lowe-ashley-research-proposal-edre-8100-summer-2016 Web viewResearch Proposal. by Ashley Lowe. EDRE...

Running Head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1

Research Proposal

by Ashley Lowe

EDRE 8100, CRN 53697

Methods of Educational Research

Nova Southeastern University

August 4, 2016

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 2

Table of Contents

I. Chapter 1: Introduction

A. Statement of Intended Title

B. Statement of Purpose

C. Statement of Research Questions

D. Limitations of Proposed Research

1. Limited Prior Studies

2. Sample Size

3. Limited Access

E. Key Terms

II. Chapter 2: Review of Literature

A. Integrating Technology

B. Negative Connotations of Technology

C. Current Research on Taking Notes

D. Statement of Research Hypotheses and Implications

III. Chapter 3: Method

A. Participants

B. Instrumentation

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 3

C. Research Design

D. Procedure

E. Data Analysis

IV. References

V. Appendixes

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 4

Research Proposal

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of Intended Title

The intended title and subtitle for this research proposal is: Increasing Academic Writing

Achievement without The Initial Hindrance of Technology: A Mixed Methods Examination of

Academic Writing Achievement in a Secondary English Language Arts Classroom.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is to design and implement an adaptable and differentiated

collection of learning strategies in a secondary English Language Arts (ELA) classroom in which

the academic writing process is taught without the use of technology on the students’ part. In my

experience as a classroom teacher—as well as being a student— there is no shortcut technology

can provide in learning how to think about thinking, literature, comprehension, or purposeful

writing in the secondary ELA classroom. It is also my experience that students who do choose

the easy way out with cameras on their cell phones are left at a disadvantage compared to their

peers who take longhand notes and synthesize their ideas and understanding in handwritten

journals.

A study referenced by Maryellen Weimer (2015) in an article written for Faculty Focus,

states that students “need to take their own notes and not think they are excused from doing so

because they’ve got the teacher’s notes [or notes on their phones via photograph]. Research

results… don’t preclude teachers from supplying students with written materials, maybe an

outline of the day’s topic or a diagram, but we do so needing to remember that it is the process,

the engagement with the material—the cognitive exercise involved in recollecting, summarizing,

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 5

reorganizing, and restructuring [the notes] that actually matters the most.” Essentially, when

students take notes by hand in their own words, they are actually learning more than their

counterparts who simply record what a teacher speaks or presents. The study referenced in the

previous paragraph had significant results: “Students averaged a 72 percent correct on questions

from the week they completed a note-restructuring assignment, whereas they averaged 61

percent correct for other weeks,” (Weimer, 2015).

At Riverview High School, where I teach, our Florida Standards Assessment in writing

scores are barely “par” for what is expected. We also have limited and unreliable access to

technology. Completing this study to create a collection of strategies—in which technology is

unnecessary— for all teachers across a variety of content areas could drastically increase the

success rate our students have and positively impact our ability to create an environment where

our students are college and career-ready.

Statement of Research Questions

There is a single research question at the focus of this study: Are there differences in

writing progress for students in traditional secondary English Language Arts courses compared

to students in ELA courses infused with technology?

Throughout the course of research, sub-questions will also be answered:

• What are the benefits and consequences of using—or not using—technology in the

classroom?

• For existing low-tech and no-tech classrooms and schools, which strategies in writing are

working and which are not?

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 6

• What is the disconnect between classrooms who successfully implement technology to

support learning and classrooms who are unsuccessful? How is the teacher involved?

• What can be learned from limiting access to technology while students build a foundation for

genuine learning?

Limitations of Proposed Research

Limitations of this study include a lack of previous research and accessible sample size:

each must be recognized and acknowledged. Much of the research found is specific to other

areas of education with a variety of technology used (i. e. maths and calculators, electronic

dictionaries and foreign languages, web-based notes versus handwritten notes) between 1979 and

2013. Humans have advanced a great deal in technology even in the last three years. There were

no reliable studies (only brief articles with limited scientific validity) found regarding capturing

slides or information via photograph, or using the Internet to pass along completed class work to

other students for copying. To overcome this in the study, connections to previous research will

be made and adapted to the specific scenario of the secondary ELA classroom.

Sample size may also be a limitation of this study as it is. I currently have three classes of

English II Honors, two classes of English II Regular, and one class of English II through ESOL.

Each classroom ranges from 15-25 students. I have access to my own students for the 2016-2017

(and beyond) school year. There is generally little to no opportunity for me to work with any

other classroom on campus outside of my own. With that said, if I am to utilize students as

participants from other classes or content areas, I will need to have permissions from

administration and the teacher facilitating that class.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 7

This is largely an unviable option as the teacher will not be versed in the study nor the

practices which should be implemented. Unfortunately, as a classroom teacher, I am unable to

observe and move throughout the school during class periods. Also, throughout the year, students

are shifted from class to class, or leave the school entirely. Sometimes new students come in that

were not in the classroom at the beginning of the year.

Key Terms

Four phrases need to be defined prior to moving forward: technology supporting learning,

learning without technology, overuse of technology, and academic achievement. Technology

supporting learning will be dieted as students utilizing web searches, and computer-aided

editing/revising marks (spell check). For teachers, this means online sources for information,

presentations via projector, recorded readings of literatures, as well as other opportunities within

the curriculum.

Learning without technology for students means that each individual handwrites notes

from presentations, lectures, or videos to refer back to as necessary. This may also entail reading

texts and annotating, editing and revising a writing sample without the use of a spell check

software, monitoring progress on a diagram, et cetera.

Overuse of technology will stand for dependence on technology for accomplishing

learning tasks without taking the opportunity to learn the material. Overuse will also include

reliance on the Internet for quotes or facts and utilizing mobile phones to record photographs of

presentations or “notes.”

Achievement will be defined as any upward or forward-moving progress in secondary

ELA.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 8

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Integrating Technology

When teachers know how to utilize technologies to support learning in instruction, then

implementation should be seamless. This should be common sense, but many teachers

mindlessly rush into using technologies without training simply because they are mandated by a

district or administration. However, in a study published in 2011, Wright and Wilson discovered

that teachers who were in higher phases in Hooper and Rieber’s Model of Technology Adoption

in the Classroom “were teachers who had continued professional development, had engaged

students in using technology, and had support from their school community.” Not only do

teachers need to understand what technologies are and how to use them, technologies also need

to engage students during instruction, and teachers need support from their administration within

their organization.

Figure 1: Hooper & Reiber, 1995

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 9

An even more recent study discusses the recognition that technologies can, in fact,

enhance students’ learning in mathematics courses but states that “effective integration of

technology into classroom practice remains patchy, with factors such as teacher knowledge,

confidence, experience and beliefs, access to resources, and participation in professional

development experiences,” (Bennison & Goos, 2010). Even further into this study, researchers

found that teachers who did participate in professional development experienced higher levels of

confidence and were “more convinced of its benefits in supporting students’ learning of

mathematics,” (Bennison & Goos, 2010). In interviews, “teachers expressed a clear preference

for professional development that helps them meaningfully integrate technology into lessons to

improve student learning of specific mathematical topics,” (Bennison & Goos, 2010). This could

very well be the case in many English Language Arts courses, or even social sciences, as well.

Negative Connotations of Technology

With the lack of professional development for teachers in the use of technologies in the

classroom comes a negative association with technology in learning. There also seems to be a

fundamental need for teachers to ensure students understand information from a foundational

aspect so that each student can build on what they have already learned. For example, in a study

published in 2013, Salani states that:

The study showed that most of the teachers believed that a

calculator was a technological tool that could be useful to the

students in the future. On the contrary, most teachers felt that the

overuse of calculators by the students could hamper the

development of basic computational skills. Therefore, it was

recommended that school based training on calculator use should

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 10

be provided so as to empower teachers with the necessary

technological skills for effective classroom instruction.

Current Research on Taking Notes

Published studies on taking notes—with and without technology—resembled the topic of

this proposed study most. A variety of outcomes have been established in other studies between

1979 and 2014. Some of these conclusions include handwriting notes leading to “deeper levels of

processing on two post-tests,” (Breezing & Kulhavy, 1979), the process of reviewing notes being

the most important aspect of taking notes, and teacher handouts as a hindrance.

In The Effects of Notetaking: A Review of Studies, the researchers note that current

“literature indicates that recoding notes is less crucial than students’ review of notes for

performance on a variety of learning tasks,” (Carrier & Titus, 1979). If students are not going

back to look at their notes then there is no learning occurring as students are unable to recall

important information. However, in a study on the effects of note taking, Barnett’s What is

Learned in Note Taking? Includes “supporting the encoding function of note taking and

demonstrated that unguided elaboration hindered performance on teacher-made tests,” (Barnett,

1981). These two studies published only two years apart seem to slightly contradict each other.

Along the same lines, in 1980 Palkovitz and Lore published Note Taking and Note

Review: Why Students Fail Questions Based on Lecture Material in which researchers

“compared the test performances of students taking a course in introductory psychology with the

quality of notes taken during lectures. Findings showed students failed tests because they did not

review and learn the information in their notes.”

In 1979, Riley and Dyer published The Effects of Note Taking While Reading or

Listening. This study included the difference between reading and listening while taking notes on


specific content. The researchers point out that students who read the materials were more likely

to remember the content than listeners, and also that, “note taking helped listeners but did not

help readers.” If we connect this study to other studies discussed in the above paragraphs, then

we can liken “reading” to “reviewing notes” in order to make academic progress. Again

however, another study, McDonald and Taylor’s Student Note-Taking and Lecture Handouts in

Veterinary Medical Education, tends to contradict these findings. This study, as stated above,

found that “important information is often omitted from notes… [and] Handouts did not improve

test performance…” (1980).

Another study published in 2009 compared measures of factual learning in students who

were to copy-and-paste their notes from the Internet and students who wrote their notes by hand.

Immediate, cued-recall measures of factual learning

showed that students who wrote their notes were better able to

recall what they had noted, although recall was low for all

students. However, after a one-week delay (which included two

classroom opportunities to study their notes), students who pasted

their notes performed significantly better on two different

measures of factual learning than students who wrote their notes.

Follow-up student interviews and analyses of notes revealed a

robust explanatory theme: many written notes contained barriers to

learning (e.g., illegible handwriting, spelling errors, and/or

indecipherable paraphrases), which likely reduced the benefit of

study time, (Igo, Bruding & Riccomini, 2009).


Statement of Research Hypotheses and Implications

With the limited amount of research on traditional ELA curriculum implementation and

strategies, a study—such as the proposed study—has the potential to have true effects in the

future for students and teachers. For classrooms and schools with students from lower socio-

economic demographics who may not have immediate access to personal electronic devices or

Internet-access at home, this study will provide teachers with a foundation of strategies in which

they can improve upon composition and metacognition in the classroom. Along the same lines,

for teachers who are still uncomfortable or untrained with the implementation of technology in

the classroom, this study will provide a framework of learning opportunities in which students

will not need to rely on technology to learn, nor be assessed. An adaptable and differentiated

collection of learning strategies in a secondary ELA classroom in which the writing process is

taught without the use of technology on the students’ part will result.

Further research will be needed at the conclusion of this study. A study on specific

contemporary teacher/instructor motivations, interests, and skill in utilizing technology (or a lack

of skill) in the classroom should be examined to discover how to approach professional

development for teachers on best practices regarding the use of specific technologies and

strategies in the classroom.


Chapter 3: Method

Participants

Participants will include six classes of English II Regular, English II through ESOL, and

English II Honors students—approximately 150 students total—- at Riverview High School in

Riverview, Florida during the 2016-2017 school year. This is a convenience sample and have all

been randomly assigned to my roster based on their course load for their sophomore year.

Students are currently unknown amounts of male and female, with unknown

race/ethnicity makeup, and between the ages of 15 and 16 years old. All participants must be

labeled as sophomores with administration during the 2016-2017 school year.

Instrumentation

Three tools will be utilized throughout the process of this study: Florida Standards

Assessment (FSA) writing rubrics (Argumentation and Informatory, see appendix), SpringBoard

ELA curriculum for 10th grade (level 5), and a baseline written essay as a pretest.

Every high school student and teacher between 9th and 12th grades utilize the FSA

writing rubrics for all written assessments, including Florida’s standardized assessment the FSA.

To grade writing achievement and progress in the State of Florida based on these rubrics is

required. The rubrics are designed to score a student’s written sample based on three areas:

Purpose, Focus, and Organization; Evidence and Elaboration; and Standard Conventions of

English (grammar, mechanics, usage).

The SpringBoard ELA curriculum is what is mandated in our district, Hillsborough

County Public Schools, as well as other districts around the United States. The 10th grade


curriculum follows a theme of culture through five standardized units. This curriculum is

interchangeable between Common Core State Standards, as well as Florida State Standards.

Along with the SpringBoard curriculum, our district follows a mandatory protocol of

assessing students’ baseline written samples as well as a reading diagnostics test in order to

determine areas of opportunity as well as strengths. This baseline is standardized across each

grade level throughout the county, as all sophomores will engage in the same writing prompt

with the same passages on the same two days: August 17th and 18th of 2016.

Research Design

This study is designed in repeated measures with one pre-test and multiple post-tests in

order to determine successful strategies in both areas of learning the writing process. Within-

subjects variables include the method of instruction with two levels: no student technology and

students allowed to utilize technology, as well as each curricular unit of instruction: SpringBoard

ELA Level 5: Units 1-4. Between-subjects variables include analyzing data means by class

period, individual curricular unit, quarter, and semester.

TIME INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD

Semester Quarter Unit Control No Tech Tech

Semester 1

Quarter 1

Baseline P1 - Pn

Unit 1 P1 - Pn

Quarter 2 Unit 2 P1 - Pn


Semester 2



Procedure

Students are randomly assigned to one of my six English II classes based on

Administration decisions regarding class size and student schedules. During the first two weeks

of school in the 2016-2017 school year, students will not be provided any instruction on

academic writing. On August 17th and 18th, 2016, students will complete a baseline written

assessment (pre-test) that will be graded by their teacher (myself as researcher) per the FSA

rubric as outlined by Florida State Standards. Data will be recorded in the Progress Monitoring

Essay (PME) data spreadsheet (see appendix).

Following the baseline assessment of writing achievement, all six classes will be

instructed without the use of technology to support learning on the students’ part. Students will

be required to write notes by hand, peer review, edit, revise, conference, etc. without the use of a

computer or cell phone to aid in the completion of the first four embedded assessments (EA)

within Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the SpringBoard Level 5 curriculum. Throughout instruction the

researcher will record field notes on strategies, reflections, biases, and any details that arise.

Once students have completed each EA, the teacher/researcher will grade each essay per the FSA

rubric as outlined by Florida State Standards. Data will be recorded in the PME data spreadsheet.

During the second semester, all six classes will be allowed to utilize cell phones and

computers throughout the note taking, peer reviewing, editing, revising, and publishing processes


for the final two units of the SpringBoard Level 5 curriculum. Once students have completed

each EA, the teacher/researcher will grade each essay per the FSA rubric as outlined by Florida

State Standards. Data will be recorded in the PME data spreadsheet. Field notes will continue to

be recorded.

Following completion of implementation of the study, data from personal reflections and

field notes will be compiled.

Step Procedural Explanation

1 Students assigned to classes (2xE2R, 1xE2esol, 3xE2H)

2 Students complete baseline assessment.

3 First semester (quarters 1 and 2; units 1 and 2) is implemented without the use of

technology on the students’ part.

Qualitative observations and field notes are completed.

4 Second semester (quarters 3 and 4; units 3, and 4) is implemented with the introduction

of technology to support student learning.

Qualitative observations and field notes are completed.

5 Data Synthesis and Analysis

Data Analysis

Quantitative and qualitative measures will be recorded throughout the study. Qualitative

aspects include measuring and recording baseline writing data for each student. Following the

baseline assessment, two EAs per four units of instruction will be measured and analyzed via


repeated-measures, ANOVA, measure of central tendency by mean, and tested for main effects,

two-way… (three-way, et cetera) interactions. Overall averages will not be consistent within all

six classes due to the grouping of students into each course (E2R, E2esol, E2H). With this being

recognized, average achievement of progress will be measured and analyzed against each other

average achievement of progress.

Qualitative data from observations, personal reflections, and field notes will be compiled,

coded, categorized, and analyzed. All data will be then be compounded and synthesized in order

to provide interpretation of results.


References

Barnett, J. E. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/

63551446/5F9AEF72DDE9424BPQ/2?accountid=6579.

Bennison, A. & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: A survey of

professional development needs, experiences and impacts. Retrieved from


742871092/56662CC03D8E4004PQ/3?accountid=6579.

Breezing, B. H. & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Retrieved from


63808622/96FE10C314264DB8PQ/3?accountid=6579.

Carrier, C. A. & Titus, A. (1979). The effects of note taking: A review of studies. Retrieved from



Fu, D., Hansen, J. (2012). Writing: A mode of thinking. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/

1022626987/FCB6C92BF7D940EFPQ/8?accountid=6579.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching:

Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Igo, B. L., Bruning, R. A & Riccomini, P. J. (2009). Should middle school students with learning

problems copy and paste notes from the internet? Mixed-methods evidence of study

barriers. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/63708446/96FE10C314264DB8PQ/6?accountid=6579




http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/742871092/56662CC03D8E4004PQ/3?accountid=6579

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/742871092/56662CC03D8E4004PQ/3?accountid=6579

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/63551446/5F9AEF72DDE9424BPQ/2?accountid=6579




61817112/695CA206A4464D34PQ/3?accountid=6579.

McDonald, J. R. & Taylor, G. E. (1980). Student note-taking and lecture handouts in veterinary

medical education. Retrieved from



Palkovitz, R. J. & Lore, R. K. (1980). Note taking and note review: Why students fail questions

based on lecture material. Retrieved from



Petrescu, A. (2014). Typing or writing? A dilemma of the digital era. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/education/docview/

1534136919/fulltextPDF/C0846821F5474114PQ/10?accountid=6579.

Rico, G. L., Claggett, M. F. (1980). Balancing the hemispheres: Brain research and the teaching

of writing. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/fulltext/ED198538.pdf.

Riley, J. D. & Dyer, J. (1979). The effects of note taking while reading or listening. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/


Salani, E. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs and technology: calculator use in mathematics instruction in

junior secondary schools in Botswana. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/?id=EJ1086320.

http://files.eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/fulltext/ED198538.pdf

http://eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/?id=EJ1086320

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/61817112/695CA206A4464D34PQ/3?accountid=6579

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/eric/docview/61817112/695CA206A4464D34PQ/3?accountid=6579








Weimer, Maryellen. (2015). Why students should be taking notes. Retrieved from

http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/students-taking-notes/.

Wright, V. H. & Wilson, E. K. (2011). Teachers’ use of technology: lessons learned from the

teacher education program to the classroom. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/?id=EJ959529.

http://eric.ed.gov.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/?id=EJ959529

http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/students-taking-notes/


Appendixes

Figure 2: Student Essay Data Tracker (progress) - To be kept in student binders for reference.


Class Mean per PMETeacher: Class: Period: Year: 2016 - 20174

3

2

1 PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE

BASELINE: __________ PME 1: __________ PME 2: __________

4

3

2

1 PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE PME 3: __________ PME 4: __________ PME 5: __________

4

3

2

1 PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE PFO EvEl SCoE PME 6: __________ PME 7: __________ PME 8: __________

Figure 3: Class Mean per PME (Progress Monitoring Essay) visual data collection.


High School, 2016-2017Teacher: LOWECourse: E2RPeriod: 1

ONLY ENTER DATA IN WHITE CELLS. ALL COLORED CELLS WILL AUTOMATICALLY POPULATE WITH TOTALS.

Baseline

PM #1

PM #2

Student District #

PFO

Ev/El

Conv

Total

PFO

Ev/El

Conv

Total

PFO

Ev/El

Conv

Total

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

ABS = Absent TRNS = Transferred (in or out) REF = Refused to write WD = Withdrew


0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Total Scoring 0 0 29

Total Scoring

0 0 29

Total Scoring

0 0 29

Total Scoring 1 0 0 0 0

Total Scoring

1 0 0 0 0

Total Scoring

1 0 0 0 0

Total Scoring 2 0 0 0 0

Total Scoring

2 0 0 0 0

Total Scoring

2 0 0 0 0


Total Scoring 3 0 0 0

Total Scoring

3 0 0 0

Total Scoring

3 0 0 0

Total Scoring 4 0 0 0

Total Scoring

4 0 0 0

Total Scoring

4 0 0 0

Total Scoring 5 0 Total Scoring 5 0 Total Scoring 5 0






Figure 4: District Student Progress Monitoring Spreadsheet

lowe-ashley-research-proposal-edre-8100-summer-2016 Web viewResearch Proposal. by Ashley Lowe. EDRE...

Documents

Transcript of lowe-ashley-research-proposal-edre-8100-summer-2016 Web viewResearch Proposal. by Ashley Lowe. EDRE...