 |
 |
Temple University Center for Research
in Human Development and Education |
|
|
Conclusions and Caveats
O'Sullivan and Scott (2000b) write that "action research must be grounded in
student achievement" (p. 2). In this era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), such
advice is prescient. Although there are many questions that might be considered,
those that focus on increasing student achievement are most critical. Whether or
not students enjoy using computers or working in teams, the bottom line is
whether such methods lead to enhanced student achievement. The proportion of
studies concentrating on student achievement is not as great as expected. As
teachers become more sophisticated in the use of both action research and
computer technology, it is hoped that studies of achievement will increase.
O'Sullivan and Scott (2000b) also caution teacher/researchers to involve the
"gate-keepers" in the school or district before launching a research study. "In
many school districts, research proposals are subjected to the same
institutional review required by universities for the use of human subjects in
research" (p. 2-3). Because the study involves students, ethical considerations
should be strictly observed, including confidentiality and the use of findings.
Action research that aims at improving the use of technology promises a richness
and diversity of findings that could be directly linked to student achievement.
At this time, its potential has been largely untapped. |
|
| |
References
Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET). (2002a). How
can technology develop higher order thinking and problem solving? Retrieved
October 15, 2002, from
http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=evidence&answerID=9&questionID=2
and
http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=evidence&answerID=7&questionID=2
CARET. (2002b). How can technology influence student academic performance?
Retrieved October 15, 2002, from
http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=evidence&answerID=4&questionsID=1
and
http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=evidence&answerID=2&questionsID=1
Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
O'Sullivan, M., & Scott, T. (2000a, March/April). Teaching internet information
literacy: A critical evaluation. Multimedia Schools, 6. Retrieved October
15, 2002, from
http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/mar00/osullivan&scott.htm
O'Sullivan, M., & Scott, T. (2000b, May/June). Teaching internet information
literacy: A collaborative approach (part II). Multimedia Schools, 7(3),
34-37.
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student
achievement: What the most current research has to say. Retrieved September
15, 2003, from The Milken Family Foundation Web site: from
http://www.mff.org/edtech
Stellwagen, J. (1999). Technology and action research: How effective are
classroom computer minilabs? American Secondary Education, 28(2), 3-9.
Witmer Jr., K., & Cushall, M. (2002). Improving the use of technology in
education through action research [slide presentation]. Hot Springs, AK:
Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators (SRATE).
.
Previous
Page
1 2
3 |
