Approaches to Research on Technology in Education

Approach	Characteristics
Accolatory	unresearched presuppositions and prejudicesadvocacy viewpoints unsubstantiated claims little critical analysis of practices disinterest and disregard for known quantifiable data
Dismissive	dismissive of computer technologyclaims that computers are “… intrusion, disturbances in the education process, and prone to unintended consequences” view teachers and students as being unduly hampered by the new technology
Mechanistic	has learning founded in rapid task activity pointsdownplays the role of human involvement see the machine as the essential element and education conveyor
General Effects	similar to the mechanistic approachdraws from the common environment and group viewpoint reflects group-think
Technological Literacy	defaults to technologytechnological apparatus are first choice to commence and conclude particular tasks uses lessons that are sequential and are developed with large amounts of technology utilization holds a general view that it is all very progressive. uses technology before exploring the range of options available for the lesson being developed
Contextual	defines the use of technology in the confines and restraints of a learning environment.reflects on the critical needs and/or objectives of the instruction
Evaluative	desires to understand the reasons for applying a particular procedure, software or testestablishes whether there is any statistically significance difference when a technology is used

Article Analysis: Action video game modifies visual selective attention.

GREEN, C S, AND BAVELIER, D., 2003

In 2003, research published by University of Rochester neuroscientists C. Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier suggested that playing action video and computer games has a positive effect of enhancing students’ visual selective attention.

Green and Bavelier’s research was quantitative. Four experiments established changes in different aspects of visual attention in habitual video game players as compared with non-video game players. In a fifth experiment, non-players trained on an action video game showed marked improvement from their pre-training abilities, thereby establishing the role of playing in this effect.

Research question: Does the pressure to act rapidly on several visual items, which is inherent to most action games, alters the ability to process items over time, particularly the ability to avoid “bottlenecks” of attention that often occurs in temporal processing ?

Participants: All males, between 18 to 23 years old

Experimental Group: the video game players (VGPs) had played action video games on at least 4 days per week for a minimum of 1h per day for the previous 6 months.

Control group: the non-video game players (NVGPs) had little and preferentially no video games usage in the past 6 months

Results: Video game players (VGPs) were found to outperform non-video game players (NVGPs) on three tasks of selective attention:

• the localization of an eccentric target among distractors
• the number of visual items they could apprehend at once
• the fast temporal processing of visual information

The emphasis on the statistically significant impact of video games on subjects clearly indicates that this is evaluative research. The authors discuss implications on the field of perceptual learning, showing some interest in the use of technology in the confines and restraints of a learning environment (a contextual approach) but they suggest that it is, “…for future studies of the effect of video-game practice to determine the relative contribution of these different factors to skill learning”. The fact that this research study focused on machine-human interaction and found the increase in skill learning to by primarily a result of rapid task activities, with in instructor present, this study could also be considered as mechanistic in approach.

Reference

GREEN, C S, AND BAVELIER, D. 2003. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature 423 (2003), 534-537, Letters to Nature.http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/Daphne/GreenandBavelier.pdf

Variables in Research

Sometimes I feel as if I am being purposely misled in the readings in this course. Why would we be asked to review an article written in 1988 in which the word “computer” does not appear once?

Having read the article and determined that there are indeed many variables involved in studying any method or tool used in the classroom, I will attempt to come up with a list of variables that could be associated with learning with computers.

Studying individuals:

When studying individual learning in a technology-enabled learning environment, several variables that may be studied are:

• skill level of the learner
• access (to equipment, various programs, the Internet, databases, etc)
• support (specifically hardware support)
• learning styles
• incidental learning (Incidental learning is unintentional or unplanned learning that results from other activities.)
• instructor skills

Studying groups:

If we refer back to topic three, in that topic we looked at how many successful technology-enabled learning environments focus on group collaborative learning. Therefore if we are to study technology’s effect on learning, we may want to consider studying the group rather then the individual. Variables for studying learning groups would include:

• size of the group
• media
• gender issues
• composition of the group

Studying Games-based learning

My proposed research project deals with the use of technology in advancing edutainment and games-based learning. Specific to this topic I may focus on the following variables:

• human-computer interaction
• personality
• age specific content
• media
• physiological aspects of learning
• assessment
• learning spaces
• virtualization

I guess the point is that as I develop my research plan I will have to zero in on what variables I will be able to adequately research.

 

Connectivism

In his article, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”, George Siemens reviews the educational theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism and points out the limitations of each.  He lists significant recent trends in learning and offers a new learning theory which takes into account  the realities of a connected, digital world:

Significant trends in learning:

• Many learners will move into a variety of different, possibly unrelated fields over the course of their lifetime.
• Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.
• Learning is a continual process, lasting for a lifetime. Learning and work related activities are no longer separate. In many situations, they are the same.
• Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.
• The organization and the individual are both learning organisms. Increased attention to knowledge management highlights the need for a theory that attempts to explain the link between individual and organizational learning.
• Many of the processes previously handled by learning theories (especially in cognitive information processing) can now be off-loaded to, or supported by, technology.
• Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed).

 

“Including technology and connection making as learning activities begins to move learning theories into a digital age. We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections.”

 

Principles of Connectivism:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

“Connectivism also addresses the challenges that many corporations face in knowledge management activities. Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right context in order to be classified as learning. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference.”

Reference:

Siemens, George. 2004. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”. elearnspace. Retrieved February 19, 2006 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

 

Individual Learning vs. Group Learning

In this module my learning objectives are to identify the characteristics of ‘learning for individuals’ in contrast to ‘learning with a group’, review the effects this has on computer based research approaches, and develop a perspective for how learning in advancing network technology presents a challenge to methods of conducting research.

I’ve read through the postings to date and I think a lot of people had the same problem I did. The first question seemed to be asking us to describe ‘learning styles’. (I finally see that it is asking for the characteristics of individual learning versus group learning.)

Of course, once you get teachers talking about learning styles, we quickly forget that this module is actually about the research challenges faced when you move from researching learning in a classroom to researching technology-enabled learning.

I felt that the Klemm and Snell article was somewhat out of date (I don’t believe it is still accurate to say that threaded discussion groups are the way elearning ‘usually’ takes place). This article didn’t really contribute to my understanding of research issues. Dr. Elizabeth Murphy from MUN has published several significant studies into online discussion groups which updates Klemm and Snell’s work. For instance her article, Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion deals with “identification and measurement of collaboration”. I think that’s the issue here: What should we be looking at when we are researching technology enabled learning? How do we go about measuring it? Are there measuring instruments available or do we have to develop them?

The article by  Del Litke, “Virtual Schooling At The Middle Grades: A Case Study” also provides a good example of ‘better quality’ research. The description of the research design for this study is comprehensive and explains the intent of the research, the methodologies, the data sources, and Litke even addresses any bias that might arise from the fact that he conducted this study from inside the school system.

I liked the phase “new points of observation on learning” that was in the module notes. When we’re not looking at students from the front of the classroom where should we be looking? What should we be looking for (or researching)?

While I initially had a problem understanding the questions posed for this module, I feel they eventually guided my thinking and led me to some analysis of where I’m going in this course.

References

 

Klemm, W. R. and Snell, J. R. (1996). “Enriching Computer-Mediated Group Learning by Coupling Constructivism with Collaborative Learning.” Journal of Instructional Science and Technology 1:2. 
 Litke, Del. (1998). “Virtual Schooling At The Middle Grades: A Case Study.” Journal of Distance Education 0830-0445. 
 Murphy, E. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology 35(4): 421–431, 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/bjet_401.pdf

 

Influences and Philoshophers

Influences 

Constructivism

Constructivism is an epistemology that asserts that the learner constructs his own knowledge. Constructivism builds learning on the students’ prior knowledge and emphasizes hands-on problem solving. Constructivism in educational research would influence us to focus on scaffolding students’ learning. Constructivism encourages us to analyze, interpret, and predict information and encourages development of new knowledge.

 

Zeitgeist

A Zeitgeist denotes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era. As an influence to educational research, it may refer to the extent to which prevailing educational theory reflects the values and norms of a society and impacts research.

Digital Zeitgeist

Digital Zeitgeist refers to the impact of digital communications. Easy access to digital knowledge and prior research impacts the data available for new research. Digital communications impacts the possible avenues for investigation.

Formalism (as related to research)

The word formalism has been used to describe an educational system with a strict and overarching structure. Formalism in educational practice would hold that there is benefit in standardization of curriculum and assessments.

One may also refer to formal research:  “Formal research is undertaken by researchers and practitioners to contribute to an established and general knowledge base. Practical inquiry is undertaken by practitioners to improve their practice.” (Virginia Richardson,  Conducting Research on Practice)  Formalism in research describes an emphasis on structure and contribution to a known theory.

Positivism

Positivism is a philosophy that states that an objective reality exists and it can be revealed through empiricism. Positivism in educational research would influence us to use scientific methods and to seek predictable, discrete, and measurable results.

“cult of experts”

“Our society worships a cult of experts, which promotes the belief that education is the result of treatment by an institution called a school…In fact, learning does not need manipulation by others. Real learning is a result of experimentation, making mistakes, correcting mistakes, creating hypotheses and proving them” (Wendy Priesnitz)

Qualitative as opposed to quantitative research would be less likely by influenced by the “cult of experts”.

Empowering teachers (in research view)

The pace of technology change requires that teachers are not only practitioners but also researchers in their classrooms. There is a growing recognition that practical research conducted in the classroom is valid; it is also easily sharable using digital communications.

Phenomenology

The opposite of positivism; all reality is relative to the perspective of the observer. Phenomenology is the basis for interpretive research. Interpretive researchers start out with the assumption that access to reality is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness and shared meanings.

Critical Research

Critical researchers assume that social reality is historically constituted and that it is produced and reproduced by people. Although people can consciously act to change their social and economic circumstances, critical researchers recognize that their ability to do so is constrained by various forms of social, cultural and political domination. The main task of critical research is seen as being one of social critique, whereby the restrictive and alienating conditions of the status quo are brought to light. Critical research focuses on the oppositions, conflicts and contradictions in contemporary society, and seeks to be emancipatory i.e. it should help to eliminate the causes of alienation and domination. (Michael Myers, Qualitative Research in Information Systems )

Philosophers

August Comte (1798-1857)

A founder of sociology, Comte believed all aspects of our world can be known solely through observation and reason. (http://www.thoemmes.com/continental/comte_phil.htm) Comte’s development of positivism influenced the development of twentieth century logical positivism which in turn saw much twentieth century educational research based on the scientific method (with arguable success).

 Henry Giroux (contemporary)

In 1988 Giroux published Teachers As Intellectuals: towards a Critical Pedagogy of Learning.  “Henry Giroux’s considers teachers as central agents in the process of enacting educational reform…The work establishes Giroux’s sound belief that teachers must take on the role of transformative intellectuals who are committed to understanding and engaging the struggles for equality and justice specific to their classrooms, schools, and the communities they serve.” ( Daniel Schugurensky, History of Education )

Madeleine Grumet (contemporary)

Grumet studies feminism and curriculum to examine the possibilities of their mutual influence. Her research focuses on the influence of gender on knowledge and teaching.

Howard Rheingold (contemporary)

I never considered Howard Rheingold an educational philosopher so I did much searching looking for the other Rheingold. There is no other. Howard Reingold has, since the early 1990’s been a proponent of online communities and online social interaction. While educational theory is not his focus, the practical use of online connections is close to his heart. In Building Fun Online Learning Communities he states, “Unless citizens, parents, and educators figure out what to do after we wire all the schools to the Internet, we shouldn’t waste our time and money installing all that expensive technology in the first place.”

Marc Prensky (contemporary)

In 2001 Mark Prensky published Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants and coined the phase that describes a generation who grew up in a digital world. Prensky suggests that the brains of today’s students are physiologically different than those of previous students.   “Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” 

George Siemens (contemporary)

Siemens coined the term Connectivism to describe his new “Learning Theory for the Digital Age” . Siemen states, “Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes should be reflective of underlying social environments.”