Artile Review - EDU 6240

Hogg, N., & Lomicky, C. S. (2012). CONNECTIVISM IN POSTSECONDARY ONLINE COURSES: An exploratory factor analysis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2), 95-114,131. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1283786998?accountid=26354




Summary/Reflection


The article presents a study in which 465 postsecondary students’ experiences with online courses and their opinions on the level of “connectivism”” present in their experiences are explored.  The article cites that as of 2011, nearly one third of all students in higher education took at least one online course.    Additionally, in 2011, 65% of all higher education institutions indicated that online learning is a key element of their long-term plans.  This study set out to measure the extent at which instructors change their approach from traditional strategies used in face-to-face instruction when transitioning into the online environment.

According to the article’s review of the literature, students and instructors alike have positive perceptions of online course effectiveness.  Additionally, students tend to respond positively to the types of technology tools available and utilized in online learning.  Furthermore, students with higher levels of interaction with their classmates in the online environment felt that more learning took place.  The literature also contends that interaction amongst peers in an online environment has benefits not seen in the traditional face-to-face setting, due to the fact that students who are shy may feel more inclined to interact.  This, in turn, will facilitate a rich and diverse dialogue involving all students, rather than just those who are the most talkative. I personally feel that many students would be more inclined to participate in an honest way from behind a computer screen rather than when physically seated amongst peers.

The article also cites a study suggesting that the quality of interaction in an online setting made a greater impact on academic performance than the quantity of interaction.  I found it interesting that this same study indicated that interaction with classmates is not as important to the participants as the interaction with their instructor.  A different study mentioned in this article also suggested that learning outcomes were positively affected by the amount of instructor participation.  These studies make a case for the importance of meaningful student-to-student interaction and committed instructor participation in order to optimize student success in the online setting.

As part of this study, a 60-question survey was administered to 465 participants.  The survey questions were framed using Downes’ properties of connectivism, which include diversity, autonomy, interactivity, and openness.  After a factor analysis of survey results was conducted, the data indicated that students identified the presence of autonomy and openness in their online course experiences.  However, the diversity component was lacking, and interactivity failed to distinguish itself as a factor.

It is not surprising to me that students view autonomy as a factor in their online learning experiences.  Students engaging in online learning are placed at the center of their own learning by the very nature of this mode of instruction.  As described by the author, openness involves the tools that eliminate the boundaries in the learning environment.  The article states that students indicated that the technology tools utilized were varied and adequate.  The article doesn’t mention the types of courses that the students selected for this study were enrolled in, but I am curious how math students would feel about the effectiveness of the technology tools utilized for online course instruction.

I wasn’t too surprised that students felt a lack of diversity in their online learning experiences, although I believe the presence of diversity in any course depends heavily on the course type.   For example, diversity would be much more prevalent in a social science course compared to a math course.  I was much more surprised that interactivity was not identified as a factor in students’ online learning experiences.  I believe that interactivity is the key to a successful online experience, both from an instructor’s and from a student’s perspective.  As stated earlier, learning outcomes and teacher-to-student interaction have been found to be positively correlated.  Additionally, students’ satisfaction in the online setting seems to depend on timely and quality interaction with other students and, more importantly, with the instructor. 

 

Article Review #3 - EDU 6250

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015).  Revising the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework.  Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380-393.

Summary

            This article provided a literature review of blended learning and subsequently proposed a framework for blended learning that incorporates elements of complex adaptive systems theory.  The literature review indicated the effectiveness of blended learning and its positive impact on education.  For example, studies have confirmed that learners transform from passive subject to active participants when engaging in a blended learning environment.  On the other hand, the authors' review of literature suggest that the the vast majoring of studies centered around blended learning are of short duration, conducted just at the course or task level, and focus on just one or a few aspects of blended learning.

          The proposed framework, named the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System (CABLS), is a six-dimensional framework that explores the relationships within and between each sub-system in a dynamic and non-linear fashion.  The six subsystems include the learner, the teacher, the technology, the content, the learning support, and the institution.  One large difference between CABLS and other blended learning frameworks is the focus on learning support.  Learning support is provided in two different ways:  Academic support that helps learners develop effective learning strategies and technical support that helps learners utilize the required technology.  Furthermore, the authors contend that by "including the institution as a subsystem in the framework elevates blended learning from the course level to the institutional level."  The institution plays a large role in the development and sustainability of a blended learning framework within the institution.

          The review of 87 articles indicated that 95% of articles focus on the learner, 79% focus on the content, and only 54% focus on the technology.  The percentages begin to drop dramatically, with only 32% of articles focusing on the teacher, and 17% and 15% focusing on the institution and on learning support, respectively.  These results indicate that more in-depth research needs to be conducted that focuses on both the institution and learning support, as well as their relationships with the other subsystems in the framework.  

          Even with the gaps in research detailed above, the overall finding suggest that blended learning has great potential to improve both learning outcomes and learners' attitudes.  Most studies indicated that learners are more engaged, independent, and empowered when engaging in a blended learning environment.  The CABLS framework  is able to "promote a systematic and holistic view of blending learning, providing us with a more complete pictures of such learning."  This framework differs from existing models because it not only examines each subsystem on its own, but it allows us to explore the dynamic and non-linear relationships between these subsystems.  

Reflection

            I believe that the authors did a great job reviewing the literature concerning blended learning.  As a result, their research did point to holes in existing frameworks and brought topics to the forefront for additional research.  I do agree that the institution and learning support would be essential elements to a successful blended learning environment.  It is surprising that research regarding the institution is lacking, because I feel that for any learning technology to be implemented at the program level, there must be strong support from the institution.  I am not surprised, however, that learning support is the least represented among all of the subsystems discussed in this article.  The importance of learning support is often underestimated, but can make a large impact on student success -- sometimes even more so than the affect that the teacher and technology can have on the success of the learner.  

          I would be interested for the authors to write another article detailing strategies to successfully implement their framework.  I believe specific tasks, procedures, and implementation strategies would help get me started if I decide to convert one of my courses to the blended learning environment.  There are many roadblocks that would need to be addressed.  Among these roadblocks are time, institutional and divisional support, professional development, and knowledge.  Time wold be the most significant roadblock for me, and obtaining release time to implement a framework like blended learning is most likely not an option for me.  

Article Review #2 - EDU 6250

Spodark, E. (2003).  Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university.  T H E Journal, 30(8), 14-18.

Summary

          This article discuses five obstacles to integrating technology at a small university in Virginia.  The first obstacle addressed is the lack of a clear vision, which the author contends is the first obstacle to integrating technology campus wide.  Without a clear vision, faculty members are left to implement technology on their own, which leads to disjointed programs that often put a strain on the available technology support system.

          The second obstacle that the author addresses is the lack of leadership.  This obstacle flows directly from the first -- a lack of a clear vision directly results in a lack of leadership.  If an entire university campus aims to transform into a technology-integrated environment, visible leadership from administrators is critical to achieving this goal.  It will be difficult for faculty members alone to create a cohesive, comprehensive technology-rich programs without the leadership and support from senior administration.

         The third obstacle presented is a lack of critical mass of technology.  Faculty needs to have access to technology that can be incorporated into daily instruction, not just computer labs that can be occasionally reserved during class time.  If technology isn't readily available as a permanent fixture in the classroom, faculty members will have the added stress of securing and setting up the technology, which "adds another layer of work on top of an educator's regular teaching duties."  The author points out that as a result, the majority of instructors will not put forth the extra effort required to integrate technology into their curriculum.

          The fourth obstacle listed is a lack of incentive.  Most faculty members are not financially compensated or encouraged to integrate technology into the curriculum.  Some support is provided via compensation professional development activities, but large incentives are usually not provided for transforming curriculum into one that is technology-centered.  Doing this without compensation can lead to faculty burn out, and most faculty members who do make an effort do so because they find a personal sense in fostering student growth and success.

          Lastly, a lack of faculty participation is an obstacle for technology integration.  This is a direct combination of the first four obstacles listed.  Some faculty are resistant to change and are reluctant to integrate technology into their lessons.  Some faculty members are not comfortable enough working with technology and, as a result, hesitate to include it in their instruction.  Other faculty members simply do not believe that technology-rich instruction will have an impact on student learning and performance.  The author contends that if any of the first four obstacles are present, then faculty participation will be "greatly inhibited".

          

Reflection

          As a faculty member at a very large institution, technology as a permanent fixture in the classroom is probably more realistic for me than it is for the author of this article.  I do believe that the other four obstacles in this article apply to me to some degree.  I personally find a lack of incentive to be a large impediment to my own integration of technology in my classroom.  For me, it is not necessarily the absence of monetary compensation, rather a lack of release time necessary to research, learn, obtain, and implement technologies into my curriculum.  I do agree that a lack of leadership could play a major role in the success of a campus-wide technology integration effort, especially at a smaller university.  My place of work is very large, so it may not be realistic to expect higher administration to actively lead such an effort.

            

Article Review #1 - EDU 6250

Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015).  Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom.  TechTrends, 59(2), 32-39.

Summary

            This article examined the effects that the use of three different math apps had on student learning in an inclusive fourth grade classroom.  In the study, each student was supplied with an iPad containing three different math apps focusing on multiplication and decimals.  Students had limited prior experience using iPads in the classroom. Eighteen students from the same classroom participated in this study, including four students with special needs and six at-risk students (students with problematic behaviors or inadequate academic progress).  

            The students used three apps, Splash Math, Motion Math Zoom, and Long Multiplication, in four 80-90 minute class sessions.  The students had been taught the concepts of multiplication and decimals prior to interacting with the apps.  The first 5-10 minutes of each session was spent instructing students how to use the apps.  Paper and pencil assessments were administered to students to measure student performance as a result of using the apps.  In each assessment, students were given a 15-minute pre-test before interacting with the app and then were given 15 minutes to complete the same test after using the apps.  The assessments included questions that were similar, but not identical, to those presented in the apps.  The first assessment included 20 multiple-choice questions on place value in decimals.  The second assessment included 19 multiple-choice questions on comparing and ordering decimals. The third assessment asked students to calculate the product of a two-digit number and a one-digit number.  Additionally, Splash Math tracked student progress and provided a summary for each student.

            The authors conducted paired-sample t-tests that showed a statistically significant improvement in performance across all given assessments.  In Assessment 1, the number of correct answers selected increased from 62% on the pre-test to 85% on the post-test.  In Assessment 2, the number of correct answers selected increased from 56% on the pre-test to 66% on the first post-test and 76% on the second post-test.  In Assessment 3, the number of correct answers selected increased from 51% on the pre-test to 66% on the post-test.  The authors also separated data into a "struggling group", containing the four students with special needs and the six students where were identified as at-risk, and a "typical group".  Although both groups of students improved after using the math apps, the "struggling group" made larger gains in three assessments, thereby reducing the achievement gap between the two groups.

            The authors concluded that the study found "encouraging evidence" on using math apps to improve student learning overall, as well as using math apps to close the achievement gap between typical students and those who struggle.  The authors cited prior research indicating that struggling students benefit from computer-enhanced math intervention.  The authors contend that the very nature of apps, such as self-pacing, immediate feedback, and breaking down tasks into small steps, can be of great benefit to struggling learners.  Furthermore, students were able to repeatedly attempt problems while using the apps, which would be unlikely to occur with paper-and-pencil problem solving.  Students were also more engaged when using the apps and found the apps easy to use.  The authors finally suggest that due to the small sample size and short study duration, these results may not be generalized. Therefore, more studies should be conducted to examine the effectiveness of math apps as a means to improve student learning.

Reflection

            I agree that further studies should be done to truly gauge the effect that math apps have on student success.  I do, however, believe that math apps can have a positive effect on learning and retention, particularly among at-risk students and students with special needs.  I believe that students will be more engaged and interested in the concepts being presented while using an app versus completing problems via the traditional paper-and-pencil model.  I also agree with the authors' prediction that the nature of apps, such as self-pacing, immediate feedback, and breaking down tasks into small steps, has great potential to help all learners (especially those who are at-risk or have special needs).  Students thrive on immediate feedback, and it is nearly impossible to provide immediate feedback using traditional methods.  The fact that math apps can be easy to use and require little up-front operation instruction would make it easier to implement this technology in my classroom, where time is at a premium.  

            In order for math apps to be useful to me personally, I will need to search for apps that include high-level skills.  Since I teach developmental math courses, I believe that apps containing topics that align with my curriculum exist.  One problem I face is the ability to have devices (like iPads) for each of my students.  This is not feasible at my level of instruction.  One way to combat this limitation is to allow students to use their smart phones to access these apps in class.  This would require the existence of free apps that align with concepts taught in my courses.  Of course not every student has a smart phone, but I may be able to access some sort of devices to fill in the holes.

            The study presented in this article was limited in that it only indicated that student performance increased and the achievement gap between different groups of students lessened due to the use of math apps.  This article did not, however, study the impact that math apps have on student learning and retention in comparison to other possible interventions.  I would have been interested in seeing the students split into two groups.  The first group, for example, could be provided with a review lesson from the teacher, followed by traditional problem solving methods.  The second group could be asked to work with the math apps utilized in the study.  I would be interested to see if the app group made significant gains in learning compared to the review lesson group.  This would be a better way to truly gauge the impact that math apps can have on student learning.

Article Review #3 - EDU 6215

Enriquez, A. (2010).  Enhancing student performance using tablet computers.  College Teaching, 58, 77-84.

Summary

            This article examined the effects of the integration of table PCs and wireless technology in classroom instruction. The author refers to this highly interactive model as an Interactive Learning Network (ILN).  The ILN model involves the use of wirelessly networked tablet PCs and NetSupport School, a software application that promotes active participation in the classroom.  Students are able to access the instructor’s presentation, and the instructor is able to immediately assess student understanding by conducting instant student surveys.  Students are then given more in depth problems to solve, either individually or in groups, on their tablets.  Through an input device, students are able to write equations and make sketches and diagrams.  As students work on these problems, the instructor can monitor their work from the instructor’s tablet.  Furthermore, there is a Help Request feature, where students can solicit individual assistance.  Additionally, the instructor can manage student interactions through a group chat, electronic whiteboard, and file transfer features.  Instructors also have the ability to control student computer applications and web activity. 

            Two studies were conducted to measure the effects of the ILN model on both student performance and student attitudes.  The first study involved two circuits courses in a small community college in San Francisco.  The first course met in a spring semester and used a traditional model of instruction.  The second course met the following spring semester and utilized the ILN model.  Results showed a significant difference (p <0.01) in homework and quiz scores, with the ILN course outperforming the traditionally run course.  The average of the four exams for the two courses had no significance differences.  Two of the four exams, however, had statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), with the ILN course again outperforming the traditionally run course.  Additionally, the survey administered at the end of the ILN course showed “overwhelmingly” positive attitudes toward the use of tablets in the classroom.

            The second study compared two sections of a circuits course, both taught by the same instructor but held at two difference colleges.  In both courses, the instructor used a tablet, as well as PowerPoint and Windows Journal presentations within lecture.  The courses varied in that one involved student use of tablets to take notes, solve problems, and interact with the instructor, whereas the other course did not involve student use of tablets.  Pre- and post-tests were administered to students of both sections to measure the knowledge gained throughout the semester.  The pre-test scores for the traditionally run course were slightly higher than those of the ILN course, but there is no significant statistical difference between them.  The average post-test score, however, was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for the ILN group compared to the control group. 

Reflection

            As the author points out, the studies done here are limited.  Further studies should be done in larger institutions (with multiple sections of the same course) to ensure integrity in the experimental design.  Furthermore, studies should be done in different types of courses, especially those involving high levels of critical thinking.  Additionally, other types of software applications that enhance interactivity in the classroom should be considered either on their own or in conjunction with the use of tablets in the classroom.

            This study seemed showed that incorporating an interactive learning environment may have a positive impact on student success.  I have worked with an automatic polling system (i-clickers) that promotes engagement and interactivity in the classroom amongst students and the instructor.  It seems that the ILN model presented in this study has similar implications in the classroom to the polling system.  The drawback with the use of tablets and/or computers in the classroom is that they can prove to be distracting to both the students and instructor.  The NetSupport School software utilized in the first study presented in this article has features that can help minimize this distraction (such as allowing the teacher control over web activity).  This can go a long way in overcoming this issue when a teacher considers implementing similar technologies in their classroom instruction.  I didn’t find it surprising that in the survey given at the end of the ILN course (in the first study) students displayed a negative attitude toward this feature.

          After reading this article, I am strongly considering implementing an ILN model in my classroom.  I especially liked the feature where students can write equations, draw diagrams, and directly interact with the instructor while using the tablets and related software.  The only thing preventing me from trying this model in my classroom at this time is the availability of tables at my school and the associated cost of acquiring them.  This is something that I will look into to determine the feasibility of integrating a similar model into my classroom instruction.  I do believe that it would increase student success, in addition to helping them become more engaged, active participants in the classroom.

Article Review #2 - EDU 6215

Jackson, L. D. (2012). Is mobile technology in the classroom a helpful tool or a distraction?: A report of university students’ attitudes, usage practices, and suggestions for policies. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 8(5), 129-140.

Summary

            In this article, Jackson explores students’ perceptions and practices concerning the use of mobile technology, such as laptops, cell phones, and tablets, in the classroom.  Approximately 100 undergraduate students enrolled in a communication studies course at the California Polytechnic State University were asked to complete a four-page questionnaire anonymously.  The questionnaire contained questions about technology use, websites visited during class, perceptions concerning the use of mobile devices in class, awareness of cheating on tests, and recommendations to educators. 

            In the sample, 98% of students owned a laptop, 90% owned a mobile phone, and 10% owned a tablet.  Mobile phones were regarded as “mostly a distraction” by 76% of students in the sample, whereas 24% regarded them as “mostly a helpful learning tool.”  On the other hand, only 8% of laptop users regarded them as “mostly a distraction”, while the majority regarded them as “mostly a helpful learning tool.”  Lots of other data were presented in this study, but the results indicated overall that students felt that the use of mobile technology should be permitted in the classroom and that they felt annoyed when faculty members ban mobile technology in the classroom altogether.  Students also expressed their opinion that faculty should consider student perspectives when making policies about the use of mobile technology in the classroom.

            Students were asked in an open-ended format to address their negative perceptions of the use of laptops, tablets, or smartphones in the classroom.  Surprisingly, 70% of students admitted that these technologies are distracting to self, 30% indicated that they are distracting to others, and only 6% believed that they are disrespectful to the instructor.  Students indicated that, although these technologies may distract themselves or others, students should have the choice to succumb to these temptations.  After all, they are adults and will suffer the consequences if they misuse these technologies in class.  Students indicated that banning these devices altogether harms those who use them for academic purposes, like efficient note-taking and researching topics presented in class to supplement their learning.  Two comments that really stood out were, “Teach students how to get the most out of technology” and “We should be allowed to use laptops.  Professors who ban devices should consider how we as students have grown up learning.”

            The questionnaire addressed students’ perceptions of cheating.  When asked what types of cheating they were aware of (not necessarily participating in), 25% said they were aware of students looking up answers on a phone in class or in the bathroom, 14% said they were aware of students texting for answers in class, 8% said they were aware of students texting for answers outside of class, and only 0.09% said they were aware of students taking a picture of a test for others.

            Lastly, students were asked to describe faculty policies that they felt were effective and ineffective, as well as make recommendations for instructors.  Students believe that it is not the instructor’s responsibility to maintain the students’ focus.  Furthermore, students indicated that instructors should allow the use of laptops, except during tests.  Students also noted that instructors should state policies clearly, and enforce them.  Additionally, students felt that instructors should discuss with students how to make the most out of technology.

           

Reflection

            This study was very interesting to me for a variety of reasons.  There is much debate, especially amongst post-secondary teachers, about the benefits (or drawbacks) of allowing the use of mobile technology in the classroom.  In fact, this very topic was heavily (and not necessarily respectfully) debated via email amongst many professors at my place of employment.  Some professors argue that mobile technology is a distraction and should not be allowed in the classroom under any circumstances.  On the other hand, other professors argue that mobile technology should be embraced and encouraged within the classroom setting to enhance learning.  This article actually presented data that can be used to corroborate either viewpoint. 

            The study presented in this article focused on students’ perceptions and opinions about the use of mobile technology in the classroom.  I do believe that students should have a voice in the educational environment that they will participate in, but caution should be taken when assessing students’ opinions on their ideal learning environments.  Sometimes students don’t realize the policies, procedures, and instruction tools that would optimize their academic success.  In other words, sometimes students don’t know what’s best for them.  I would be interested in not only measuring students’ perceptions and practices concerning the use of technology in the classroom, but also measuring their academic performance directly resulting from the integration of such technologies in the learning process.  Students’ perceptions of the use of mobile technology and its effect on academic performance must both be considered when measuring the true impact of technology on learning.

            This study also explores the very important question regarding the impact that incorporation of technology has on academic integrity.  As an instructor, this is very concerning to me.  In this study, 25% of students surveyed said they were aware of students looking up answers on a phone in class or in the bathroom, and 14% said they were aware of students texting for answers in class.  These statistics are very concerning.  It is my policy to not allow cell phones in the classroom for these reasons, in addition to my belief that cell phones pose an unnecessary distraction in the classroom.  I do, however, allow students to use laptops during my lectured.  I have students who use laptops to take notes, and if this helps some students to be more efficient, then I’m all for it.  Even though laptops can serve as a distraction to students, they also serve an academic purpose in the classroom.

            As an instructor, I am always seeking ways to make improvements to my policies and teaching style.  I am seeking ways to incorporate technology in the classroom in an efficient and academically sound manner.  I believe this will help in terms of differentiation and, as a student in the study put it, allows students to learn in the manner that they have grown up learning.

Article Review #1 - EDU 6215

Speaker, K. (2004).  Student perspectives: Expectations of multimedia technology in a college literature class.  Reading Improvement, 41(4), 241-254.

Summary

            In this article, Speaker explores the benefits of integrating multimedia into the classroom.  In this study, 150 students enrolled in a literature course at a college in New Jersey completed a survey aimed to measure their attitude toward the use of multimedia in the classroom. The technology group referred to in the study included PowerPoint, overhead images, DVD presentations, and the Internet. 

            Generally, the students favored technology being incorporated into the classroom. The results of the survey showed that 134 out of 150 students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that lectures in which professors use technology are more instructive.  PowerPoint and DVD presentations were the most popular ways to convey material.  According to the study, a student’s preference for the use of multimedia in classroom instruction was not dependent upon their gender or major. 

            One interesting finding of the study was that even though a large majority of student felt that technology aids their learning in the classroom, students indicated that they did not choose classes based on whether the professor utilizes technology in the classroom.  Speaker hypothesized that students don’t choose classes based on technology use for a number of possible reasons.  First, this type of technology might not be available to them, as it may not be included in the course description.  Second, student word-of-mouth may fail to include information on an instructor’s use of technology.  Third, students have requirements to met and scheduling may supersede a students’ desire to learn in a technology-based classroom.

            The author also contends that college students are often far more skilled at using digital media than the instructors themselves.  Instructors are often apprehensive to incorporate multimedia technology into their classroom due to a lack of knowledge, preparation, or confidence.  Speaker cited a study that determined that only 11.3% of the nation’s teachers feel they are skilled enough to incorporate technology into their daily lessons. 

          

Reflection

            I would have liked the study to not only measure student’s opinions about learning in a technology-driven classroom, but one that actually measures their academic achievements in both a traditional classroom and one that integrates technology.  I have explored many different technologies over the past few months that are heavily favored by students, but yet show no actual improvement in their academic achievement.  I do believe, however, that when students feel positively about instruction, then the learning process is overall improved, even if there are no improvements academically.

            I agree with the author that many instructors do not incorporate technology due to a lack of knowledge, preparation, or confidence.  I am interested in utilizing multimedia more regularly in my instruction, but simply do not have enough time to learn the technologies well enough to effectively implement them.  It is also challenging to incorporate some multimedia technologies in a math classroom, such as PowerPoint and DVD presentations.  I do, however, use the overhead projector regularly, but I believe that barely counts as technology in this day of age.  I aim to integrate multimedia technology into my classroom instruction slowly.  At first it will take some class time to implement the technology, but hopefully it will allow me to impart information to students more efficiently as I become more comfortable with it.