Thursday, November 15, 2012
Quick Research Snack...
Hello everyone! I just thought I would show you my favorite research drink and snack when I need a quick break from my research project....
Monday, November 5, 2012
Letter to Preston
Here is a letter to an author named Preston who wrote a short essay about how using an alarm clock and waking up early can make you extremely successful. This essay is titled You Snooze, You Lose and the link to the article is provided below. My letter addresses his use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos relates to the words one uses. Ethos reflects the author and pathos represents the audience. In my letter I explain to Preston what he can change to better utilize pathos, ethos, and logos. These three items are highly important in writing to show credibility and proper rhetoric.
Article: http://thisibelieve.org/essay/90323/
Article: http://thisibelieve.org/essay/90323/
Dear Preston,
After
reading your article “You Snooze, You Lose,” I discovered that there are a few
ways you can better appeal to your audience using pathos, ethos, and
logos. First off, ethos is how one
appeals from character and is designed to show the author’s credibility (205). To
establish ethos, you must show that you have good judgment, understand what you
are talking about, and be knowledgeable about your topic (208). To improve your ethos, you need to
prove that you are more knowledge able about the topic of the positives in
waking up early. If you went into
more depth about how you have benefited from being an early-riser by providing
specific examples of your experiences or provide an anecdote from a friend’s
experience, then you will appear more knowledgeable to your reader. Further
broadening your knowledge about your topic only enhances your credible
evidence.
Secondly,
pathos drives the appeal to the emotions of your audience (199.) To appeal to pathos, you must consider
your tone, values of the reader, and provide examples that play on audience
emotions (211). Improving pathos
must begin with establishing who your audience is, in other words, by whom your
paper is primarily being read. Once the audience is chosen, applying pathos
becomes easy. For example, your
article has a motivational aura to it, so perhaps your audience values a good
motivating story or speech. Moreover, you can play on the audience’s emotions
more by providing vivid details that give a sensory feel to the reader.
Finally,
logos deal with the logic and reason behind your argument. Creating strong logos requires stating
your premises, using credible evidence, and then declaring a conclusion. Logos is where your paper can improve
the most. Since hardly any
information is given about yourself, job, or background, it is hard to
determine your credibility as a writer. The examples you give about yourself
are hard to consider factual if we do not even know your last name or what you
do for a living. Moreover, evidence from outside sources is needed to further
strengthen your argument. The examples
you provide are adequate but more evidence is needed back up what you
saying. Therefore, your logos can
be improved.
Sincerely,
Gina Richardella
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Primary Research Report
Here it is!...my final draft of the Primary Research Report (genre analysis, data analysis, stakeholder analysis). My previous posts on the blog have already revealed the genre analysis, stakeholder analysis, and methodology, but not my results section. The results tell not only releases the findings of my survey but analyzes what they mean as well. I put them into context with real life situations at colleges and show were the strengths and weaknesses of technology are, according to student perspectives.
Primary Research Report
Stakeholder
Analysis
My
research issue, the affects of technology on college students’ learning in
their educational setting, is primarily directed toward my audience of college
professors in the United States.
These professors encompass a special interest in educational technology,
often having a relating major, and work with the development of digital
information literacy. Specifically,
these stakeholders have been chosen due to their participation in extensive research
on college students and their usage of technology in education. Moreover, they
have a thorough background in the educational technology fields needed to
examine this issue. One example of
a stakeholder is Arthur M. Langer, a professor and academic director of the
Executive Masters in Technology Management at Columbia University (Columbia 1).
Langer serves as a sufficient
stakeholder as he has engaged in many research works dealing with information
systems and technology based curriculum at numerous universities (1). Moreover, he is the co-author of “College Students' Technology Arc: A Model for
Understanding Progress,” which contains key aspects of my research argument. Therefore, Langer has a strong interest
in the conversation surrounding how college students use technology.
Another stakeholder, Kim Sosin is an author of a key article, “Teaching
with Technology: May You Live in Interesting Times” from the Journal of
Economic Education. Sosin is a professor
of Macroeconomic Theory and Monetary Economics at
the University of Nebraska Omaha (Ecedweb 1). However, Sosin’s research
interests in Economic Education and Educational Technology are what qualify her
as an important stakeholder (1).
Overall, Sosin raises concerns for the new technological realm of teaching
in schools and is apart of my audience of my research topic.
Finally,
my final example of a stakeholder, Hsin-liang Chen, has his Ph.D. in Library
and Information Science at the University of Pittsburgh and is a professor in
these fields at Indiana University Bloomington (Indiana University 1). He co-authored, “Use
Of Multi-Modal Media And Tools In An Online Information Literacy Course:
College Students' Attitudes And Perceptions” and discussed how college students
are using new types of online
media and information in their classes.
Chen is a stakeholder because he engages in research that deals with
technology in the library of his university, which is the essential location where
students can access information.
Overall, Sosin, Chen, and Langer are my stakeholders
as they work with students in technology based curriculums on a daily basis in
their universities and have all completed research surrounding similar aspects
of digital literacy, comparable to my issue. These academics are the types of people
my paper is geared towards.
Genre
Analysis
The
stakeholders, those academics who analyze technology in the educational
setting, are best represented by their written peer-reviewed articles. Arthur
M. Langer, Kim Sosin, and Hsin-liang Chen are just three of the stakeholders
whose articles represent my genre set. Their peer-reviewed articles written
give an adequate view on how the research that has already been conducted about
my topic is similar to my own. Moreover, their articles all represent how a
research argument should appeal to readers, be organized with a formal tone,
and utilize proper formats. Thus,
my genre is the academic, peer-reviewed articles written by my stakeholders.
The
peer-reviewed articles come from a strictly electronic medium. The majority is from academic journals
such as The Journal of Economic Education
and The Journal of Academic Librarianship. If not from a journal, the articles are
from prestigious departments in universities, such as Langer’s article from The
College of Education and Human Ecology at Ohio State University. Furthermore, since my genre is my
peer-reviewed researched source material, there are specific types of content
that are permitted in order to be credible. These articles are primarily researched based. The authors
of my articles are all involved in specific field of Education Technology that
have guided their interest toward researching this topic. For example, Aruthur M. Langer’s
“College Students’ Technology Arc: A Model for Understanding Progress” revolves
around his work at the Center for Technology, Innovation, and Community
Engagement at Columbia University (186). Usually, personal experiences and views are not the driving
factor behind the research but are sometimes included briefly in the
methodology. Finally, each of articles has numerous sources referenced, as
those mentioned in my genre set have over twenty-five each.
Each
article follows the same specific strategies that make the information more
credible. First off, the articles all begin with a good thesis in their
introduction. For example,
Hsin-Lian Chen in his article lays out of the main issue with his first
sentence: “With the development of information and communication technologies
(ICT), networked learning has become popular at higher education institutions…”
(14). From this sentence, it
becomes clear that the way in which technology has been implemented in
education is what the research will revolve around. Another strategy shown in
my genre is the usage of charts and tables to reveal research results. These results make the findings in the
conclusion much clearer to the reader, as the table breaks down findings into
the simplest form possible. In addition to particular strategies in my genre, a
certain style of organization is apparent, as well. Each academic article follows the same general outline. First the research problem is
introduced followed by a brief background on that issue. Next, the article explains other
information found about the topic such as their secondary sources. These sources generally come from other
studies conducted or academic journals such as “Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (Langer 196). A methodology then explains how the
experiment, survey, or observations will be conducted which all connect back to
the thesis. Finally, the results
are organized in table format with a conclusion section at the end.
My
genre calls for a specific tone and language, as well. The tone of the peer-reviewed articles
is scholarly and is very detail oriented. This tone includes formal language,
avoiding the use of pronouns such as, “I,” “you,” and “me.” Moreover, word choice is highly
important. Since the authors are
writing to other academics that often have background knowledge on the topic,
they are able to use sophisticated terms. One example term used by Sosin is “cyber-plagiarism” (285).
Moreover,
specific design requirements are favored in my genre. Each article is not only
broken up by paragraphs, but includes precise sub-headings that let the reader
know what information and what part of the study are to follow. Sub-headings include words such as
“Introduction,” “Methodology,” “Discussion,” and “Conclusion,” or something
similar such as “Concluding Observations” (Sosin 288). Moreover, often times the abstracts
before the actual work begins are italicized. Finally, the fonts vary from article to article but always
are clear and professional in appeal. Some examples of font are Times New
Roman, Courier, and Helvetica.
Overall,
for this genre to be credible to my stakeholders, the peer-reviewed articles
must do more than just summarize research that has already been revealed in the
past. The articles must utilize past research to build their own argument where
gaps in the research still lay. For example, Chen states in the beginning of his article,
“Whether or not students perceive the same value in approaches to online
instruction as their instructors is an area that requires further study”
(15). This is Chen’s way of
establishing his own claim and becomes credible since he is trying to work on
one aspect of the research that still needs further evaluation. Thus, this serves as a superior example
of my genre that is credible to other stakeholders. All peer-reviewed articles in my genre must follow similar
guidelines as these.
Based on my
analysis my final project must include the following:
·
Sub-headings
·
Significant
number of sources
·
Table
of Results
·
Abstract
·
Introduction
and Background separated
·
Professional
Tone
·
Formal
Language
Methodology
In
order to try to eliminate the gap on student perspectives on technology usage
in the classroom, a survey was conducted at the University of Central Florida
(UCF). Fifty undergraduate
students of all different majors were randomly asked to participate in the
survey. Students in the Student
Union were indiscriminately selected and asked to participate in the survey. The Student Union was the major student
center and meeting area at UCF, which made this an ideal location to find a
variety of different students to participate. When a student was approached about a survey they were first
asked if they were willing to participate. This included a brief synopsis of
the research question at hand. If
the student agreed to the survey, they were then asked if they were an undergraduate
student, since the primary focus of the study was to observe undergraduate
student attitudes. The
undergraduates surveyed were allowed to have any major and any year, as long as
their Bachelor of Arts had not yet been obtained.
The
questions in the survey were based on strictly student perspectives. Questions consisted of preferences with
online courses, feelings toward technology, and if technology usage had
increased their grades. Students
also had to provide their major, year in school, and a short sentence
explanation of how technology had either helped or hurt them in school. The primary focus was geared toward
student feelings as many researchers who have investigated this topic lack the
evidence of student angles. In the
end, student attitudes and adjustments toward technology were what created the
outcomes in the overall academic performance of a student. The findings from the study have
contributed to research on whether or not technology has in fact increased test
scores and has made students better learners overall.
The
survey approach was best because it served as the most efficient way to get in
contact with students. With a
survey many questions can be asked to numerous participants in a short time, as
opposed to an interview that would entail fifty different individual
meetings. Moreover, UCF was an
excellent school to investigate due to its size, the second largest university. This made the population surveyed a
very diverse community of students.
Results
The
results from the survey revealed many different things about college students’
usage of technology. The data
adequately covered the range of all grade level students and majors, since the
survey was distributed randomly.
In total, the survey included: eleven freshman, fifteen sophomores,
fifteen juniors, and nine seniors.
Moreover, their majors ranged from Pre-medicine, to Art History, and to Accounting. No major was repeated more than twice
times. Therefore, from these
variations, the results reveal a respectable view of how college students
really do perceive technology.
After
requesting basic information such as major and year, the survey asked students
about their own personal usage with technology. The table reveals the findings:
·
41
out of 50 students own a personal laptop
·
20
out of 50 students primarily take notes on their laptop
·
35
out of 50 students have classes where homework is completed all online
|
(Figure 1)
Only
eighty-two percent of the students owned a personal laptop in the survey. Even
though this figure reveals that the majority of students own a computer, there
are still many college students who do not own a computer and must utilize
on-campus resources such as computer labs and libraries. Often times, this becomes an issue as
the inability to work on tests, papers, and homework at home can lead to many
inconveniences. Students must then
abide by campus offerings and hours to complete their work, and must deal with
the challenge of finding an open computer during midterm weeks and meeting
deadlines. This gives those who do own a laptop a significant advantage. If only eighty-two percent of fifty
owned a personal computer, one can assume that if the survey entailed a larger
number of students, one would find that this number only increases.
Moreover,
seventy percent of students claimed to have classes in which homework is distributed
completely online. This finding further enhances a college student’s advantage
if they have their own personal computer. Professors assigning completely
online work may be a convenience for themselves and those students with a
laptop, but for those without one college becomes even harder. However, one reoccurring response when
were asked to share a sentence or two on how technology has helped or hurt
their own classroom experience was that “it occasionally makes it difficult to
access homework with [technological] glitches.” This response came from both students, those who answered
they owned a computer and those who did not. Technological issues, such as
Internet connection failure can happen to anyone and at any time, which can
alter the score of a quiz or homework grade. Therefore, even though online homework has its benefits,
connection problems and computer malfunctions puts additional stresses on a
student hurting their education.
The
next finding revealed more of an in-class aspect to the usage of technology.
The survey showed that sixty percent of students with a laptop still preferred
taking notes by hand. Thus,
traditional ways of note taking still remain prevalent in the classroom. A few
students stated, “I feel hand-written notes and written homework helps me
remember more.” Therefore,
technology may not be as helpful for in-class education as many academics
think. On the other hand, some
students did respond with an opposing view. The “laptop is helpful for taking notes in class” was
another common response stated by few students surveyed. From these two quotes, it is concluded
that the preference for note taking varies from student to student, as each
individual learns in a different manner and is apart of a different major that
may or may not require computer usage.
In
the next part of the survey, students were asked to provide one word that
described their feeling toward technology. The box below gives the top five
most common words:
1. Helpful (7 students)
4.
Resourceful (2)
2. Great (4)
5.
Useful (2)
3. Difficult (3)
|
·
39
out of 50 gave a positive word for technology including words such as fun,
organized, convenient, important, and good
·
11
out of 50 gave a negative word for technology including words such as
difficult, hard, expensive, and complicating
|
(Figure 2)
In
general, seventy-eight of the responses revealed a positive word, meaning
students have an overall optimistic view of technology. The most common
response, “helpful,” demonstrates that even though there are some negative
aspects to technology, it really can be a valuable tool in the classroom. “Useful” and “convenient” were just two
other popular words that showed how technology has changed education for the
better. Moreover, student free responses
such as, “technology is good for emailing teachers” and “helps you be more
organized” symbolize how advantageous it can really be. Note taking online, power point
presentations, and effectiveness in research are more responses that lean
toward the overall view of technology as positive. However, the twenty-two percent of students that gave a
negative response of technology such as, “difficult,” “expensive,” and “hard”
should be taken into consideration, as well. These students were primarily
those who do not own a laptop and a few who did but found technology to be
expensive to fix and maintain. In
conclusion, students who had a negative view of technology had less access to
computers, as most did not own one.
Perhaps, if these students could obtain the same advantages as those who
do own a personal laptop, than their view of technology may become more
positive.
The
last few questions in the survey asked students to rate from one through ten
how they felt about technology in certain aspects. The following chart gives the questions and results:
1-4
|
5-7
|
8-10
|
|
1. Technology
usage has increased my grades in class
|
12 students
|
23
|
15
|
2. I enjoy
using technology for classroom exercises and work
|
8
|
25
|
17
|
3. I prefer
reading subject material online rather than in a textbook
|
19
|
20
|
11
|
4. I prefer
online classes instead of the traditional classroom setting
|
24
|
20
|
6
|
5. My teachers
do a good job of implementing technology into our lectures
|
11
|
27
|
12
|
(Figure 3)
Grouped: *1-4:
little preference for technology or barely affected by technology
*5-7: moderate preference and somewhat affected by technology
*8-10: high preference and very affected by technology
As
opposed to the high response of positive words reflecting technology, this
section of the survey revealed different results. In the five questions listed in Figure 3, the most responses
never occurred in the 8-10 category.
For example, the majority of students answered that they enjoyed using
technology for classroom exercises and work only moderately (5-7
category). This yielded to be
about fifty percent of the students.
Moreover, only twenty-two percent of the students said they highly
preferred online textbooks over traditional hardcopies. The majority was almost split at about
forty percent in each of the 1-4 and 5-7 categories. This finding reveals that students still prefer the physical
highlighting and reading of a text that is tangible. Some students found online readings to be “distracting” and
once again complained of the “bad internet connections.” Additionally, only twelve percent of
the students highly preferred online classes over the standard face-to-face
class setting. This brings up a
major concern for large universities, such as the University of Central Florida
where the study was conducted, as often times classrooms cannot hold the number
of students enrolled in that class.
Online classes are, thus, conducted for these subjects to make up for
the lack of seats available in the classroom. This becomes a major problem if the majority of students dislike
online classes. In fact,
forty-eight percent of students answered in the 1-4 category for this question,
as they would rather not have any online classes.
In
the question asking whether technology usage had increased grades in class,
student responses were highly divided.
Forty-six percent chose moderately affected by technology, thirty
percent picked highly affected by technology, and twenty-four percent chose
very little. From this outcome, it is apparent that technology affects each
individual student differently. Some students feel that using technology “helps you be more
organized,” and “helpful in research” which essentially can lead to higher
grades. In fact, one student
stated that technology “helps cause now if you don’t have it you won’t make it
far.” On the other hand, particular students find technology to be “difficult”
and “complicating.” Thus, it is hard to make a clear stand on whether
technology has increased or decreased grades.
The
final question of the survey dealt with the interaction of professors and
technology. Students were asked to
rate how well they thought teachers implemented technology into lectures. The major result was that fifty-four
percent of the students felt teachers used technology moderately well. This
discloses a concern, as teachers are the primary sources of education for a
student. Without the teacher,
students would have a hard time capturing the important material in a class.
Therefore, it is highly important for student and teachers to be synchronized
when it comes to technology usage. The majority should feel that their teacher
does an excellent job of using technology (8-10 category) in class if in fact
students must go home and complete homework and take tests online. Only
twenty-four percent felt this way.
Works Cited
Chen Hsin-Liang,
and James Patrick Williams. "Use Of Multi-Modal Media And Tools In An
Online Information Literacy Course: College Students' Attitudes And
Perceptions." Journal Of Academic Librarianship 35.1 (2009): 14-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Sept.
2012.
Columbia University. “Arthur M. Langer.” Arthur M. Langer: Professor, Author, &
Speaker. Columbia University, 2010. Web. 11 October 2012.
Ecedweb. “Kim Sosin.” Curriculm
Vitae: Kim Sosin.” University of Nebraska Omaha, 2006. Web. 10 October 2012.
Goffe, William L., and Kim Sosin.
“Teaching with Technology:
May You Live in Interesting Times.” The Journal of Economic Education 36.3 (2005):
278-291. JSTOR. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.
Langer, Arthur M., and L. Lee Knefelkamp.
“College Students'
Technology Arc: A Model for Understanding Progress.” Theory Into
Practice 47.3 (2008): 186-196. JSTOR.
Web. 13 Sept. 2012.
Trustees of Indiana University. “Hsin-liang Chen.” The School of Library and Information Science.” Indiana University
Bloomington, 2012. Web. 11 October 2012.
Just a Visual Update...
Here we have a view of my desk as I edit my Primary Research Report. My primary report entails the Stakeholder Analysis, Genre Analysis, Methodology, and Results section of my final paper. Compiling these reports are hard work but I am finally almost finished. I'm excited for everyone to read my findings of technology and college students. Hopefully everyone learns something new from my findings and overall research process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)