And, they're off!

Category: Uncategorised

experimental and control group

As Joanna and I chatted before class began today, we joked about how these classes would be great subject groups to study technology in the classroom, at least at the post-secondary level.  The struggles and trials and tribulations of getting a master’s cohort on educational technology to work through assignments using educational technology is a built-in experiment.  Of course that is not lost on the professors in charge, but it made Joanna and me wonder whether our movements were being tracked and we were in one giant experiment!  I would guess we would be the control group, and the online group would be the experimental group?

I was even more acutely aware of the “experiment” as Matt from the library came to talk with us.  At the end of his tutorial, which left a lot of us in his wake, there was a check-in with the online folk.  To be sure, as quick as Matt was, he fixed all of the problems that arose in the room (save for those who could not download Zotero without admin access).  Trevor chimed in that he got stuck fairly early on, and after that it moved along faster than he could keep up.  This to me highlighted the advantage of being in the room with Matt, as well as my proximal neighbours.  There were times when I leaned either to the left or the right to ask Heather or Clay about some part I had gotten stuck on.  As well, when I told Matt I was stuck, he ran over to get me back on track.  These interactions either occurred spontaneously and quickly (maybe 5-10 seconds) or spontaneously and drawn out (until my problem was solved).  The online folk (except the Fort St. James group) did not have either the advantage of someone literally beside them to ask, or the troubleshooting presence of the instructor at their immediate beck and call.  Those online folk would have to have unmuted their mics and then shared their screen with Matt for him to see where they were stuck.  Of course that was not impossible, but it would have lengthened Matt’s time with us, and his time was limited.  Even for us in the room, the information came at us at warp speed, but we clung to our seats so as not get thrown into the abyss.  In the end, Trevor asked Matt whether he could contact him later to straighten out where he got stuck, and that was fine with Matt.

So it made me think about how things may proceed in the Fall and beyond, as we are ALL going to be the “experimental” online folk.  Hmm…certainly connecting with a few others for support, both moral and intellectual, will be key.

Quantitative Research reading

The required reading, Understanding and Describing Quantitative Data (Lewin, 2011) lays out the variety of quantitative methods of research as well as the details in making the research both valid and reliable.  Of course, all research aims to evaluate what the researcher is focused on (the validity) and that the results can be replicated by others independently (the reliability).  The difficulty lies in the details.  Does the data point to one factor, or are there other possible reasons for the results?  Was there an inherent bias in the process?  Were the results statistically significant?  Many problems may arise regarding the validity of the study’s design.  As for reliability, how many participants were used?  Were they representative of a bigger group?  With a different group, could this be replicated?  Are the experimental and control groups equal?  To ensure a study is both valid and reliable, the researcher must work hard to eliminate as many reasons for discounting the results as possible.

In reading the article, “Closing the gaps Improving literacy and mathematics by ict-enhanced collaboration” (Genlott and Gronlund, 2016), the qualitative research applies, because they have a very specific comparison and measurement.  The hypotheses arose from a method of learning to read and write developed by Arne Trageton called Write to Learn (WTL), and to see whether this method, using ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), results in better scores on a national test of math and literacy.  The three main groups in the study were: a group with ICT and the Write to Learn program; another that did not use WTL or ICT; and the last group used ICT, but not WTL.

The results showed that those students who were in the first group (WTL and ICT) scored higher than the other two groups, as well as the control groups.  The obvious question that arises is a comparison of strategies other than WTL for literacy and numeracy improvement.

© 2024 The Mikado again

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑