Article Critiques
1
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers
implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
37(4), 361-377. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from Ebsco MasterFile Premier database.
Article Title
A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing.
Authors
Abigail Garthwait and Herman G. Weller.
Source
Journal of Research on Technology in Education.
Intended Audience
Teachers, administrators, and teacher educators.
Article Topic
This research sought to discover and explore “how one-to-one computing interacted with
teaching styles as well as determining the [facilitators and] barriers for teachers who were
integrating the laptops into teaching and learning” (Garthwait & Weller, 2005, p.362).
Main Points
Current literature paints a hazy picture of how teachers go about merging laptop
computing with instruction. Also, it has yet to reveal the challenges they face during this
process.
There are a variety of reasons why teachers elect to (or elect not to) implement
technology into the classroom. Some of these reasons include: access to properly functioning
technology; teacher attitudes and beliefs; and school culture.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
2
Today’s practitioners would greatly benefit from insights derived from teachers who are
taking part in the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI), which is one of the first
programs that administered laptops to all 7th graders.
Methodology
This research was based on a case study that followed two 7th grade teachers for one
school year. Both of the teachers teach science at the same middle school and are active
participants of the MLTI project. Selection was based on a sample of convenience and a
qualitative research paradigm was used. The researchers “… were most interested in the
specifics of how classroom teachers implemented the MLTI project” (Garthwait & Weller, 2005,
p.364). They used case study classroom observations, transcripts of teacher interviews, and
teaching artifacts (such as e-mails and Web pages) in order to collect data. An iterative content
analysis technique and an inductive analysis were used to interpret the data.
Stated Conclusions
The researchers found that: having laptops for every student does not automatically
change teaching style; having a positive view and willingness to use technology does not transfer
into effective use; a low level of technical knowledge may hinder the integration of technology;
and apart from school-wide acknowledgement of goals, some road blocks to technology use will
remain.
Justification of the Conclusions
The conclusions presented by the authors are true to form. Their participants (Susan and
Rick) both seemed to have a high affinity for technology integration. However, their actions
inside the classroom seemed to project their inner belief system. Susan was the lead MLTI
teacher but her focus was on getting students to learn science not (necessarily) getting them to
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
3
use their laptops to do it. Rick, on the other hand, had his students using laptops even when the
assignment did not adequately lend itself to this form of technology integration.
Unstated Beliefs
The researchers seemed to be a little disappointed with the outcome of their results. At
the beginning of the article they mentioned that they hoped to “… find creative and innovative
ways in which teachers used laptops in their classrooms” (Garthwait & Weller, 2005, p.373).
Instead, they observed more challenges than novel ideas. It is possible that they may have
wished they could change their research design in order to focus on this detail.
Stance on the Conclusions
I agree with every point of the researchers’ conclusions. It is very difficult to
successfully implement a drastic change in practice (even with the best intentions) on the first
try. This study was completed during the first year of MLTI’s inception. For the most part, a
new procedure (in any industry) must have full acceptance, buy-in, perceived usefulness,
trustworthiness, distinct reliability, and it must be seamlessly integrated by skilled professionals.
In order for this to occur, one must have engaged in considerable training, practice, trial, and
error.
Future Research
The authors mention that future research should focus on: gender differences in
technology integration; the role of students’ families; teachers vs. corporate and state level
technicians; and equity issues. However, I would like to see this study redone with an emphasis
on student achievement and outcomes in light of this burdensome (or forced) shift toward
technology integration and teacher disdain for change.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
4
Sadik, A. (2007). The readiness of faculty members to develop and implement e-learning: The
case of an Egyptian university. International Journal on E-learning, 6(3), 433-453.
Retrieved September 19, 2007, from Ebsco MasterFile Premier database.
Article Title
The readiness of faculty members to develop and implement e-learning: The
case of an Egyptian university.
Author
Alaa Sadik
Source
International Journal on E-learning.
Intended Audience
University administrators and faculty.
Article Topic
This study focused on assessing how prepared faculty members, at South Valley
University of Egypt, are in relation to the proficient implementation and use of e-learning
strategies.
Main Points
The infusion of technology in education has become a vital concern for universities in
developing countries.
There are numerous academic institutions that have yet to take advantage of the benefits
of e-learning.
The administration at South Valley University has taken great strides to erect a truly
viable IT infrastructure.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
5
Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative research methods were used throughout a four phase process
that was designed to develop, test, and validate the e-learning readiness assessment instrument
and the dissemination thereof. In phase one, a review of the literature was conducted and survey
items were assembled and cataloged under three domains (competency, experience, and attitude).
In phase two, a multidimensional rating scale was constructed and an expert panel was convened
to analyze each domain. In phase three, a random selection of 600 faculty members were invited
to field test the rating scale. In phase four, the e-learning readiness assessment instrument was
validated (using Cronbach’s alpha, exploratory, and confirmatory factor analyses) and tested.
The actual survey was returned by 259 faculty members, of which over 85% were male, just over
14% were female, 28.6% have taught over 10 years, 40.9% have taught for 5-10 years, and
30.5% have taught for less than 5 years.
Stated Conclusions
In light of the study findings, the researchers note that: faculty members view e-learning
as important and useful; do not like the fact that e-learning is likely to add to their work load;
lack the adequate training and knowledge needed to implement e-learning; and are less than
motivated to take action since they perceive that there is little support from their institution.
Justification of the Conclusions
The conclusions offered by the authors are fully supported by their research. The results
show that 94% of the respondents saw e-learning in the classroom as positive, 55% lacked
necessary training, a slim 7.3% had adequate experience with e-learning, and only 5.8% have
previously used e-learning in some capacity. Collectively, these results show that faculty
members are willing but not exactly able to implement e-learning in an effective manner.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
6
Unstated Beliefs
The passionate writing and research exhibited by the authors suggest that they wholeheartedly support the infusion of e-learning into their university. However, they are not sure if
the majority of their fellow faculty members are willing or even interested in following them. I
sense that they wish they had more strong-arm support from administrators
Stance on the Conclusions
I agree with the conclusions presented by the researchers. Their ideas adequately reflect
the major themes found in the evaluation of the e-learning readiness assessment instrument data.
However, I would have preferred that the data was based on a larger representation of the faculty
body. This study was based on 259 of the possible 1900 faculty members.
Future Research
I would like to see this study redone at other universities in developing countries, who are
at different levels of development, and compare them to one another.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
7
Zhu, L., & Grabowski, B. L. (2006). Web-based animation or static graphics: Is the extra cost of
animation worth it? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 329347. Retrieved September 19, 2007, from Ebsco MasterFile Premier database.
Article Title
Web-based animation or static graphics: Is the extra cost of animation worth it?
Authors
Li Zhu and Barbara L. Grabowski.
Source
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.
Intended Audience
Teachers, professors, and instructional designers.
Article Topic
This study endeavored to analyze the instructional effects of two web-based animation
strategies (animated attention-gaining and animated elaboration) vs. static graphics on student
achievement.
Main Points
“… Animation appears to attract learners’ attention and increase their motivation to learn
[yet] it is still unclear whether animation strategies can facilitate learning” (Zhu & Grabowski,
2006, p.329). Research on Paivios’s (1986) dual coding theory suggests that animations are
more likely to expedite certain memory processes than static images. Both past and current
research studies yield inconsistent views concerning the effectiveness of animated graphics to aid
academic achievement.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
8
Methodology
This research was designed using 3 control groups, which consisted of mostly Freshmen
college students. Group 1 participants utilized the static graphic self-paced Web-based
instructional tool, Group 2 viewed the same tool with animation as attention-gaining strategies,
and Group 3 had the same tool as Group 2 with the addition of animation as elaboration
strategies. After the instructional treatment was given, all three groups were given 4 criterion
tests, which included a drawing, identification, terminology, and comprehension test. The
quantitative data was then collected and evaluated.
Stated Conclusions
The authors found that there was no significant difference in the academic performance
of the students in any of the groups. According to these results, students in the static graphic
group performed just as well as those in both animation groups. Therefore, they suggest that
instructional designers should seriously consider the heavy time and cost requirements of Webbased animation vs. static graphics since there appears to be no significant gain in achievement.
Justification of the Conclusions
The conclusions rendered by the researchers is just and valid. These investigators took
time to research the impact of memory and brain function, high and low levels of prior
knowledge, as well as past research on the effects of animation and instruction. Then they
catered every detail of their study to take in to account the short comings and pitfalls displayed in
other studies. Yet, the research clearly echoes that there is no significant difference in
achievement due to animated graphics.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry
Article Critiques
9
Unstated Beliefs
As I read this article I was impressed by the amount of research the investigators brought
to the table that involved auxiliary areas of concern in relation to animation. I felt that the
researchers did not want to leave anything to chance. It appears as though they secretly hoped
that animated graphics would make a difference in academic outcomes. However, when the
results proved otherwise they were satisfied that they had done their best.
Stance on the Conclusions
I agree with the findings of this study. Group 1 (static graphics) achieved almost
identical results to Group 3 (animation as attention-gaining and elaboration) and Group 2
(animation as attention-gaining) was not far behind. This, coupled with data from numerous
other studies on animation, supports the conclusion that animated graphics have not been proven
to be any better than static graphics.
Future Research
The authors propose that: this research should be rerun; other animation strategies should
be explored; and the effect of animation strategies on high-order thinking should be studied. I
submit that this study should be redone with elementary and middle school students. It would be
interesting to see if these findings hold true for young and developing minds.
Submitted by: Stephanie N. Henry