Katie's Research Question Review

Here is the research questions. Also I started using inspiration to keep record for my literature review.

(1) Are there any differences in enhancing pre-service

 teachers' perceived learning of individual knowledge acquisition in the use of technology between learning with video cases and learning without cases?

(2) Are there any differences in enhancing pre-service

 teachers' perceived learning of knowledge integration between learning with video cases and learning without cases?

This article is based on a one-semester study in pre-service

 technology integration course in South Korea. See citation below:

Han, I., Eom, M., & Shin, W. S. (2013). Multimedia case-based learning to

 enhance pre-service teachers' knowledge integration for teaching with technologies.

Teaching and Teacher Education,

34,

 122-129.

The research questions are OK. There are pre-survey and post-survey for students to report on their self-perception of their knowledge

 acquisition. Data was collected based on the revised version of the TPACK survey instrument (by Schmidt et al., 2009). I do see the limitation of this study because it is totally based on students’ self-reported data. However, research have shown that students’

 beliefs are related to their future performance. Another limitation is the instructor factor. For me, the article is valueable because of the the approach they redesigned the survey instrument. I would refer back to this article and the original survey for

 my study. Also I would need to reread the data analysis part.

Thanks

Katie

5 Research Articles and Questions - Eulho

Joseph, R & Reigeluth, C. M (2005). Formative research on an early stage of the systemic change process in a small school district. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6),937–956

Research Questions:

1. What guidelines of Event 3 worked well in this particular district-wide effort?
2. What guidelines did not work well in this effort, and should they have been omitted
   or revised for this effort? If they were or should have been revised, what revisions
   worked well, or would likely have worked well, in this effort?
3. What new activities should have been used in this effort?
4. What criteria were most helpful in judging what ‘worked well’ in this change effort?
5. Given the changes that improved or would likely have improved the process used in
   this effort, which ones might be beneficial to incorporate into the GSTE? And what
   ‘situationalities’ (contextual aspects of a particular case, see Reigeluth, 1999) may
   influence when any guidelines should and should not be used or what the guidelines
   should be like?

Reigeluth, C. M (1987). The search for meaningfulr reform: A third-wave educational system. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 3-14

1. What is at the heart of current problems in our educational system?

Carr-Chellman, A. (1999). Systemic change: Critically reviewing the literature. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(4), 369-394.

1. What is the current knowledge of systemic change in education?

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2),80 - 89

1. What is the impact of the transformational leadership style on organizational outcomes?
2. What is the impact of the transformational leadership style on the personal outcomes of the follower?

Carter, M.Z., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S. & Mossholder, K.W. (2012). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

1. Hypothesis 1(a-b):Relationship quality will mediate the association of transformational leadership with employee
   (a) task performance and (b) OCB.
2. Hypothesis 2(a-b): Change frequency will moderate the positive association of relationship quality with (a) task
   performance and (b) OCB, such that the positive association will be stronger when change frequency is high.

Kurt Richter's Dissertation

Kurt Richter has developed his dissertation on the topic of systemic change with an emphasis on leadership and the learning process in the context of district-level systemic change. Using formative research methodology (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999), Richter sought to identify areas for improvement of a design theory for systemic change called The Guidance System for Transforming Education (GSTE).

Specifically, Richter investigated the application of the GSTE in the middle stages of the systemic transformation process with a Leadership Team of 20-25 stakeholders in a public school district that consists of 5,954 students in a semi-urban, Midwestern setting. The researcher worked as a co-facilitator in the systemic transformation process, and he studied the processes of team learning and of decision making while creating a Framework of Vision, Mission, and Beliefs to guide a transformation effort.

Emphasizing the significance of leaders’ role in the context of any change, Richter focused on critical learnings, decisions, and observations made by Leadership Team members between the time of the team’s creation through the completion of the Framework of Vision, Mission, and Beliefs. The nature of formative study includes finding ways to improve the existing theories, or the process of changes. In this sense, Richter outlined three research questions;

• Research Question 1: How can the decision making process and the learning process best be integrated so that both are accomplished most effectively and efficiently in the early stages of a Leadership Team (or Decisioning Team)?
• Research Question 2: What elements of the observed process used by the Leadership Team worked well?
• Research Question 3: What elements of the observed process used by the Leadership Team did not work well?

In response to these questions, he provided a detailed analysis of the context as well as process he underwent in hopes of providing useful ways, just like a handbook for school district change. I find this dissertation helpful in a sense that it tells me the questions I would start with, similar method I would employ, and related literature that I overlooked in the past.

Kennon Smith's dissertation

I’ve been reading and re-reading Kennon Smith’s 2008 dissertation for the past few weeks. Most of us have read Smith & Boling (2009) in R711, which is a condensed version of this dissertation, so I’m not going to summarize the study (it’s about the meaning of design in the foundational texts of the instructional design and technology field). I’m going to share a couple of things that I found interesting and useful:

Kennon describes her experience in the field, and in her working life in general, in great detail. Part of this, I suppose, is that she is establishing her bona fides: She has experience in the field, so we can trust that she is capable of dealing with the subject matter. Another part might be (she’s not explicit about it) disclosure of potential sources of bias: Much of her professional experience is in architecture and landscape design, not instructional design. We can use that information to understand and evaluate what she chooses to focus on and her interpretation of her data. This description of experience and background was reflective in a way that I didn’t expect.

The dissertation’s research question is “What is design in instructional technology, as defined by foundational literature in the field.” She explains the question. Of course. She also states the assumptions behind the question. This seems like such an important thing to do. The research question is the keystone of any study, so you need to make sure that it’s strong enough to hold up.

Online Education - General

1. What faculty actions positively influence student satisfaction in the online classroom at the community college level? 

Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in satisfaction in online courses. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78-96.

2. What course design factors influence the success of asynchronous online learning? 

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2000). Course design factors influencing the success of online learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 448760)

3. Is there a dominant learning style of students in online courses? Is there a preferred method of online instruction? Is there a relationship between learning styles and the preferred method of online instruction?

Butler, T. (2004). Student's learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 199-221.

Music Teaching and Learning

4. What factors differentiate levels of expertise of music educators. Is such expertise independent of years of teaching experience? 

Standley, J., & Madsen, C. (1998). An observation procedure to differentiate teaching experience and expertise in music education. In, Collected Work: Music education research: An anthology from the Journal of research in music education. 392-398.

5. What was the perception of former, current, and prospective students in music education and of key-administrators in the graduate music education program regarding the need for flexible (including online) learning? 

Fung., V.C. (2004). Perception of the need for introducing flexible learning in graduate studies in music education: A case study. College Music Symposium, 44.

Five RQs from AZ

Here are my five research questions: 

1. To what extent are required MBA curricula aligned with required behavioral competencies? That is, how relevant are MBA curricula?

Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(2), 208-224.

2. Is there a gap between topics, covered in the HRD academic programs, and topics covered in practitioner-oriented magazines? In what topic areas is the identified gap the most significant?

Ardichvili, A., & Oh, J. R. (2013). The second academy-practice gap: Comparing areas of focus of HRD practitioner publications and academic programs. Journal of Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Management, 8(1), 1-11.

3. What are the institutional characteristics of HRD programs? How many students are enrolled in HRD degree and certification tracks? What is the core body of knowledge taught in HRD programs?

Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). Institutional and curricular characteristics of leading graduate HRD programs in the United States. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 127-143.

4. How does human resource development “omit issues of diversity in academic programs, textbooks, and research”? (This is an implied question. It isn’t stated in the article. And it's really more of a conclusion than a question.)

Bierema, L. L. (2010). Resisting HRD’s resistance to diversity. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(6), 565-576.

5. What competencies do HRD practitioners require to meet the demands of organisations? What should be the focus of tertiary education institutions to adequately prepare graduates to work in the field of HRD in South Africa? (This research was done in South Africa J.)

Erasmus, B., Loedolff, V. P., Hammann, F. (2010). Competencies for human resource development practitioners. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 9(8), 113-126.

5 Research Questions: Dr. L

Here are some of the research questions I came up with from my 5 research studies. - Dr. L

Research Question(s)	Citations	Abstract
In what ways do teachers involved in a statewide technology integration initiative use technology in their classrooms during a cycle of action research?	Dawson, K. (2012). Using action research projects to examine teacher technology integration practices. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, v28 n3 p117-124 Spr 2012	This study examined the technology integration practices of teachers involved in a statewide initiative via one cycle of action research. It differs from other studies of teacher technology integration practices because it simultaneously involved and provided direct benefits to teachers and researchers. The study used thematic analysis to provide a macro-level view of the technology integration practices of more than 350 teachers within 16 districts. Specifically, it reveals the content and objectives, audience, classroom implementation strategies, hardware and software use, and outcomes associated with technology integration. This article discusses implications for this and similar initiatives, research, and professional development.
To what degree are graduates of a laptop-infused teacher preparation program prepared to integrate technology in their future classrooms? Subquestions: What levels of digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, and constructivist pedagogical perspective do preservice teacher graduates possess? What were preservice teachers' personal and educational digital technology behaviors during the program? What digital technologies do preservice teacher graduates most value for future content-specific teaching and learning, and how do they use their knowledge to rationalize their choice(s)?	Hughes, J. (2013). Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers' Technology Integration in the PK-12 Classroom: Trends from a Laptop-Infused Teacher Education Program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 491-516.	This research examined preservice teacher graduates' positioning toward integrating technology in future teaching. Participants included 115 preservice teachers across three cohorts in 2008-2009 who graduated from a laptop-infused teacher education program. The study implemented a case study methodology that included a survey administered upon graduation. Indicators of positioning toward technology integration included: digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, pedagogical perspective, personal/educational digital technology behaviors during the program, and TPACK knowledge used to rationalize their most valued technologies for future teaching. Results indicated graduates held moderate digital technology self-efficacy, positive attitude toward learning technologies, and moderate constructivist philosophy. During their preparation, productivity software activities were used most widely for educational purposes. Their most valued technologies for teaching subject matter were predominantly productivity software as well as general hardware, such as computers, projectors, and document cameras. They described teacher-centric uses three times more often than student-centered. Graduates showed low depth of TPACK. Teacher education programs need to consider the degree to which their candidates are exposed to a range of contemporary ICTs, especially content-specific ICTs, and the candidates' development of TPACK, which supports future technology-related instructional decision-making. Such knowledge is developed across the teaching career, and technological induction programs may support continued TPACK development. Future research should employ longitudinal studies to understand TPACK development and use across novice and veteran teachers.
	Adoption and use of technology in early education.	The increased access to, but continued under-use of, technology in education makes it imperative to understand the barriers teachers face when integrating technology into their classrooms. While prior research suggests teachers encounter both first-order extrinsic barriers and second-order personal barriers, much of this research has focused on K-12 teachers, not early childhood educators. Applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to early childhood education, the current study examines predictors of early childhood educators' access to and use of traditional technologies and newer mobile devices. Findings from 1329 teachers of 0–4-year-olds reveal that while extrinsic barriers influence access to a range of technologies, positive beliefs in children's learning from technology significantly predicted actual use of technology. Overall, the study provides new insight into factors influencing technology integration specifically for early childhood educators, a subgroup that has not been represented in much of the literature on technology integration in formal education.