One on One Computing

This weeks blog pertains to one on one computing. I found this to be of particular interest because I am a science teacher. As educators we are often given the task of incorporation of technology with blinders on so to speak. Without knowing the "big plan" or technology vision of our educational facility (Roblyer and Doering, 2012). The article reviewed this week takes a much closer examination of the data behind a lot of theories that are incorporated throughout our classrooms. Although, many of us integrate various technologies within our classrooms the effectiveness can be driven by many factors! 1. Provide the complete article title and author. Drayton, B., Falk, J., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After installation: Ubiquitous computing and high school science in three experienced, high-technology schools. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(3), 1-57. 2. State the intended audience. (What is empirical research and how does it help the classroom?) Empirical research is a way to gain quantitative and qualitative information through observation or experience. Empirical research is especially useful in the educational setting because it applies hypothesis testing and techniques to authentic learning environments. This type of genuine reearch povides valid data that allows educators to determine if the outcomes and gains implied by the data are really worth the implementation of the techniques being researched. The intended audience for this particular audience would include anyone working in a K-12 educational environment with a particular focus on the sciences (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). 3. What is/are the research question/questions or hypothesis/hypotheses? 1. In schools with established, ubiquitous computing environments, what technology tools were employed with what frequency, and what was the percieved value of each? 2. How does the technology add value for science education in these schools? 3. What challenges did teachers encounter in using their technology suite in their teaching of science? 4. Describe the subject (participants) and the procedures (methods) used by the researcher(s)? The participants used in this three year study were from three different schools. The first school was a public pilot school with aproxametely 300 students from racially and economically dverse communities. The school is a rural public high school that serves 419 students from seven surrounding rural towns in a fairly new facility that incorporated a technology plan. The school’s popultaion is 98% caucasion with the median income within the third lower for the state. The final school included in the study was a private school where 80% of the study population are boarded from 33 different states and 12 different countries (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). The first goal of the research team was to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the individual school’s technlogy plan, the goals technology was intended to meet, as well as the projected benefits for both teachers as well as the students. To add validity to this research study the technology coordinators were also asked to provide feedback concerning the implementation of technology within various categories. Information obtained was parallel with each schools outline from adminstrative intervews and planning documents (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). The research is based on both quanitative and qualitative data gained over the three year span and incorporates data from the 14 high school science teachers from the three different schools. The data was collected using various research techniques including: teacher questionnaires, teacher logs, student questionnaires, focus groups, vignettes, teachers’ review, observations, interviews, documentation, and data anlysis (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). 5. What were the conclusions of the researchers? Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions? Support your position. The research from this study indicated that teacher and student use of technology was not attributed to technology access but to individual teacher practices. This also reiterates the critical need of encompassed within the organization to understand the ”big picture” (Roblyer and Doering, 2012). When reviewing how widespread computing benefits science learning outcomes the most noted benefit indicated by the research was the incorporation of the Web within the classrooms. The incorporation of images and videos from the Web were noted as well. The most commonly used data tool was Excel. Yet, the incorporation of speadsheets within the curriculum was rare. As far as challenges and henderinces encoutered by the teachers within this study most reported continued techinical issues as well as the time needed to access and review new resources incorporated (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). This type of sunstantial teacher investment and teacher traing was also noted as one of the keys to making it a practice within the classroom (Roblyer and Doeing, 2012). 6. What suggestions for further research do the authors suggest? What other suggestions for future research would you suggest? Upon refelection, the authors note several suggested areas for future research. The first is the implementation of one on one laptops for all as well as access to the Web for all. The second, is that even though all three schools are vastly different in both their demographics and sicioeconomic factors the individual students technology skills did expand once student skill and interest was peaked. The third, is that although each teachers pratices differed greatly their incorporation of technology within the classroom did to some extent dictate the mastery level taught for the most part. The fourth and final, incorporates the school as a whole and its cohesiveness concerning the implementation of technology throughout the building is parallel with and key to its incorporation within the classroom (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010). Research also suggests that schools offering continued technical assistance, professional development, and teachers willing to try and implement the technology had the greatest impact ( Roblyer and Doeing, 2012).