Overall, good flow of an article review. The review covers ...



Qualitative Article ReviewCorinne BlakeEDUC 518Professor WoodwardLiberty UniversityQualitative Article ReviewSummaryThis paper is a review of the article entitled “Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study.” The article was co-written by M. Kim and M. Hannafin and published in 2011. “The purpose of this study was to examine how teacher-, peer-, and technology- enhanced scaffolds influence students’ inquiry in problem-based, middle school science classes” (Kim & Hannafin, 2011, p. 257).The location for this study took place in a suburban setting in the Southeastern United States. The classes chosen for the study consisted of two elective science classes for gifted students that were taught in a student-centered format by the same teacher. The two classes were referred to as Class A and Class B. In class A, there were 10 boys and 12 girls and class B contained 15 boys and 12 girls. During the first pre-test survey, 19 students participated. These 19 students were then the final sample selection that was documented throughout the rest of the study. As the location of the study yielded primarily European Americans, all of the participating students were a part of this ethnicity even though this was not an inclusion criterion for this study. This sample of students was selected specifically by the researcher in order to fit the criteria of gender; interest level in the content of the subject and technology; and amount of collaboration among students. The study was focused on a “wolf management” project that spanned for six days. This case study was intended to describe secondary and tertiary impacts on students’ problem solving processes, which makes this case study both descriptive and instrumental. The authors were also looking for information from several factors, such as individual students, teacher, inquiry tools, and students’ projects. Due to this, this study can also be classified as an embedded case study. There were multiple forms of qualitative data incorporated in this case study. Data was collected before, during and after implementation. Examples of collected data include; interview transcripts, participants’ electronic notes and journals, online brochures, researchers’ field notes, and videotapes of students’ group activities. The interviews that were conducted pre-observation and post-observation were 15 to 20 minutes long while the interviews that were performed throughout the implementation of the inquiry project were three to five minutes long. The brochure, videos, journals and notes were all collected after the project had ended. All data collected was analyzed by a constant comparative analysis meaning that the authors verified the information gathered. The results of this study were discussed in two ways. The first method was the different types of inquiry patterns within the participating students. There were four types identified: inquirers, reasoners, negotiators, and trial-and-error students. The inquirers showed basic inquiry skills like making observations and coming up with questions to investigate and were then categorized even further into quiet and communicative inquirers. Quiet inquirers only spoke to each other when it was necessary to complete the project while the communicative inquirers had more off-task conversations. Reasoners showed the same characteristics as the inquirers however; they were unable to be fascinated by the topic. This pattern was also sorted into subgroups. The first was self-contained reasoner that focused on their projects individually and the second was peer-supporting reasoners that discussed the project with their classmates. The next pattern was known as the negotiators and arranged into prompt and steady categories. Both classifications of negotiators would talk to their peers in order to validate their own answers. The steady negotiators differed because they did not engage in any further inquiry-based discussions with their peers. The trial and error pattern was identified as unfocused and these students did not show any signs of inquiry throughout the project. The second method the results were discussed was the pertaining to the types of scaffolding. The study showed that peer, teacher, and technology scaffolds all had an impact on students’ inquiry. Peer scaffolds showed four patterns: demonstration, procedural assistance, validation, and exchanging perspective. Demonstration was shown when students were observed both conversing about evidence and technical problems. For procedural assistance, the students showed inquiry by asking questions about the project. Validation was shown when students constructed questions that they shared later in the project and exchanging perspectives was demonstrated through their production of a brochure. With teacher scaffolding there were also different categories to show inquiry: clarifying, monitoring, and challenging. The teacher clarified material, monitored her students to find those who needed help, and challenged their ideas to encourage higher-level thinking. Technology scaffolds identified four inquiry patterns: context, metacognitive, processing, and communication. Evidence for these inquiry patterns were determined by data showing student use of technology for the following purposes: solving problems, planning, understanding, and communication were all done using technology. AnalysisFurther research could include testing in various subject fields; focusing specifically on the technology scaffolding or student scaffolding; extending or shortening the length of the project; looking at a different age group, ethnicity or school; sampling a larger selection of students; narrowing the types of data being analyzed; and exploring different instructors. The validity of this study can come into question because the exact questions that the students were tested on were not revealed. Biasness can also be a validity issues as one of the researchers was an observation participant for the study. In addition, the data can be considered inconsistent since not every conversation among the participating students was documented. Implications of this case study are that students in a middle school science classroom show inquiry skills while using technology and that students experience inquiry through interaction with their peers, their teacher and technology. Students are becoming increasingly dependent on technology for information. “These technologies [21st century technology] are part of our students’ everyday experiences, and, as educators, we should be on the cutting edge with students in using these new tools” (Boles, 2011, p.39). The idea of the 21st century classroom is becoming reality and determining the pros and cons of the newest technology will benefit teachers and their students. Overall, this research study has revealed that students have many different inquiry patterns through a technology-enhanced science course. Technology is an important aspect for a student-centered classroom. It is important for teachers to start the integration of technology into their classes in order to keep their students engaged and motivated. “Teachers who have these [technology] features make their lesson more enjoyable, more colorful with many activities” (Ulusoy, 2012, p. 75). This study can be used as a key to unlock the door of success for our students. ReferencesBoles, S. R. (2011). Using technology in the classroom. Science Scope, 34(9), 39-43. Retrievedfrom , M. C. & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders' problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255-282. Retrieved from , K. (2012). A study about using internet in history lesson. Educational research and reviews, 7(4), 72. Retrieved from Editing Rubric for the Qualitative Article ReviewAuthor of Review: Corinne BlakePeer Editor: Linda TajimaSummary2.521.510TotalPurpose of the studyPurpose of the study clearly and concisely identified.Purpose of the study identified.Purpose of the study is unclear.No discussion of the purpose of the study.Incomplete2.5Description of Participants/SampleThorough description of participants/sample, including sample selection.Good description of participants sample and sample selection procedures.Acceptable description of participants sample and sample selection.Little, if any, description of sample. No mention of sampling procedures.Incomplete1.5Research DesignResearch Design documented with indicators of why this is an appropriate design.Research Design documented with a general recognition of why this is an appropriate design.Research Design documented.No research design indicated.Incomplete2Data Collection & AnalysisMethod of data collection and analysis indicated and explained thoroughly.Method of data collection & analysis indicated and somewhat explained.Method of data collection and analyzing date unclearNo method of data collection and analysis indicated.Incomplete2ResultsTightly focused writing summarizing the results of the studyGenerally focused summary of the results of the studySomewhat focused summary of the results of the studyScattered random writing without focus on the results of the studyIncomplete2AnalysisFurther ResearchProvides multiple directions for further research.Provides a few directions for further research.Directions for further research are unclear or inconsistent with findings.Incomplete discussion of further research.Incomplete2.5Validity/rival hypothesesComplete yet concise discussion of the validity/rival hypothesesConcise and generally recognizes most aspects of the validity/rival hypothesesValidity/rival hypotheses tend to be one-sided with aspects of the validity/rival hypotheses missing.Incomplete validity/rival hypotheses discussionIncomplete2.5Original insight/CriticismInsight/Criticism based on fact, research, or scholarly authority.Generally good evidence given in support of opinion.Evidence only somewhat supports opinion.Opinion entirely unsupported.Incomplete2ImplicationsComplete yet concise discussion of implications of research on practiceIdentifies implications for practice.Unclear implications for practice.No connection between research and practice.Incomplete2.5Writing/StyleWriting & APAFree of spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors. Well-edited material.APA style applied consistently throughoutOnly a few errors of minor significance with grammar and APAA number of errors. Not well edited.Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure as well as APA errorsIncomplete1.5Total21/25Peer Comments:Overall, good flow of an article review. The review covers the requirements. Following are provided for your information/action if you wish to incorporate them.APA style is not correct in many areas and various errors found. All quotes always need author, year and page number. Sometimes page number provided, but not always. Check title page. Font for Running head: needs to be Times New Roman and note need for lowercase h in the word head. Right margin is off on page 1. Second paragraph is wordy and confusing. You initially state the number of participants include 44 6th grade students (check the correct way numbers should be expressed numerically APA style- pp. 111-112 in APA manual); however you go on to state the numbers in class A and B, but the math clearly does not add up and then 19 students are mentioned for the final sample and documented in study. Very confusing. Way too many quotes! I would use quotations sparingly, for example you can easily reword into your own words “suburban community in the Southeastern United States” and inclusion criteria can be reworded to not need a quotation. Over use of words such as these students, this sample, these criteria. Check page 68 in APA manual for instructions on words to avoid and wordiness.Difficult to follow how the various “ethnicity” represented ended up with just one type “European Americans” as the final sample. It must have been important to reflect the society they live in with various types, but that intention somehow got lost in the process. If this is the case, you can point this out when you describe future research or criticisms.Data collection vague. Some sentences just do not connect. For instance, your fourth paragraph starts with “There were multiple forms of qualitative data…in this case study.“ Then, quoted sentence follows as “We employed…” I think your summary on the quoted sentences will serve better. The description of results are very wordy, and not easy to follow. Combine a few of them to avoid redundancies in explaining the processes. Short sentences are good for business communications, but not so great for this type of report. By combining some sentences, I believe readers will be able to follow your explanations easier without being hit by “the” and “this” in most of the sentence beginnings.This is just a style suggestion, but try not to use the same word (even though used in different verb conjugations). For example the last paragraph, I suggest you change the second “show” to “demonstrate” or a similar word so that “shown” and “show” will not be in the same sentence.Check reference page, APA errors noted. First reference, doi is just numbers, remove hyperlink and make sure numbers are not underlined. Second reference line spacing is off. Remove hyperlink and ensure link is in black. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download