User:Smitty//articlecritiques

Article Critique Form

Directions: Read an empirical research article regarding technology and education. Critique the article by completing the form below.

Type your response below each section. 1. Reference the article using APA 6th edition format. (10 Points) Efe, R. (2011). Science teachers and educational technology: Experience, intentions, and value. Educational Technology &amp; Society, 14 (1), 228-240. 2. State the intended audience. (5 points) Although not stated directly in the article I think Efe’s (2011) intended audience for the article was any, and all educators who develop science student teacher programs, and those who practice science education and have a desire to improve their instruction through the use of technology. 3. Provide a summary of the main points of the article. a. What is/are the research question/quesitons or hypothesis/hypotheses? (10 points) Efe (2011) begins his research with three major hypotheses; 1) that "the importance of technology for science in schools is impossible to ignore" (p. 228), 2) that "educational technology has an effective role in moving from teacher-centered learning activities to student-centered learning activities" (p. 228) and, 3) "student teachers or newly qualified teachers are more willing to learn and use educational technology in their classroom(s)" (p. 228). The research therefore, is concerned in asking and answering the following research questions. Efe lists these as: 1. Are there any differences in science student teachers’ experience with educational technology when disciplines are considered? 2. Are there any differences in science student teachers’ intensions to use educational technology in their teaching when disciplines are considered? 3. Are there any differences in science student teachers’ intensions to provide opportunities for students to use educational technology during science classes when disciplines are considered? 4. Are there any differences in science student teachers’ beliefs in the value of educational technology in science instruction when disciplines are considered? 5. Are there any differences when genders are considered? (p. 229) b. Describe the subjects of the study. (Who participated?) (10 points) This research was carried out with the cooperation of 448 science student teachers’ enrolled at Dicle University in Turkey during the academic year 2007 – 2008. These research subjects were studying the various disciplines of life and physical science. Both male and female student teachers participating in this study (248 male, 200 female) ranging from first year through fifth-year students. The precise breakdown of the science education student teachers and their fields of study were 126 science student teachers in biology, 99 science student teachers in physics, 103 science student teachers in chemistry, and 120 science student teachers in primary science (Efe, 2011, p. 230). c. What were the procedures (methods) used by the researcher(s)? (20 points) All research data was collected through the utilization of a questionnaire. The items on the questionnaire came from the Technology Needs Assessment Survey (U. S. Department of Education, 1998) and from Efe’s (2011) own original research which he derived by having the student teachers respond to written assignments (p. 230). The questionnaire used a 5 point Likert scale which offered responses of “‘never’, ‘very rare’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’, ‘always’ or ‘none’, ‘very little’, ‘little’, ‘high’, or ‘very high’”(p. 230). The analysis of the data was conducted in the following manner. Correlations among the four interpretable factors of: 1) the “student teachers’ technology background,” (Efe, 2011 p. 230) 2) the student teachers “intention to use educational technology in their teaching,” (p.230) 3) the “student teachers intention to provide opportunities for their students to use technology in the classroom,” (p.230) and, 4) the value which the student teacher placed upon educational technology for learning science (p.230), were determined using correlations (Pearson). Whether or not any gender variances existed in responses to the items on the questionnaire were measured utilizing T-tests. Differences between how biology, chemistry, physics, and primary science teachers responded to the various items on the questionnaire as they moved through their various years of course work were determined using one-way ANOVA (p. 230). d. What were the results, conclusions, and recommendations drawn by the researcher(s)? (20 points) Efe’s (2011) research indicates that a positive correlation exists among all four interpretable factors. Based upon his research Efe concludes that a science student teacher with previous experience with technology is more likely to (1) use technology in his/her science classes; (2) ask his/her students to use educational technology; and (3) have a high opinion of the importance of educational technology for learning science (p. 238). Efe further states that “a science student teacher thinking of using educational technology is also more likely to ask his/her students to use educational technology” (231). He gives the following example, “if a science student teacher is considering using PowerPoint in his/her classes for presentations, he/she is more likely to provide opportunities for students to use PowerPoint as well” (p. 231). There was no gender relationship found in any statistical significance relating to the intention to use educational technology (p. 236).

Efe (2011) concludes that based on the findings that technological training is essential in student teaching programs. Training science student teachers in the use of educational technology increases their likelihood to utilize it in their own classroom (p. 238). 4. Do you believe the conclusions are warranted from the information provided in the article? Explain why or why not. Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions? Support your position. (10 points) Yes. I do believe that this research is sound. The case for the importance of including technology education in science teacher training cannot be based upon Efe’s (2011) research alone, however. Efe’s research only shows the importance of technology education in the perceptions of the 448 science student teachers who were enrolled during 2007-2008 at the Dicle University in Turkey (p. 230). While his research methods seem sound one would have to determine whether or not research carried out in Turkey is directly applicable for all science education in America. There may be important cultural differences about which Efe and his research subjects are unaware. I would argue that there are cultural differences which must be taken into account as one applies research done in America. The technology available to teachers for teaching science and the teachers, and students’ attitudes toward technology in the science classroom would vary greatly from the Monterey, CA school system and a rural county in Georgia. I do support his conclusion and believe that technology in the hands of a properly trained science teacher can be important and valuable tool for the education of students. While I believe that Efe’s statements that “it is more difficult for experienced teachers to adapt to the use of educational technology in their classroom activities” (p.238), and that “it is very easy for a teacher to fall out of touch with technology” (238) are true, Efe does not list the research which supports these contentions. Anecdotal evidence alone is no substitute for research. 5. What suggestions for further research do the authors suggest? What other suggestions for future research would you suggest? (5 points) Efe gives insight into other areas for further research concerning technology and science education. He states that gender differences in terms of teacher beliefs have revealed conflicting results between his own and the research of others and could therefore be an area for further research. He also indicates that determining the relationship between "teacher attitudes toward educational technology" (p.229) and its usefulness in the classroom as another area for potential research. The area where there is the greatest need for further research according to Efe is research which focuses on the "grade level of students and educational technology" (229). I personally believe that there is a need for research to be done in determining the role of educational technology in moving teacher-centered approaches to student-centered and inquiry-based approaches of learning in science education. While there will always be limitations to how fruitful technology can be for learning in some areas of the science laboratory its usefulness will no doubt continue to increase. The fact is that technology and learning in science have long coexisted together. Scalpels, microscopes, and Bunsen burners while viewed as low-tech today were once viewed as the new technology when they were first utilized for the purposes of learning about science.