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/

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.