Running Head: CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 1

Article Critique #3:

Critique and Synthesis of a Selection of Research Articles:

Children and Educational Technologies

Camille Maydonik

36428084

ETEC 500 Research Methodologies in Education

Instructor: Dr. Clifford Falk

University of British Columbia

July 15, 2010

CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 2

The purpose of this paper is to critique and synthesize three research articles that

investigate the use of technology in education. As a point of reference, the three articles

will be presented, summarized and critiqued followed by a discussion of their

commonalities. The conclusion of this paper will identify areas for further research and

make recommendations for next steps.

Summary and Critique

Beck and Fetherston’s (2003) ethnographic, qualitative research study “The

Effects of Incorporating a Word Processor Into a Year Three Writing Program” attempts

to determine if the use of a word processor can assist the writing process with young

children, specifically seven Year Three students in Australia. Beck and Fetherston

(2003) believe that writing skills must be established in the primary years in order to

provide students with foundational literacy skills.

The study took place over a period of six weeks and the students, who were

selected through convenience sampling, were observed participating in pencil and paper

writing activities as well as using the word processor, Story Board Weaver Deluxe

software. Beck and Fetherston (2003) completed a case study for each student in their

study using interviews and observations as their main research methodology.

Beck and Fetherston (2003) conclude that their study proves that the use of word

processing improves students’ writing overall and benefits their overall creativity and

motivation during writing activities. As a grade one teacher, I agree with their findings

as I have had students experience success in writing while utilizing a computer over

paper and pencil. However, there are threats to validity with the experimental design of

their research such as the selection-treatment interaction because the selection of

CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 3

participants was non-random. Furthermore, there is a concern with the specificity of their

variables. The most important term in their article is “word processor”, which is not

defined and is used interchangeably with a software package. As a result, it is difficult to

identify the setting and procedures to which the variables can be generalized.

Miller, Schweingruber and Brandenburg’s (2001) quantitative research study,

“Middle School Students’ Technology Practices and Preferences: Re-Examining Gender

Differences” attempts to determine if the gender gap is narrowing between middle school

students in regards to their technology practices and preferences. In their literature

review, Miller et al. (2001) discuss male and female stereotypes in regards to technology

and the gender gap. In light of these stereotypes, the researchers also present the idea that

with greater access to the Internet, technology acculturation is at work and is narrowing

the gender gap.

This research study took the form of a 68-item paper and pencil survey, whereby

568 middle school students participated from eight different Houston-area public and

private middle schools over a seven-month period in 1998 and 1999. The researchers

used socio-economic status (SES) to try and select a sample that was representative of a

diverse student population and therefore, the final sample of students was 512, due to 56

students who did not report essential demographic information. Through the analysis of

their data, Miller et al. (2001) found that the gender gap is in fact becoming narrower and

that “students of both genders and schools of all socio-economic levels are well on their

way to becoming part of the digital culture” (p. 135).

The main critique of this article is that the authors do not describe how the sample

at large was chosen beyond telling us the number of schools and the milieu in which they
CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 4

are located. We do not know how the schools were selected or how the students in those

schools were further selected to participate in the questionnaire. Even though SES

further grouped the students, I would argue that this is not a valid representation of

middle school students. Furthermore, the control of extraneous variables is uncertain, as

the randomization of the sample is not explained. However, in my experience as teacher,

I agree with the findings of this article as students of both genders are being exposed to

technology earlier in their lives equitably, at least at the school level.

Campbell and Mechling (2009) present an investigation of observational and

incidental learning of nontarget information in their research “Small Group Computer-

Assisted Instruction with SMART Board Technology”. This research focuses on the

effectiveness of teaching letter sounds to a small group of three students with learning

disabilities using computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology. This

experimental, quantitative research study was carried out flawlessly, accounting for all

threats to internal and external validity.

The researchers selected three kindergarten students (two males and one female)

with learning disabilities based on their individualized educational plan. Although this

selection was not random, the researchers accounted for this threat by having the

participants serve as their own controls. The researchers used the SMART Board in

combination with an interactive slide show that the students were able to access and

control by pressing on the touch-sensitive surface of the SMART Board.

The results of the study are supportive for teaching letter sounds to the students

identified as having learning disabilities. Compared to the first two research articles, this

study does not have any of the same threats to validity and is an important contribution to
CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 5

the field of education and technology as it can be generalized to other student populations

to assist teachers in personalizing learning. In my grade one classroom, I have personally

witnessed students acquiring target and nontarget information and knowledge by working

in small groups of two at the SMART Board.

Synthesis

As all three research articles dealt with technology, education and children, it is

not surprising that there are common themes that emerge from them all. First of all, all

three articles describe using technology as an instructional strategy to personalize

learning. Secondly, and in line with the first theme, the first two articles deal with digital

culture and the importance of teaching children how to effectively and efficiently use

technology. The third article was more focused on using technology to best serve the

learning needs of students. Thirdly, the research articles describe how technology can be

a motivating factor for students and can enhance their creativity whether they are using

technology as a tool for learning or for playing games. We can conclude that all three

articles presented here support the use of technology in the classroom.

In this day and age of digital culture, more educators are turning to technology to

personalize learning. That being said, we also live in a time where educators must be

accountable for the strategies they employ in their classrooms. Many research studies

have been undertaken to account for teaching with technology; however, it is difficult to

find research that does not present itself with flaws that impact the internal and external

validity of the study.

The opportunities that technology affords students are very worthwhile and

should be studied in order to continue working towards effective and efficient teaching in
CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 6

the digital age. The results of research could have an impact on the funding of

technology in schools. However, more work needs to be done around educating teacher-

researchers in standard research methodologies if this type of research is to be considered

reliable and valid to the field of education.

References

Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a

year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education

Annual, 139-161.

Campbell, M.L., & Mechling, L.C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction
CRITIQUE AND SYNTHESIS 7

with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental

learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57.

Miller, L.M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg, C.L. (2001). Middle school students’

technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal

of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140.