Review of "Use of Mobile Devices to Foster Inquiry-Based Learning: A Case of Exemplary Teachers"

Summary

This case study includes six exemplary teachers' teaching experiences of using mobile devices in their inquiry-based instruction. The investigation in this case study was about those teachers' perception and definition of using technology in inquiry-based instruction, different approaches of using mobile devices in IBL, as well as the recommendations for the best ways of mobile devices implementation in their inquiry-based classrooms.

Overall Feedback

• You did a great job in the literature review with valuable citations from big names for definitions in different domains. I really like the way you structure the whole paper and the information you provided in the paper. It's clear and easy for me to read and understand. 
• In the abstract, you stated that the findings of this research show that teachers' perception toward using mobile devices into the inquiry-based instruction is positive" (p. 1). However, when I see the title of this paper, I would assume the findings related to teaching and learning would be positive just because the participants in this study are exemplary teachers. For instance, you mentioned that the participants were early adapters of technology use for inquiry-based instruction, so I won't be surprised to see the first finding that those exemplary teachers are flexible risk-takers when using technology in their IBL instruction.
• By quickly looking through your research questions and the findings, I can clearly see the headings in your findings clearly addressed on your first two research question. However, I would expect a heading in your findings directly related to the recommendations from the teachers for the best ways of using mobile devices in IBL. 

Questions

• Since you used inquiry-based mobile learning (IBML) in your paper a lot, do you think it would make any difference in IBML while using various mobiles devices with different functions and features? E.g. using iPhones or iPads in inquiry-based learning.
• I think having teachers' interviews as the only data source in this study is the main limitation in this study. You did address this limitation in the data collection and analysis section, I wonder whether you would feel the recommendation or the implication of this study would be weaker because of this limitation. I would like to know more about your thoughts and how you think about or deal with this kind of limitation.
• In the teachers' interviews, did most of them talk about some specific mobile devices that they use in their IBL instruction?

Feedback for Ya-Huei's Research Study

Research Title: Preservice Teachers' Learning Experience From Case-Based Instruction In A Technology Integration Cases

Summary: 
The main purpose of this research study is to understand preservice teachers' perception of case-based project and their learning experience in case-based instruction. There are some preliminary findings in this study as well as implications for future studies on the emphasis of developing preservice teaches' problem-solving and decision-making competencies.

Questions I would like to ask:

1. What is your role and intention in this research study? Are you in a role as an instructor who wants to find out whether your case-based instructional approach is effective or as a researcher who is looking for what is going on in this case?

2. How did you develop your theoretical or conceptual framework? How did you frame or structure the concept of case-based learning and case-based reasoning in your research study?

Feedback:

• I think if there's a big picture with clear description of case-based learning, case-based reasoning, and case libraries at the beginning of your paper, that would really help your readers to have a good understanding of what you are aiming at and have distinctions among those terms.  
• In the literature review, I think you have a pretty good explanation on the term "case-base instruction" and "case-based reasoning", but probably you can also have a paragraph talking about how the elements (case-base learning, case-based reasoning, scaffolding, from novice to expert) interact or relate that informs the importance of what you're looking for in this study. 
• Provide a thorough research context and the method you used, and why. Probably you can also include the timeline you put on the AECT poster in your data collection part. Sometimes visual representations helps readers understand easily.
• You can have appendices with your interview questions and field notes for readers who wants more information for your data collection and data analysis. 
• Between your results and implications, you could have a discussion or conclusion section to recapture the importance of your research study as well as the meaning of your research results. Try to see whether your research results resonate the literature. 
• Add the limitation of this study. 

  

My Big Research Question...So What?

My big research question is "How does technology influence teachers' teaching practice?"

Since I was a undergraduate student in a teacher education program in Taiwan, I had been educated and prepared to be an elementary teacher who knows about content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge and skills in order to be a good teacher in practice. Right now, I teach an undergraduate level course for preparing preservice teachers with basic technological knowledge and skills to provide effective teaching practice in their future classrooms. During the time, the ways people think and learn have been changing because the advent of technology. Therefore, since how people learn has changed, I believe that how teachers teach should be changing as well in order to benefit learners in education based on their needs. Also, I believe that teachers are the group of people who play an important role in education and affecting students' learning outcome.

Using technology in education has been a popular research topic in educational field in recent decade. Moreover, technology integration in classrooms has been proved to be an effective way to support students' learning. At the early stage of technology integration research, U.S. Congress (1995) found that the lack of technology resources has been one of the main factors that a lot of teachers were reluctant to use technology in their teaching.  Years later, Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) and Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) still found that effective technology integration is not completely happening in practice even though the availability of resources and support is increasing due to some concerns and barriers teachers encounter (Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007). Therefore, lots of research studies have investigated in how to support and improve teachers' technology integration by improving the quality of teacher preparation program for preservice teachers and providing teachers professional development for inservice teachers.

With this background and context of technology integration in education, I believe it is important for me to keep investigating the topics such as how teachers use technology in practice currently, what teachers' needs are regarding technology integration, and how technology can support teachers' teaching as well as professional learning. By studying on these topics, I will have a better understanding about how technology influences teachers' teaching practice in different ways and then explore the supportive and effective professional development for technology integration and professional growth. Eventually, and hopefully, the ultimate goal and purpose of education - enhancing students' learning and improving students' performance, would be fulfilled by the change of teachers' teaching practice with the support of technology.




Resources:

Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change. How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 221-251.

Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423-435.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.

Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools: Implications for Professional Development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995).Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Teaching Reflection / Midterm Evaluation (Week 8)

Here's the summary of the W200 mid-term evaluation. Students did a survey and showed their preference and opinions regarding the course and their instructor.

Class
Like/Meaningful	Dislike/Pointless
·     Digital story *4 - challenging, but learned different technology tools ·     Hands on activities & TIPs *4 (learned new tech. resources & how to use them) ·     Case analysis project *2 – how to look for different resources to solve problems in future classroom ·     Class prep *2 ·     Group/Class discussion*2 ·     Google *2 (thinking about using it in future classroom) ·     Spice You Up activity *2 ·     Teacher website & e-porfolio ·     Diigo (started to use for different classes) ·     Webquest	·     Digital story *3 – time consuming, should have more instruction on how to make a video in class ·     Lecture/PPT *3 – too much information; rather do hands on activities ·     Too many assignments due at once *3 ·     Class prep *2 – spend lots of time, but not talked a lot about it in class; spend too much time talking about CP in class ·     GoAnimate *2 – not suitable for higher grade level students ·     Inspiration – not meaningful ·     Teacher website – pointless ·     Class is too long ·     Class discussion ·     TIPs – helpful for understanding course content, but not useful
Instructor
Strength	Weakness/Students’ needs
·     Helpful to solve problems *5 ·     Explain clearly what to do and where to find resources *4 ·     Funny *3 ·     Keep students engaged *3 – ask questions ·     Make sure students understand *2 ·     Knowledge - go through information in depth *2 ·     Connection with students *2 ·     Nice/friendly/approachable/positive ·     Give individualized feedback ·     Give time for questions	·     Give more time for the TIPs in class *3 ·     Unclear about the due date and submission *2 ·     Communication – hard to understand my comments ·     Talk louder

Link to Evaluation Response PDF file

After looking at my evaluation results, in general, I think there's still a lot to be improved in my teaching. In terms of the course structure, content, and assignments, I don't think I can do much adjustment to satisfy every student. Looking at the results, it's obviously some students like a specific topic the most, yet some other students might dislike the same topic the most. Lots of other AIs told me it's not possible to make everyone happy, but I think what I can do is to try my best to at least explain clearly to student why we include such content and tasks for what purpose. I think it would actually be a good opportunity to take this as an example for students to think about what they would do in their future classroom if their students have wide range of interests or preference on their learning. A lot of students actually gave comments that they did learn a lot from this course. One student even started using Diigo as a public library for several other classes. I guess probably I told them almost every week that how Diigo helps me as a teacher and learner. I'm really glad that lots of students have really learned something from this class and this would definitely help me grow my confidence and motivation in teaching.

In terms of my teaching, I greatly appreciate that my students could really tell me "the truth" whether they understand what I was talking about and how they feel about they way I teach. I've tried hard to build a good relationship with my students and give them the image and impression that they can be very comfortable to ask any questions or talk to me about any issues they have. At the beginning of the class, I realize that a lot of my students in this class do not have proficient technology skills and some of them were even worried about they were not skillful enough to complete their projects. Although I spent a lot of time in class teaching them solving their technology problems when they were doing activities, I think it definitely worth the time doing that cause students would be more confident and motivated in their learning.

I think it's a good sign that students think I'm helpful to solve their problems. However, I am thinking probably I should change my strategy a bit and give them less detail guidance while helping them solve their problems. The reason is that they kind of get used to getting any kinds of help from me. Since we have already gone through half of the course, I feel the skill of looking for solutions is more important for them to learn. In order to let them be an independent problem solver, what I would do is to provide them different resources or telling them the right direct to go, and then let them explore different ways to solve their problems instead of giving step by step instruction. But of course if I know a student who really needs lots of help, I would still give a full guidance and explanation.

Regarding the time distribution for lecture and activities, I was aware that students need more time to do tasks in class, and I did leave more time for them to do hands on activities. However, it seemed they still need even more time. I think I sometime really spent too much time giving examples and having class discussion, but it is the way for me to make sure they really do understand the concepts I want them to learn. From the evaluation results, some students said that they learned the most from the class discussion and the examples from other students, whereas some other students think it's boring and unnecessary to spend time on discussion. This is a real dilemma. Probably I need to talk to other experienced AIs and figure out the best way to solve this problem.

FA13 - Dossier #2 Review Presentation Experience (2)

FA13-Dossier#2-Oct. 11th 

Last friday was the second part of the Fall 13' dossier #2 review presentation. After the second week of dossier#2, I realized that we have a wide range of research study topics in our field. For me, it was a good experience to know and see how senior IST students connecting their own research interests and expertise to IST field. However, sometimes I feel like once I have decided to focus on one main research topic and start digging deeper, it's not easy for me to have deep understanding in other areas and communicate with other students who have different focuses. For example, when Muruvvet was doing her presentation with me and Yahuei, she kept trying to explain what design judgement is and trying to tell us the big names in that field. Yet I know little about design judgement, so I could not give her helpful feedback and I would just take whatever she said instead.


Based on faculty's questions in the first week dossier, I recognized the importance of having comprehensive and deep understanding about the field I am studying in. But, currently I am still a bit confused whether it is better for young scholars to have understanding of different research areas or just keep focusing and digging into one specific area and be an expert of that area.


Here are the questions generated from the first week dossier:

1. In your focused research area, who are the authors you're drawing from? 
2. Why is your research/teaching/service related to our field? 
3. How do you characterize yourself as a researcher? 
4. So what? Why is it important? Why should others be interested to your topic? 
5. How do the authors you cited influence in your research and teaching?

This week, I think some faculty members still asked the same questions to dossier #2 participants. However, participants were also asked some other important questions as follows:

6. Are you trying to generalized your findings? 
7. Can you talk more about your data collection and data analysis? 
8. Can you give us examples from your teaching, service, and/or research experiences to support 
    what you said? 
9. How do you define ____? 
10. How is your minor sharing your research studies?

After the two weeks dossier review presentation, II came up with some plans and strategies for my dossier#2:

[Research]

  - Always keep in touch with my advisors and constantly update the status and progress of my research studies, especially the first author studies. Make sure my advisors agree with what I do and the ways i do it.

  - Establish a framework for my central topic first and then make teaching, research, and service experiences fit into the big framework.

  - While doing the first author study, always keep in mind the dossier#2 questions above. Ask myself these questions at any points in the process of my first author study and see whether I can have a strong answers for those questions.

  - Mix-method is the "approach"/"research design" for your study. It's not a type of method.

  - Try to make connection and comprehend big names' main arguments and viewpoints in the literature review.

  - Every step in research study is important, including "Why this topic? Why is it important?", deep understanding of literature review, and rigorous research design.

  - Make sure every academic event I participate can be connected to my main research focus.

  - Don’t say you’re researching a context! (e.g. I’m interested in social studies research) - Dr. Glazewski, R690

  - You should be asking questions about implication of the systems, instruction, learning, instructional systems, learning experiences. - Dr. Glazewski, R690

  - Be specifically careful about distinguishing Qualitative Research (interpretive framework) and Descriptive Research (evaluative or prescriptive framework). Most of research studies we do in the IST field are descriptive research, using qualitative data collection and analysis. - Dr. Glazewski, R690

  - Make an appropriate qualitative judgment. - Dr. Glazewski, R690


[In General]

  - Like what Dr. Glazewski always says - "Keep reading."

  - Be very careful of the word choice in dossier #2 PPT and presentation.


**And I think I will keep adding the plans and strategies after I attend more dossier #2 review presentations next year.**

Overall, I learned a lot from the Fall 2013 dossier#2, and feel good about knowing all these important dossier#2 questions. I think all I need to do is to start everything early and keep working on it. :)