. Thus, control schools continued the traditional approach with technology integration resting largely on the motivation of individual teachers, whereas Technology Immersion schools committed to whole-school integration. In sections to follow, we discuss key findings relative to the study's research questions and the implications for one-to-one laptop programs at other schools.
Summary of Effects
- Individual laptops and digital resources allowed middle school students to develop greater technical proficiency and reduced their disciplinary problems in classes—however, they attended school somewhat less regularly
- The infusion of technology resources changed the nature of classroom activities
- The effect of technology immersion on students’ reading or mathematics achievement was not statistically significant, but the direction of predicted effects was consistently positive and was replicated across student cohorts
Implications for Technology in Schools
The relationship between technology and student achievement continues to be an important topic and the focus of considerable research. Some recent and influential studies have raised concerns about the viability of financial investments in educational technology (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Dynarski et al., 2007). Likewise, if improved standardized test scores is the primary justification for investments in one-to-one laptop programs, then results probably will be disappointing. Evidence from this study suggests that large-scale one-to-one laptop programs are difficult to implement, and, as a result, programs may produce either very small or no improvements in test scores. Nonetheless, as the costs of laptops decline and the uses of wireless computers expand (e.g., digital textbooks and resources, online testing, school-to-home communication), interest in laptop programs is increasing (Zucker & Light, 2009; Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A. 2003.) . This pilot study of the Technology Immersion model offers lessons for school leaders as well as policymakers who are considering laptop programs for their schools.
Foremost, effective technology use clearly involves more than just buying computers and software. This study and others suggest that laptop programs may be more effective when technology is part of comprehensive school reform initiatives (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Zhao & Frank, 2003 Woodul, C., Vitale, M. and Scott, B. 2000.) . Successful Technology Immersion schools had highly committed administrative leaders who secured teacher buy-in for student laptops and provided the support components specified by the model. Particularly important were investments in technical support for school networks and timely laptop repairs, and the provision of ongoing professional development for teachers (Shapley, Maloney, Caranikas-Walker, & Sheehan, 2008). Consistent with other research, schools that served mainly economically disadvantaged student populations encountered numerous obstacles in trying to implement a complex school reform model (Desimone, 2002; Vernaz, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006). Thus, those schools needed additional planning time to build capacity and secure adequate supports prior to implementing an immersion project.
Additionally, one-to-one laptop programs were more likely to be well implemented and sustained if laptops advanced overall goals for student learning and achievement. District and school leaders who embraced Technology Immersion believed that individual student laptops had benefits above and beyond simply raising standardized test scores. Financial investments in laptops were part of an overall migration toward digital school environments, including electronic textbooks, online assessments, and virtual coursework. These leaders believed laptops helped prepare their students for the 21st century, exposed them to worldwide cultures, expanded learning outside of school, and moved students toward product creation and away from drill and practice for tests. Technology Immersion supported their vision for learning opportunities that intellectually challenged and motivationally engaged students, inspired students to learn on their own, and prepared students for life, further education, and careers.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
I thought that this article took a balanced and critical view of technology integration. The authors mention that buying laptops is only part of the solution. This is characteristic of the authors’ acknowledging the complexity of the research problem. Despite finding positive results, they shy away from giving these results too much weight.
I also think the emphasis on the importance of professional development in technology is wise.
You can really sense that this article is much newer than the others. As we move forward we see a more even handed approach to technology integration.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
In the document below, I have selected key passages out of the following three articles, purposefully picked from three different decades and describing three different populations of students:
Canelos, J., Dwyer, F., Taylor, W., Belland, J., & Baker, P. (1989). The Effect of Embedded Learning Strategies in Microcomputer-Based Instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(4), 301–318.
Frear, V., & Hirschbuhl, J. J. (1999). Does interactive multimedia promote achievement and higher level thinking skills for today’s science students? British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 323–329.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of Technology Immersion on Middle School Students’ Learning Opportunities and Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299–315.
As you read, I want you to provide at least two comments on each article (six total) as well as two replies to classmates on each article (six total). For your two initial comments on each article, please address the following:
With the first of your comments, address some aspect of the research design. In what ways was the study framed (experimental, quasi-experimental, case study, etc)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of framing a research study about educational technology in this manner?
With the second comment, address some aspect of the discourse surrounding educational technology. How is the technology described? What is its purpose (as a component of teaching and learning)? In what ways does this use of technology position teachers? In what ways does it position students? In short, who has power and agency as you look at the way technology is described?
Then, of course, please reply to two of your classmates in a substantive manner.
In short, your goal for discussion this week is to analyze the research designs of each study as well as to engage in substantive dialogue about what “counts” as technology, teaching, and learning in each example, drawn across multiple decades.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Canelos et al. (1989) used a quasi-experimental design (participants volunteered for extra credit initially, but were then chosen randomly.) The intervention included three types of visuals embedded into the microcomputer-based instruction. Two concerns include the fact that the experimental group may not represent the baseline population, and including so many kinds of visuals may not reveal which (if any) of the visuals had the effect. Couple that with the other variables: self-paced, external-paced, the extra credit motivation, and the fact that in 1989, computer use in school was new, and the causes for improved achievement become blurred. Readers do not know what actually had an effect.
Technology and its affordances cannot be seen clearly in a study of this design.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Susan,
I thought that quasi-experimental design could not be chosen randomly. I guess I thought that it could only be experimental if it had any sort of randomness to it. It wouldn’t be the first time that I was wrong though. :)
I did notice that this study was one of the acceptable options for extra credit, so there had to be others. So it seems like they would have had to have been self-motivated to complete the study. You are right, there were many variables in this one.
I think your concerns are pretty spot on too. The researchers did not really go into detail on the visuals too much. Were they just photos or were they videos that they interacted with? I would have liked to have read some more details in this one.
Michelle
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Thanks, Susan and Michelle, for raising the point about the visuals. They do include images of what was shown on the computer screen in the original article. I just didn’t embed them here and now comment. If you want to go back and take a look at it, you should be able to find them here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20151781?seq=5&refreqid=excelsior%3A0cc09f4116040a1896d71329d52aa454#page_scan_tab_contents
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Thanks for including the link to the original article. Since we have created modules on heart anatomy, this might be one to add to our lit review!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In taking a quick look at quasi-experimental design. I found that it does not contain random selection. I also had thought along with Susan that quasi-experimental meant subjects were randomly selected from a specific set of groups. I will have to research the difference a bit to be sure I have it down.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The researchers posited that the technology component (visuals embedded into the instruction) increased rehearsal time. Rehearsal time is not considered to be the best way to move information into long-term memory, however. A better strategy is elaborative rehearsal, when content is connected to content already in a person’s long-term memory. Constructivists would support this theory.
Could it be that the visuals helped students remember the content for a short while—enough to pass a test? What would happen if the students were tested again in a week or two? Results would be interesting.
Woolfolk, A. (2016) Educational Psychology. NY: Pearson.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Susan,
While rehearsal time may not be the most effective method it is a well-accepted practice, especially in K12 education. In terms of assigning homework, it can be used as an effective practice. I agree with your statement on the studies longevity. If testing students’ long term retention, the study could have benefited from follow up testing.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Susan, this is a really interesting point. I agree that elaborative rehearsal would be positive from a constructivist standpoint. However, I also think cognitivists would viewed rehearsal similarly. At least in terms of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, new knowledge is integrated into prior knowledge in the process of moving to long term memory.
However, I think if you are referring to rote memorization, then moving to long term memory might just last though a testing period.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I believe that deep learning causes higher order and critical thinking skills. In my opinion, rehearsing is a short term memory technique.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Called a quasi-experimental design by the researchers, this (almost?) case study afforded highly significant results. SOMEthing happened right!
For the 152 students involved, the content delivery/pedagogy were quite different. Traditional lectures met interactive strategies and post-test results were high for the team with the tech. Researchers felt that other variables could not fully explain the substantial results, so it must be that the q-exp. design truly showed that technological interventions made the difference. I think I believe!?!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Thanks, Susan, for pointing out this particular piece and discussing how the researchers did – in fact – see a change/difference with the use of educational technology. Depending on exactly what the intervention is designed to do, I often wonder whether or not the effect of the technology is really about the learning or, at a deeper level, really reflects the pedagogical approach.
For instance, in much of the existing research about reading on screens versus reading imprint, the unquestioned assumption is that people are reading with the intent to answer comprehension level questions about the text. That is but one way to read, and I find it interesting to consider how our own perceptions related to good teaching and good learning well, in the long run, affect our overall perceptions of good technology uses well.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This is an interesting topic that you both address. Simply creating an interactive multimedia module likely will not change outcomes by nature. It’s the pedagogical approach underpinning the module that that will truly have that effect. Utilizing good pedagogy will combined with creative technology use is a richer intervention. Measuring both at the same time might be a challenge though.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The purpose of the technology was to 1) make the learning interactive, 2) offer autonomy and authority to learners (they got to be the “official in charge,” even!), 3) bring real-life scenarios to students, and 4) open opportunities for problem solving.
These are simply good teaching strategies, with or without technology. Having technology makes it easier to teach this way, and should make all classrooms interactive, authentic environments.
The crusade to help students learn using technology is bolstered by this study, but only as it encourages teachers to choose appropriate pedagogies first and well.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Susan,
I agree that the technology is just a vehicle for facilitating good pedagogy. However, in this study the authors demonstrated that the technology was an effective tool in fostering good teaching practices.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
If this large, longitudinal study showed significant academic achievement for its research questions, it would be the million-dollar study! Alas, it did not, though the researchers’ concluding comments are still hopeful.
The study had all the signs of producing a positive prospect: it was experimental, included MANY participants, was longitudinal, included thorough immersion of tech in an educational setting, and asked research questions that covered a wide range of growth features. What an endeavor!
What I did appreciate was that the results, while not statistically significant, did show that positive things happened in other arenas (students’ tech skills improved and classroom activities changed). It is a step in the right direction. Classroom activities will indeed change when students are immersed in technology.
Those activities that can use tech to the fullest will affect students as they engage information, synthesize information, share information and ultimately make it their own.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Susan,
I was also impressed with the scale of this study. Aside from the technological resources provided to the schools, there was a tremendous amount of support provided to the instructors. It is interested to note that in this situation the effectiveness of the technological immersion relied on adoption patters of two distinct groups – students and teachers. If the middle school teachers are anything like the faculty at my institution, there was probably a decent percentage of individuals who were extremely resistant or slow to adopt. In these situations, I could see it directly impeding the students’ adoption patterns and the effectiveness of the immersion process.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The perspectives of the district and school leaders, as outlined in the final paragraph, give cause to cheer! What they believe is exactly what schools can and ought to be in the current era of technology and education.
The problem is that the vision assumes much. Visions need to do that, but the path between a vision and a reality of technology integration is where we all sit. How do we move all schools this direction? TPACK? Triple E? Something else? What is the path?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
We are definitely going to dig into this a little more fully when we read Warschauer in a few weeks. For the moment, I think it again points out the variety of definitions that we use when we discuss “learning,” as well as the ways that technology can allow for/invite learning to happen.
In other words, are we. using technology to “deliver” a prescribed set of content, or are we using it as a way to encourage creative and divergent thinking?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Susan,
I think it would be difficult to move all schools in this direction, especially ensuring they had resources to make it work. The financial conundrum that all schools seem to be under would make it very difficult for small rural schools. I know there are grants that they could get to alleviate the cost of the technology, but that would not help with training and resources. I feel like something else would need to happen state or federally to put schools on the path of full technology immersion.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Michelle,
I agree, in order to move all schools in this direction it would require a significant investment of resources. Unfortunately, not all districts are in a position to make this investment. However, as technology costs decline this will begin to become more feasible. Another important avenue to drive immersion for all is to incorporate this type of thinking and pedagogical training in teaching programs across the country. If instructors are better equipped to use the technology it can help justify the expenditure to decision makers.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Fortunately costs are coming down and hardware is less of a driving factor. Much technology can be accessed in the browser. Moving forward, hopefully hardware will become cheaper and more accessible.
That said tablets are still fairly expensive and many web-based platforms require per user subscriptions. This SAAS model can be very costly for districts and higher ed.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I believe that the Canelos et al study was an experimental study. The study involved the 180 students signing up, then the students were randomly placed into the groups. The study involved one control group along with nine treatment groups. An advantage of an experimental study is that the researchers have all of the control. They created their ten groups, including the control group, and they gave them only the information they wanted them to have in each group.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Michelle, I see your point about the study being experimental and not quasi-experimental. Thanks for the clarification.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The technology involved in this research was microcomputer based instruction (MCB). The researchers wanted to study the visual aspects of learning. The content was featured on the MCB and students viewed and interacted with the various segments. This use of technology takes teachers out of the learning equation. As long as it is setup properly and the students are engaged in that type of self-pacing learning environment, teachers do not need to be in the room. This type of learning places students in control of their own learning.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The blended learning models of today show the value of students taking control of their own learning. The students do not always like that control, however. For those who do (and did in 1989), deeper learning is possible.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Hi Susan,
You make a good point. However, I would argue that blended and distance education models not only demonstrate the value of an individual’s control over their learning, but require it. This is especially true in distance education. If online students are not motivated and take an active role in their learning, they are setting themselves up for failure. In these learning environments it is very easy for students to become derailed.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
You raise a good point, Michelle, in terms of the self-paced instruction and the purpose of learning. In this particular example, I think it’s important to note that the definition of learning does center on this self-paced design.
Depending on exactly what we want students to know and be able to do, this could be effective, but it could also be detrimental. For instance, if we value creativity and divergent thinking, does this particular task invite or allow for that type of experience with educational technology?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This study was framed as a quasi-experimental design. The study involved 152 students taking a pre-test, post-test, and a control group. A disadvantage of using the quasi-experimental design is that the groups are not random, so the two groups they used in this study are very uneven, 113 in control, and 39 in treatment. When comparing these students in the end, it is more difficult because of the non-randomization that the quasi-experimental design brings. An advantage of this type of design is that it lets the researcher test the effectiveness of the program pretty quickly and easily. Once the study is designed, the researcher is able to test the results between the two groups and infer their conclusions from there.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Yes, it seemed like a quick way to get information as to the effectiveness of the technology.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The technology for this study is describes as interactive computer-based multimedia. The research team wanted to see if the addition of multimedia in science courses would increase student achievement. They added interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) to some learning modules that they designed in order to evaluate the students’ progress in the science environment. This study positioned teachers as still relevant and very necessary. Both groups received traditional lecture style learning, while the treatment group had the interactive multimedia replace part of the lecture. Students do not have a lot of power in traditional lecture style learning. The teacher may or may not be asking questions to keep them engaged. However, in the interactive multimedia learning, students had all the control. Students were able to move throughout the program, go back and forth, decide when they were ready to take the tests, and take the tests multiple times.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This study was framed as an experimental study. The study involved 42 middle schools, with 21 being part of the control group and the other 21 being part of the treatment group. The researchers in this study wanted to view the effects of technology immersion on students’ academic achievement. This study was a longitudinal study taking place over three years. One of the advantages of framing this study as experimental is that it can be repeated with other schools at other times. The repeatable nature of this study would be fairly easy to recreate.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The technology for this study was described as laptops for technology immersion. The teachers received support, professional development, and other resources to incorporate the laptops into their classrooms. Reading and math were the two areas the students were tested in to evaluate if they improved. I believe that this sort of assessment puts a lot of power in the teacher’s hands. The teacher has to encourage the students to use the laptops. They have to incorporate these laptops into everyday teaching, so they have to have the resources available to make the transition from traditional teaching to technology-enhanced teaching. I think that the amount of power that the students have depends on how the teacher is teaching. I feel like this is a give and take situation, where the teacher has to give the students the opportunity to take over their own learning.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I thought it was wise to give the teachers in the tech-filled environment so much support as sought to teach students in this way. Support (in a variety of ways) is a real need for teachers encountering tech in teaching.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree Susan, the support is what is going to clinch it for teachers. If they do not have that support and are able to seek out resources, they probably will be more hesitant to use it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Make a good point here, Michelle, about the ways that technologies can be used to reinforce traditional methods of teaching or, when used in creative ways, can push students – and teachers – into more innovative thinking. Again, it depends on what we are using the technology for and asking students to do with it that matters.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Hi Michelle,
You make a nice observation. The study describes the technology as laptops, but does not go into detail on the software being used. In my opinion the software and method in which the individuals interface with the technology is more important that the physical technology itself. Perhaps this was covered more in depth in the full article.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In, Canelos et al (1989), the authors designed the study using an experimental design. The study had 180 participates which were randomly assigned to instructional treatment groups consisting of 20 students or a control group consisting of 20 students. This allowed for eight test groups and one control group. I was a little surprised that the study directly named the university where the sample group was selected. I was doubly surprised to see they did not write THE Ohio State University – you know how annoying those guys can be 😊.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
In, Frear et al (1999), the authors designed the study using a quasi-experimental design. This method was selected because the authors conducted a case study on a predefined population of participants. In this case the populations were not randomly assigned and instead were delineated by pre-defined classes. The study used 152 subjects divided into two groups, control and experimental. The control group was the overwhelming majority consisting of 113 students (74%). This group received the traditional lecture-style of instruction. The experimental group, comprising of 39 students (26%), were provided instruction using interactive media in place of the traditional lecture-style delivery.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In, Shapley et al (2011), the authors designed the study using an experimental design. The study had a very large sample size with over six-thousand participants. These participates made up the populations of 42 middle schools which were assigned to either control or test groups. These schools were divided evenly to make a control group of 21 schools and an experimental group of 21 schools. I was a little surprised that the authors cited a range of populations instead of expressly stating the raw numbers. This is probably an insignificant critique of the Methods section, but the authors describe a 3% potential variance in the control group population. According to the statement, “approximately 3,000–3,330 students divided nearly equally between the 21 treatment and 21 control schools,” the population of the control group could be off by 100 students.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In, Canelos et al (1989), the study explored technologies effectiveness at delivering imagery cue and facilitating an attention directing strategy. This delivery model provided both self-paced and externally-paced instruction. The study demonstrated the combination of the two strategies were effective in enhancing student achievement. Additionally, the study showed a correlation between embedded strategies and self/external-pace and the measured effect on learning outcomes. These finding illustrate the potential effectiveness for learning strategies of imagery cues and attention directing to be implemented either together or independently. The study describes the benefits mainly in terms of teaching and delivering content, but maintains a fairly-balanced focus on student learning and outcomes.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In, Frear et al (1999), the authors explored the effectiveness of interactive multimedia instruction on driving achievement and problem solving skills. The study demonstrated that interactive multimedia had a positive correlation with both achievement and problem solving skills. This has strong implications for students learning in an independent setting or in a distance education environment. The use of media to emulate a “real world situation” was potentially able to make the material more tangible and relevant to the students.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think this was a great summary description. Aside from the technology, the authors were attempting to create an authentic experience based on their rich knowledge of the subject matter.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In, Shapley et al (2011), the authors explored the effect of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning outcomes. The scale of the study was rather impressive. Aside from the large sample size of 42 schools, the experimental groups received an impressive amount of resources. 21 middle schools received laptops for students and teachers, instructional/learning support, professional development, and pedagogical support. The study demonstrated that technological immersion was correlated with improved technological proficiency. In reading this article, I kept thinking back to Clark, 1994. I know this was not the intention of the study and would have complicated the study; however, I would have been interested in seeing two test groups – one with and one without pedagogical training / professional development. This could have potentially highlighted the impact of immersion alone and what role effective pedagogy plays in the process.
Clark, R. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Ryan, this is a great idea and I thought the emphasis on professional development was a strong point in the article as well.
This also reflects the modern view the authors adopt. It would be difficult to argue that laptop integration alone would improve outcomes. Taking the Clark perspective definitely challenges the authors to distinguish between integration and pedagogy.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
HI everyone, sorry for showing up late to the discussion. There has been some discussion of the population and sampling methods used in the design, so I won’t address that. I was interested in this excerpt because the researchers were measuring achievement in regard to heart anatomy.
We ran a similar study looking at EKG analysis. While it does not go into great detail here I would be interested to see how the achievement was measured. It says there were five tests, but I’d be interested in knowing what the test consisted of – multiple choice, vocab, etc.
We ran a fifteen question pre-post test that was the same both times. The control was 50 students who experienced the lecture traditionally. Another 50 students experienced an elearning module with the same content. After both groups met for an active learning portion. We found that there was no significant difference in modality. We viewed this as overall positive since the elearning module offered more flexibility for the instructor, since they did not need to lecture.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I feel the technology interventions are well described in the article sampling. These interventions reminded me of much of the work that Richard Mayer and colleagues have done on the effects of multimedia on learning. The results of their reseach has led to the creation of 12 Principles of Multimedia Learning.
One of these principles is that people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone. This research (while conducted earlier) supports Mayer’s findings. Additionally, an explanation for the two strategies not working as well in concert might be explained by cognitive overload, a principle Mayer based these principles on. I think the study does well providing further evidence of these principles.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I thought this design was interesting since, I believe it looked at both achievement and the correlation between this achievement and logical thinking.
The quasi-experimental design likely resulted from having the participants at hand.
On first read it appeared both groups took pre and post tests on the subject matter and also completed the GALT instrument. This would have provided the researchers plenty of data to work with and test the intervention- the interactive media program.
This design would also be superior to simply pre-post achievement measurements because it would also utilize an instrument that is pre-existing in the literature.
However, after looking a bit closer, it appears that the GALT instrument is actually the pre-post measurement. While this is still a solid design, I think comparing test scores between control and treatment groups would be a nice addition.
Instead, they report achievement in course grade. This, combined with GALT scores provided a few different ways to look at the correlation of various data.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think the creative use of the GALT instrument was a strong feature of this study. I also applaud the effort to integrate an interactive module into a course, especially at this early stage of the internet.
However, I do think that there is a bit of bias in the writing. This might be improved by changing a few passages. The tone suggests that they believe they created a great module and set out to prove that it improved outcomes. I don’t question the findings at all, just think that when research has a pre-conceived mission, it can lose credibility.
That said, the module clearly increased logical thinking in the treatment group, so the authors have a right to be excited to share the findings.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The research design is well documented in this study. The experimental design is explained thoroughly and the research questions are clearly stated. I also found it interesting that the author mentioned that the research design actually distinguished their research from previous literature.
Another aspect I found interesting was the use of a school as a participant. This level of participant is less used than the student level. Comparing schools in this way allowed the research to have more macro view of the research questions.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment