Technology Effect on Students’ Enthusiasm: Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

While assessing the completed action research project, a researcher receives opportunities to pay attention to the possible strengths and weaknesses of the finished study (Glanz, 2014). The purpose of this report is to evaluate the action research conducted by Jane Hollis on the problem of technology effects on students’ enthusiasm that was published in 1995. The report discusses the area of focus, research questions, the locus of control, data collection strategies, ethics, the reflective stance, action, and personal reflection.

Area of Focus

The purpose of Hollis’s (1995) action research is to describe the technology effects on the students’ enthusiasm that is related to studying sciences. Hollis (1995) referred to class and home activities associated with learning science. This area of focus involves both teaching and learning because the attention is paid to the teacher’s methods of integrating the technology and to changes in students’ learning. Such an area of focus allows determining how the teacher’s interventions can directly affect the students’ learning (McNiff, 2013). This approach is effectively used in the discussed study.

Research Questions

The main research question for the study is how the implementation of technologies in the science course can affect the students’ enthusiasm related to learning the course topics (Hollis, 1995). It is possible to note that Hollis succeeded in answering the question using the available resources (Mills, 2014). The reason is that she focused on answering such additional sub-questions as changes in students’ attitudes to learning sciences and differences in studying sciences in the class and at home.

Locus of Control

While speaking about Hollis’s (1995) locus of control, it is important to state that she controlled the variables. Thus, Hollis could change the technology integration according to her purpose, as well as changing conditions and environments to observe certain effects. Despite problems with the availability of technologies, the issue was resolved, and this aspect allowed full control over the study because of the possibilities to manipulate the intervention strategy (Mettetal, 2012). The only uncontrolled area was the students’ performance at home; thus, the area of focus was mostly within Hollis’s locus of control.

Data Collection

Hollis (1995) used such quantitative data collection tools as pre- and post-surveys for students and their parents, and such qualitative tools as comments on experiences and teacher observations. The combination of three data collection approaches based on quantitative and qualitative data allowed the generalization of results based on the survey data presented in numbers and percentages and explanation of results with references to comments and notes (Mills, 2014). These approaches were used effectively, and they provided full data to answer the research question.

Ethics

Although Hollis (1995) did not describe any ethical issues encountered in the research, it is possible to discuss ethical challenges related to the areas of the teacher-teacher communication, teacher-student communication, teacher-parent communication, and parent-student communication. To achieve credible study results, Hollis (1995) needed to develop cooperative relationships based on respect and dignity with colleagues and parents. Communicating with students, the researcher needed to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding to involve students in the process (MacDonald, 2012). She also needed to pay attention to relationships between parents and students to analyze the study results appropriately and avoid ignoring parents’ and students’ interests.

Reflective Stance

Hollis (1995) aimed at supporting the idea that technologies, especially multimedia technology, could influence students’ enthusiasm directly, resulting in a desire to learn science. The action research added to her reflective stance in terms of explaining how the integration of technologies selected according to students’ needs and interests can influence both teaching and learning. Hollis (1995) noted that technology can have real positive effects on improving the teaching instructions and involving students in the learning process. The researcher also concluded the tools appropriate for middle school students. Thus, she stated that students could benefit significantly from cooperation while using multimedia technologies and other available software.

Action

After completing the study, Hollis (1995) focused on opportunities for the active integration of the multimedia component in her everyday science lessons. The researcher also noted her interest in researching other associated areas in using technologies for teaching and learning.

Action-Data Connection

Hollis’s (1995) notes regarding expanding opportunities for using technologies in the class are the results of the conducted research and interpretation of observations. She answered the question regarding the effectiveness of using technologies to contribute to learning sciences and proposed actions to increase the technology application in the classroom. She found a positive correlation between technology use and increases in students’ enthusiasm. However, she also noted the limits associated with the funding that can prevent teachers from further actions and the effective integration of technologies.

Reflection: Learning

While evaluating the research, I paid attention to data collection tools and justification for using them. The researcher’s approach influenced my choice of data collection methods. I also learned how to interpret the study results in order to plan further action. I focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses in the research.

Reflection: Application

The evaluation experience allowed me to identify drawbacks in my own study associated with the selection of data collection tools and explanation of intervention phases. I focused on how Hollis (1995) described her intervention and what steps were accentuated. I also plan to apply the received knowledge while completing the section associated with the analysis and interpretation of results as I needed an example of this practice.

Conclusion

Hollis’s study was assessed in this paper. The evaluation of the other researcher’s study is important to determine the areas which need to be emphasized in the individual action research. Therefore, the overall experience can be discussed as useful.

References

Glanz, J. (2014). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to school improvement. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hollis, J. L. (1995). Sample action research report 1: Effect of technology on enthusiasm for learning science. Web.

MacDonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34-50.

McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mettetal, G. (2012). The what, why and how of classroom action research. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 6-13.

Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Click Here To Order Now!