1
A Critique of Ethnographic Research Practices
Jerry Bleecker
February 5th, 2006
Dr. Mircea Alex. Munteanu
ETEC 500
2
Introduction
With the introduction of computers to schools, educators have sought to use
technology to improve student learning and success in literacy and numeracy. Promising
research suggests that using word processors may help improve students’ writing skills,
organization and express of ideas, and improve overall grammatic presentation. What
follows is a critique of “The Effects of Incorporating a Word Processor Into a Year
Three Writing Program” (Beck & Fetherston, 2003.)
The focus of the study was the impact of introducing word processor technology
into a primary-level writing program. Working with grade three students and their
instructors, the authors gathered information about students’ writing abilities before,
during, and after the study. Student interviews provided insight into learners’ attitudes
and motivation to write preceding and following the study. The study’s overall success
stems from the anecdotal interviews of students, their teachers, and evaluation of writing
skills using Tomson’s (1994) Standardised Marking Criteria. To support the success of
the program, numerous citations from parallel studies appear throughout this article. The
culminating effect of the article is a questionably optimistic assertion that use of word
processors, and images improves students’ attitudes toward writing, while enhancing
organisation, the presentation of ideas, and orderly use of grammar.
Approach / Methodology of the Study
Beck & Fetherston (2003) use a three-pronged approach in an ethnographic study
of student writing with year-three students. First, student interviews provide insight into
3
students’ attitudes toward the writing process, including self-evaluation of writing skills.
Second, using Tomson’s (1994) Standardised Marking Rubric, the teacher interviews
provided data establishing a baseline of each student’s ability to express ideas,
organizational flow, style, and grammatic fitness. In total, seven students, five girls and
two boys, formed the basis of the study. Researchers had access to students, forty-five
minutes daily over six weeks.
Analysis of Results & Concerns
Beck & Fetherston (2003) appear to have introduced several biases in the
fundamental design of their experiment. Foremost, the sample size and duration of the
study call into question the validity of any results. Although ethnographic studies do not
require large sample sizes, it would seem more prudent to include more than seven
students in this study because the principle goal was to determine whether or not the use
of word processors improve writing. The onus to prove this hypothesis demands some
measure of quantitative analysis. Given this, a larger the sample size would improve the
reliability of the results, even for an ethnographic study. Further, the multitude of
references cited in this study, endorsing the authors’ contention that word processors
improve writing, cannot compensate for a time-limited, size-prohibitive study such as
this. Another area of concern is the interpretation of the summary of student results. It is
clear that many students dislike writing by hand and enjoyed the use of the word
processor during the study.
However, the analysis of sentence structure, style,
organization, mechanics of grammar, and flow of ideas seems unsubstantiated without
the inclusion of writing samples in the results. It is insufficient to claim an improvement
without an objective look at students’ writing. In addition to these concerns, the sample
4
should have included an equal number of girls and boys, or studied one gender
exclusively, then the other. Valuable data could be gained from such research. Given
that the authors chose seven students also calls into question the randomness of the
sample. Most studies use even numbers, or multiples of five because statistics may be
used, and it is easier to analyze these values (fewer messy repeating decimals, less
rounding, etc.) In lieu of this, the study seems to use convenience sampling, which leads
to potential bias (Gay et. al, 2006, pp 112). Additionally, because no profile is provided
for each student, detailing ethnicity, socio-economic background, etc., it is difficult to
provide potential contexts to explain the results of the study.
For example, would
students with little previous experience on computers have fared well? If a student
cannot use the computer, or is quite unfamiliar with the technology, their success in the
writing program could be hampered from the outset.
Summary
By and large, this study provides sufficient insight into the effectiveness of word
processor use to improve writing and student motivation.
Although the research
methodology could be improved and clarified through additional experimentation, there
is ample evidence to support the authors’ assertion that word processors are valuable
tools in writers’ education. This study should be repeated in a more quantitative fashion,
preferably with a larger sample size, randomly determined, profiling samples of student
writing throughout the study. A profile for each student is also needed to provide insight
which might explain differential results among students. For example, students from
more affluence socio-economic backgrounds might have a computer at home and have
potential word processing experience preceding inclusion in this study.
5
References
Beck, Natalie, & Fetherston, Tony. (2003). The Effects of Incorporating a Word
Processor Into a Year-Three Writing Program. Information Technology in
Childhood Education Annual, pp. 139-161.