My third article review is The Effects of Computer Graphics Organizers on the Narrative Writing of Elementary School Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. I appreciate the specific nature of this study and found it quite interesting. The paper begins with basic information concerning difficulties with writing (and more specifically the process of writing) for people with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). The authors (Gonzalez-Leto, Barbetta, and Unzueta) were only able to find five prominent studies on this subject and only three of these included students with SLDs. Although all of these studies showed a positive (only based on attitude) or positive (quantitative) outcome of the use of computer based graphic organizers, I found the limited overall number of participants to be concerning. The largest group (24 students) was in the study which only presented data on the attitude of the students toward the writing process. The other two studies had 12 and 4 students, not a significant study group, in my opinion. I hoped that this study would be on a larger group, but only 4 students were included in this study. The study is detailed and appears to follow valid research techniques, including interobserver agreement testing, and uses a number of quantitative measures to determine increase quality of writing, I am also concerned about the limitations section of the study. This section notes that due to the limited typing abilities, the participants hand wrote their compositions instead of typing them while viewing the diagrams created by the computer graphic organizers. This says to me that the computer was not necessarily the reason for the positive outcome. Perhaps the provided outline (The outline appears to have a great deal of information in it,. I cannot determine from this paper which parts of the outline were pre-populated and which were filled out by a participant, but feel the sentence sections were pre-populated.) with its pre-populated questions, even in paper form, might have produced the same positive results.
I understand that this article is a peer-reviewed study. However, I wonder if the extremely limited number of students or the lack of typing ability (which affected the use of the computer, as intended) made the author's question the time and effort put into this study. I know I would have questioned the usefulness of the study.
Gonzalez-Ledo, M., Barbetta, P. b., & Unzueta, C. H. (2015). The Effects of Computer Graphic Organizers on the Narrative Writing of Elementary School Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(1), 29-42.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Technology Implementation Project
Technology
Implementation Unit Project
Technology
Description
The
technology I will integrate into my lesson is ElectroCity,
found at http://www.electrocity.co.nz/. The website describes ElectroCity as an online game developed
specifically for teachers and students. Students build and manage their own
virtual towns and cities, making decisions about energy generation,
environmental management, supply and demand, budgeting and more.
ElectroCity is free and can be played on any
computer that has Flash 8 or higher installed. From the ElectroCity site, it’s easy for teachers to
set up and manage, teachers register once and students do not need to register
at all. The site follows with, “There's
no
correct way to play and many different approaches can lead to success. This is
not a game of right and wrong, but of pros and cons.”
The
site continues, “Students will
deal with delayed reward versus instant gratification and face many other
classic real-world dilemmas. Two
games
are never the same. The landscape varies each game, random events affect your
progress and there are so many interesting decisions to be made that you'll
always want to try 'just one more time'. To
get
the highest score you have to play the game in a balanced and realistic way.
You need to listen to your citizens, grow your city, maintain a healthy cash
flow and care for the environment.”
If
you're worried about your internet connection in class, you can download a
limited version of the game that runs on any computer and doesn't need internet
access. Note:
Cities built with these offline versions cannot be saved, and will not be added
to the site.
Technology
Implementation Lesson Plan
In groups,
students will decide how to best build and maintain their virtual city, so that
they balance the city’s growth with its environmental impact.
Instructional
Objectives
After
completion of the project, 80% of students will receive a passing score on the
Unit 6 curriculum based assessment on the impact of people on the
ecosystem. Covers Science TEKS 5.9 -
Organisms and environments. The student knows and understands that living
organisms within an ecosystem interact with one another and with their
environment.
Intended
Audience
Fifth
grade Science
Learning
Theories/Instructional Design Model
ADDIE,
Constructivism
Anticipated
Lesson Time
jigsaw strategy study of various
energy sources – 45-60 minutes
whole
group lesson on How to Play game – 30-45 minutes
group
planning – 30-45 minutes
game
play – 2 45 minute lessons
writing/survey
– 30-45 minutes
TOTAL
– 210-285 minutes
Lesson
Details
Jigsaw
strategy
(https://www.jigsaw.org/)
will be used to divide groups into
separate learning groups to study various energy sources (see below), including
environmental impact information. ElectroCity was created in New Zealand, so some of the terminology is different and should
be correlated to US terms. In addition, the game allows for the use of two
types of energy which are not significant US energy sources. Teachers must
determine whether to use these energy sources. Although they are not available
in US, allow their use in this game could increase awareness of these
eco-friendly methods. (Analysis from ADDIE)
includes energy created by heat, including:
Coal (39% of US energy sources 2014*)
Natural gas (27% of US energy sources 2014*)
Geothermal (0.4% of US energy sources 2014*)
Biomass (1.7% of US energy sources 2014*)
Petroleum (1% of US energy sources 2014*)
Other gases
(<1% of US energy sources 2014*)
4.4% of US energy sources 2014*
19% of US energy sources 2014*
6% of US energy sources 2014*
0.4% of US energy sources 2014*
not a significant US energy source 2014*
not a significant US energy source 2014*
Continuing
the
Jigsaw Method, students will return to their group to teach each other about
the energy sources they studied
(constructivist
method of student led learning). When this is complete, the teacher will
present the How To Play portion of ElectroCity
(http://www.electrocity.co.nz/HowToPlay/)
to the class, making sure to define the 4 categories that are scored and
emphasizing a game is complete after 150 turns. Additionally, the students
should understand while it takes 3-6 turns to build many things, multiple
builds can occur at the same time.
Using
this
knowledge, groups will determine how to build their city (using the given 150
turns) and the priority (1-4) their team puts
on each of the 4 categories (security of supply
(avoiding blackouts), popularity (how happy your citizens are), population,
and environmental impact). (Design from
ADDIE)
Once plan
is completed, groups will work together to create
and maintain their city (using Electrocity)
and learn the final grades on the 4 categories
and their overall grade. (Development and integration from ADDIE)
Follow-up
Upon
completion, each student will write a 1 page paper
comparing the priorities set on each category
with the outcome. (Evaluation from ADDIE) A teamwork survey will also be
conducted, to verify all students participated.
Given
more time, an additional design, development, and integration phase would be
completed. Teachers could offer extra credit for an additional game with higher
scores based on knowledge gained.
*The U.S.
Energy
Information Administration. (March 31, 2015).
Retrieved
from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Article Review #2
Article Review
Ely, E.E., Pullen, P.C., Kennedy, M.J., & Cole Williams, M. (2015). A Multimedia Tool to Deliver Professional Development of Vocabulary Instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(1), 59-72.
This is a very thorough article on research done concerning the effectiveness of a specific multimedia approach to deliver professional development. The authors chose the use of evidence-based vocabulary instruction as their study topic. Details about the general lack of research on effective professional development delivery, failure of many teachers to use evidence-based reading practices, and lack of effective vocabulary instruction in schools is included. Difficulty moving effective practices from research to classroom and the general ineffectiveness of most professional development are also covered.
The authors include information from previous studies concerning ways to bridge the research-to-practice gap. They include information from a study in 2000 that called the current understanding of how to promote sustainable use of evidence-based practices, emerging after 30 years of research. Basic guidelines which have been established over this time period concerning effective PD are given and the authors point out how vague and broad these are. Research on teachers watching video of themselves teaching and then reflecting is discussed as effective, however the limited studies on use of video when other teachers model instruction is also detailed.
This article gives a great amount of information on how the videos were produced, and the theories behind the reasoning. The article also includes the online address of the video, so readers can view it. The video was produced using specific guidelines, from previous research, and these guidelines are also included in the article. Data about the participants, setting, baseline, intervention, and post-intervention are given. Discussion about how and why the data was collected, is also included. The checklist used to collect the data is also included. With all of this information included in the article, the study is quite easy to understand.
The results of the study were positive, and detailed in the article. The authors clearly understood the limitations of their study, including the limited number of participants and discussed them. Future research implications are also discussed.
This article was extremely interesting to me, because of the topic of effective professional development (PD). I lead PD on classroom management and behavior each year for my campus and will be presenting at Region 10 this summer. I have often worried about the effectiveness of my presentations and wondered how to get the teachers in the training to implement the information presented.
The in-depth discussion of research on vocabulary instruction and professional development, were very interesting to me. The authors point out current reform efforts focusing on professional development, a very current and controversial topic. I, personally, have had little professional development I found to be useful or I carried forward into my classroom. The occasional training I did find useful have been high cost, outside of the district training. Any research into how to provide professional development which will effect my classroom quickly and continue long-term is important research to me and to my students.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Article Review 1
Having a background in software engineering, I have experienced the extreme ratio of men to women in engineering, firsthand. I have also heard the occasional news story addressing single-gender education and the benefits to girls in mathematics. So, when I came across an article titled Female Students' Experiences of Computer Technology in Single- versus Mixed-Gender School Settings, I knew I had to review it.
Burke and Murphy (2006) conducted a small study of female students who had experienced both mixed-gender and single-gender computer use in the classroom. The 12 students who volunteered for this study had all used computers in a mixed-gender setting in junior high and were currently in a grade 12 class on Communications' Technology in a single-gender school. The data collected was via a questionnaire, an interview, and a focus group.
The article cites several previous studies that led to this study. Among these are studies on gender inequality in math, science, and technology, studies on the growth of technology in the workplace, and information on the low percentage of women in computer science. This allows anyone, regardless of their personal experiences, to understand the need for research in this area.
The questions and responses fell into the three areas of attention, confidence, and learning. The researchers concluded the girls felt they received more attention, felt more confident, and indicated they felt they were given more complex tasks, which resulted in more learning. These findings were similar to previous studies involving single-gender education.
One criticism I have concerning this research is the small sample. With a study of only 12 students, and all in the same current single-gender class setting, many things could have led to the feelings expressed by the students. Perhaps the teacher they had currently was simply better at giving attention, building confidence, and teaching than the teachers they had previously. The ratio of students to teachers, computers to students, and available technology could have all been contributing factors to the feelings of the students. Additionally, the general feelings of students in junior high versus students in their senior year of high school are significantly different, in my experience.
The authors do acknowledge the feelings of the students toward their school in general and the size of the school (much smaller than their previous schools) could have changed the general feelings of the participants. They also feel it might be of value to conduct further research between two high schools (one of mixed-gender and one of single-gender) comparing the perceptions of the students toward technology and the actual learning of these students.
Overall, the article was worth reading, but led me to more questions than answers. I hope to find additional studies in this area, with larger study groups and less variables. In my area of interest, special education, I am not certain the discrepancy between the feelings of females toward technology in single-gender and mixed-gender classes would exist. I would love to see a study to confirm this, but in my experience of 50+ special education students, gender discrepancy of any kind has not been a concern. Perhaps the low developmental (and social) level of my students would explain this lack of discrepancy.
Reference:
Burke, L. & Murphy, E. (2006). Female students’ experiences of computer technology in single- versus mixed-gender school settings. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, v9, n1.
Burke and Murphy (2006) conducted a small study of female students who had experienced both mixed-gender and single-gender computer use in the classroom. The 12 students who volunteered for this study had all used computers in a mixed-gender setting in junior high and were currently in a grade 12 class on Communications' Technology in a single-gender school. The data collected was via a questionnaire, an interview, and a focus group.
The article cites several previous studies that led to this study. Among these are studies on gender inequality in math, science, and technology, studies on the growth of technology in the workplace, and information on the low percentage of women in computer science. This allows anyone, regardless of their personal experiences, to understand the need for research in this area.
The questions and responses fell into the three areas of attention, confidence, and learning. The researchers concluded the girls felt they received more attention, felt more confident, and indicated they felt they were given more complex tasks, which resulted in more learning. These findings were similar to previous studies involving single-gender education.
One criticism I have concerning this research is the small sample. With a study of only 12 students, and all in the same current single-gender class setting, many things could have led to the feelings expressed by the students. Perhaps the teacher they had currently was simply better at giving attention, building confidence, and teaching than the teachers they had previously. The ratio of students to teachers, computers to students, and available technology could have all been contributing factors to the feelings of the students. Additionally, the general feelings of students in junior high versus students in their senior year of high school are significantly different, in my experience.
The authors do acknowledge the feelings of the students toward their school in general and the size of the school (much smaller than their previous schools) could have changed the general feelings of the participants. They also feel it might be of value to conduct further research between two high schools (one of mixed-gender and one of single-gender) comparing the perceptions of the students toward technology and the actual learning of these students.
Overall, the article was worth reading, but led me to more questions than answers. I hope to find additional studies in this area, with larger study groups and less variables. In my area of interest, special education, I am not certain the discrepancy between the feelings of females toward technology in single-gender and mixed-gender classes would exist. I would love to see a study to confirm this, but in my experience of 50+ special education students, gender discrepancy of any kind has not been a concern. Perhaps the low developmental (and social) level of my students would explain this lack of discrepancy.
Reference:
Burke, L. & Murphy, E. (2006). Female students’ experiences of computer technology in single- versus mixed-gender school settings. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, v9, n1.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Final Post
Because my name is unique, my vanity search still shows my information. I see some new information, such as my Twitter account, but basically it is still the same information. I do see a slight expansion of my information, but since I used the same blog as a previous class, I still see 95% of the same information. I appreciate that my vanity search includes my information only, and not someone else's. I find this to be a lucky break of a unique name.
I have learned about a great number of web 2.0 tools that will be valuable to my future endeavors. I still struggle with the value added from Twitter, but have really enjoyed learning about Protopage. Protopage has given me the ability to organize a large number of web links into one visual page. I feel this is the most valuable web 2.0 tool that I discovered.
There are many other tools I enjoyed learning about this semester that will contribute to my classroom. These include NearPod and ShowMe. These tools allow my students to create activities from their learning and me to share learning with them in a controlled environment. In general I am glad I have explored these tools and feel they will serve me and my students a great deal.
There are many other tools I enjoyed learning about this semester that will contribute to my classroom. These include NearPod and ShowMe. These tools allow my students to create activities from their learning and me to share learning with them in a controlled environment. In general I am glad I have explored these tools and feel they will serve me and my students a great deal.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Adventures in Social Bookmarking
This week's adventure has been easier than some of the others. I like the idea of being able to access bookmarks on the many computers that I use each week. I have previously sent site addresses from myself via email, which takes a lot more effort than diigo does. In addition, these sites are saved for me with additional information (my notes and tags), which I love. I would love to introduce diigo to other ALE teachers in my district and begin a group with them! Excited about this tool!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)