CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Technology
has
revolutionized
the
school
system
today.
Many
classrooms are being retrofitted with “Smart boards” and computers. This is
what they call the “21st Century” generation schools. Children now have
access to computers and other electronic devices with all their virtual data
stored electronically. It is already possible that for students to communicate
to someone halfway around the world via instant messaging. Technology is
another way to enhance traditional methods of teaching and learning but
never replaces the human teacher inside the classroom. The technology
available today has made a wealth of knowledge available to students
anytime, anywhere and offers great potential for the speed and style of
learning. Information is presented in so many ways that any type of learner
whether gifted or disabled, can find the necessary materials online. This fact
relates not only to the internet, but to all the many technological
improvements in learning from smart boards to hand-held dictionaries and
other soft wares available in many bookstores. With the increased access to
information, there are however potential to teachers and students, and even
parents as well. The information on the internet is there for all who have
access without discrimination. People of all social strata are able to use
technological advances, which is fairly new academic development in
Philippines.
1
1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Computer – also called processor. An electronic device designed to accept
data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed
and display the results of these operations.
Information Technology - often refers as IT. It focuses on the access of
relevant information over a facility controlled by network of people.
Information and Communications Technology also known as ICT refers to a tool where pupils or students use to facilitate teaching and
learning emphasizing collaboration, innovation and cooperative learning
among themselves regardless of space, time and distance.
Internet – A means of connecting a computer to any other computer
anywhere in the world via dedicated routers and servers.
Learning - is defined as an act of change in behavior or performance as a
consequence of experience.
Teacher - is the most important variable in the learners’ education
environment. He or she is regarded as the second parent of the pupils in
school.
Websites – is a depository of information destined for public or private use,
usually residing in a remote server. When a computer terminal calls the
website (using the HTTP or HTTPS protocol) the server responds by sending
the information requested back to the user.
Wi-Fi – is a mechanism for wirelessly connecting electronic devices. A
device enabled with Wi-Fi such as a personal computer, video game console,
smartphone, or digital audio player, can connect to the internet via wireless
network access point. An access point (or Hotspot) has a range of about
20meters indoors and greater range outdoors
2
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of foreign and local literature and
studies on the effects of modern technology in teaching learning situation.
Foreign Literature
Modern Technologies
With the advent of modern technologies today, “techies” can barely
survive living in an archaic world without their electronic gadgets. Many
years ago, we need to physically move from the couch over to the TV to
change the channel. A time when there were few television networks, all of
which were local by the way, would sign off by airing a taped recording of
the Philippine flag proudly waving while a band played in the background.
Today, we absolutely could not imagine living without modern technologies
such
as
a
cell
phone,
digital
cable,
the
Internet,
and
microwave.
The cell phone has got to be one of the most profitable and marketable
portable pieces of technology available to us today. Everybody now owns
very sleek model that allows multi-tasks and lots of applications installed for
various needs of entertainment and information.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Modern Technology
Technology can be defined as science applied to practical purposes.
Nowadays, when the rapidness of development and research is so
impressive, it is easy to think about the advantages of modern technology.
Nevertheless some people argue that science can destroy mankind. It is also
obvious that we are close on an era where technology is limited only by our
imagination. Therefore the most frequently asked question is: Does
technology go the right way and will it save or ruin our civilization?
3
It can be argued that modern technology makes life easier and more
dignified for most of people. The first and the major advantage is that
medical science is very progressive and vastly available. Without the needed
technology a lot of people would struggle with their health. In addition it
saves many innocent lives.
Technology in the classroom has advantages and disadvantages, too.
Though it will serves as a tool to further the learning of the pupils and help
the teacher teach the lesson, technology can be easily abused by relying too
much on its use. There is tendency for pupils and teachers to depend so
much on the capabilities of the gadgets rather that to exercise their
resourcefulness and thinking abilities.
Effects of Modern Technology
In modern society, technology has brought us amazing surprises every
day. Someone claims that modern technology is creating a single world
culture. I completely disagree with this statement. I will list some of my
reasons here. I believe that modern technology has improved multiculturalism
and
the
communication
between
cultures.
With
modern
communication technology such as TVs and phones, we can see what people
at the other end of the world are doing, and with a modern airplane, we can
travel to every corner of the world. This will greatly help us understand the
cultural diversity of this world, and we will learn to appreciate the cultural
difference
of
people
from
different
part
of
the
earth.
Modern technology increases the communication between cultures. Eastern
people can learn good virtual from western culture such as politeness and
self-cultivation; and western people can also learn a great deal what
determine managers' choice of communication media? Why do managers
prefer to use one communication media over another? Within the domain of
information system and communication research there exist substantial
bodies of theories that explain manager's media choice. The purpose of this
4
chapter is to review the theories on media choice and to identify the
deficiencies of these theories.
EARLY RATIONAL THEORIES
The early theories on media choice tend to be from the rational and
individual school of thought. The first theory is the social presence theory of
Short, Williams and Christie (1976). This theory emphasizes the
psychological aspect of using communication media: media choice hinges
upon the ability of the media to convey the nature of the relationship
between the communicators. In this regard, communication media can be
described as warm, personal, sensitive or sociable.
A few years later, Daft and Wington (1979) proposed a language
variety theory to explain media choice. It evolved from the idea that certain
media, such as painting or music, are capable of conveying a broader range
of ideas, meanings, emotions compared to mathematics. Such media have a
higher language variety. This led to the suggestion that language variety
needs to be matched with the communication task. Equivocal and complex
social tasks are said to require a medium with high language variety.
Obviously, this is not directly applicable to manager's choice as they do not
use painting or music as a mean of communication, but this notion lays the
foundation for media richness theory. This is where the discussion will turn
to next.
Modern Communication Technologies: Expanded Formulation
The original criteria are based on the traditional mode of intra-organizational
communication. In particular, it emphasizes the strength of face-to-face
communication. By using face-to-face communication as a benchmark for
comparison (Culnan and Markus, 1987), the presumption is that face-to-face
5
is the optimal means of communication. The fact that managers generally
preferred to communicate face-to-face provides some support for this
presumption.
Relying on this presumption, a persistent view in the literature is that an
electronic mode of communication is not a rich medium because it lacks the
qualities that are deemed to be high in richness. Email, for example, is very
low down the scale, because as a text based medium it has no social
presence and has limited ability to transmit any cues. This in turn leads to
the general claim that where managers perform equivocal tasks they would
rely much less on modern communication media (e.g. Trevino et al, 1987;
Daft et al, 1990).
However, the original Daft and Lengel criteria were not design with modern
communication media in mind. Indeed, in a study of interactive media, such
as email, the notion of richness has been shown not to be an inherent
property of the medium (Lee, 1994). Consequently, it is highly questionable
that the notion of `richness', at least as based on the original criteria, can
provide a fair basis of comparison between traditional and modern
communication media. In seeing face-to-face as a de facto standard or an
optimum
media,
the
results
are
naturally
biased
against
modern
communication media.
Modern communication technologies have qualities not found in traditional
communication media. This leads some to argue that modern communication
medium, such as email, is in fact much richer than was the case using the
original criteria (Markus, 1994; Sproull, 1991). Sproull (1991) was the first
to provide an updated definition of richness by incorporating the valueadded features of modern communication technologies, especially email and
groupware. Subsequently, Valacich et al (1993) identified another related
quality. The four addition criteria are outlined in Table 2.3.
6
Anyhow, it can be argued that the focus of media richness theory is still on
face-to-face. In fact, it is to be doubted whether "richness" is an appropriate
notion to assess modern communication technologies. The notion of richness
just
does
not
seem
to
cover
the
qualities
possessed
by
modern
communication technologies; these qualities go beyond `richness' and the
notion of communication task equivocality.
MEDIA RICHNESS THEORY: AN EVALUATION
Empirical Evidence
The researches papers studying media richness are summarized in There are
numerous studies providing empirical support for media richness theory. The
primary claim of the theory that managers will choose rich media (as defined
7
under the original criteria) in situation where the communication task is high
in ambiguity has been established in many studies (Daft et al, 1987; Russ et
al, 1990; Trevino et al, 1990; and Whitfield et al, 1996).
Complementing such survey style studies is an investigation by Trevino et al
(1987) in which the managers are interviewed as to the incidents and
rationale for choosing particular communication media. The responses are
overwhelmingly
that
fact-to-face
communication
(a
rich
medium)
is
preferred in situations where the messages to be conveyed are ambiguous.
Adequacy Questioned by Modern Communication Technologies
While there is a solid body of research supporting the position of media
richness theory, an equally large number of research studies provide
confounding evidence. Indeed, empirical support for media richness theory is
particularly weak in relation to modern communication media like email or
voice-mail (Markus, 1994; Markus et al, 1992; Rice and Shook, 1990).
It is no surprise that research giving conflicting evidence tends to be of more
recent origin. With the incorporation of more modern communication
technologies in the research design, studies are only recently in a position to
expose the predisposition of the media richness theory towards traditional
communication media. The increased prevalence of technology usage in
organizations in general may provide another explanation.
In a Meta study by Rice and Shook (1990), the prediction of media richness
theory was found not to hold. The inadequacy of the theory really became
apparent in a study on email usage by Markus (1994). Markus (1994)
conducted a fairly comprehensive study involving a survey of 504 managers
and an interview with 29 personnel (whose positions range from chairman to
administrative assistant), and collection of archival data. The study found
8
that managers do not regard email to be particularly rich. This is consistent
with the richness model under the original criteria, but is inconsistent with
the updated criteria. Yet the most curious finding is that mangers used email
substantially more than the theory predicted. This study effectively weakens
the media richness theory: the theory was not found to provide an adequate
explanation and the updated criteria were also found to be incapable of
capturing managers' perception of richness.
Why? Using evidence from the interviews, Markus concluded that social
processes provide a superior explanation of media choice. And this position
is consistent with other studies: Schmitz and Fulk (1991), Schmitz (1987)
and Steinfield and Fulk (1986).[9] Likewise, D'Ambra (1995) demonstrated
media richness theory failed to fully explain media choice in an Australian
study focusing on the use of voice mail in organizations.
Reliability of Underlying Construct and Approach
The reliability and validity of two fundamental constructs of media richness
theory are still not clear. While there are plenty of papers examining the
predictive and explanatory power of the media richness theory, and there
are solid empirical justifications for the link between equivocality and media
richness (Daft et al, 1987; Trevino et al, 1987; and Russ et al, 1990); the
underlying construct of media richness and task equivocality have received
limited attention in the literature. Only recently did a paper by D'Ambra
(1995) investigate this issue.
In most studies media richness is not something that is explicitly measured.
This can be seen in the summary in Table 2.4. Often, it is simply determined
by its position on the continuum of richness derived from the set of original
criteria noted above. In other words, media richness is treated as an
"invariant objective features" of each communication media (Schmitz and
9
Fulk, 1991).The central problem is that these original criteria are themselves
outdated with no recognition of the very different qualities of modern
communication technologies. After investigating the
matter
D'Ambra
(1995) came to the conclusion that the reliability of the media richness
scale is much weaker at the "lean" end of the scale. And at this lean end, of
course, are found the modern communication technologies. D'Ambra claimed
that this highlights the inability of the traditional media richness scale to
capture
the
full
range
of
attributes
or
qualities
of
these
modern
communication media.
Again, the verdict is very similar in relation to task equivocality. In most
prior studies equivocality is either not explicitly measured, or if it is, it is
determined by a panel of judges and not by the subjects of the media choice
research. Moreover, although the scales used was found to be "adequate",
D'Ambra (1995) noted that its operationalization is "problematic". This is not
surprising because
a cursory examination of the literature on task
equivocality and uncertainty reveals that although this construct has a long
theoretical history and is well theorized conceptually, its operationalization is
through the imperfect proxy of task uncertainty.
Missing Task Characteristics
Under media richness theory task characteristics refer primarily to the notion
of equivocality. The question that arises is why just equivocality? A
communication task can possess many other task characteristics. For
example, the task could involve different locations, or there may be a time
limit, or it may involve more than one person, etc. These other task
characteristics are further considered.
Failure to consider these task characteristics makes prior studies of media
choice highly artificial. While the narrow perspective seems to serve its
10
purpose within the context of media richness theory, it is inadequate to
provide an understanding of the overall media choice process. Indeed, as
established subsequently in this thesis, equivocality alone is inadequate to
explain the media choice process. This narrow focus also tends to be biased
against modern communication media. This could explain some of the
curious and conflicting results in prior studies.
Local Literature
“Teachers will not be replaced by computers but those who cannot
use computers will be replaced with those who can” is a famous line
nowadays. While it is quite obvious that teachers will not be fired due to
its inability to become accustomed to the emergence of technology, various
researches show that ICT has the power to increase motivation and learner
engagement and help to develop life-long learning skills. This claim is also
true and a mandate in the article XIV section 10 of the 1987 Philippine
constitution stating that technology is essential for national development
and progress.
It was mentioned in the DepEd’s ICT4E strategic plan how the
Philippine government embarked into various ambitious ICT integrated
projects.
Some are the DepEd 10-year modernization Program
(1996-2005) dubbed as the School of the Future. Private sectors and
different media outfits contributed also to this noble dream of integrating
ICT in educating our children. Recently, Education and Communication
Technology for Education (ICT4E) and DepEd Computerization
Program (DCP) are already being felt in the classrooms. Among the
subjects that best benefit from these programs is mathematics and as our
means of sharing this success, the following objectives had been proposed
and are intended to help in the ICT Integration enhancement of each
11
participating group or individual. These objectives will also be the focus of
the group’s training/convention.

To develop awareness on the DepEd ICT4E Vision and Strategic
Plan;

To develop skill in the use of ICT available package (ICT4E
Classroom Model);

To demonstrate the use of ICT in teaching mathematics; and

To produce digital lesson plans for teachers ‘consumption.
On top of the above objectives is the vision of ICT4E that says “21st
Century education for all Filipinos, anytime, anywhere” this leads to
transformation of students into dynamic life-long learners and valuescentered, productive and responsible citizens.
Also, the goal of the
DepEd’s ICT4E is to transform learners to be proficient, adaptable
life-long learner where ICT plays a major role in creating a new and
improved model of teaching and learning where education happens
anytime, anywhere.
To make this goal possible, the following strategic
plans have to be done.

Provide a threshold level hardware for schools

Provide training for teachers

Provide any necessary infrastructure

Encourage schools to device their own ICT plans
12
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The Assessment Cycle
Developing Assessment Questions
The first part of the assessment cycle defines what you want to know:
assessment questions, outcomes, and objectives. Because poor questions
result in weak answers, it is critical to understand the purpose of an
assessment and develop well-focused questions.
Assessment and Evaluation
It is easy to confuse assessment and evaluation because they are not
distinct categories but rather a continuum. The first step in developing
assessment questions is determining where your question falls along the
continuum. “[Evaluation is] a broader concept than assessment as it deals
with all aspects of a program including resources, staffing, organization,
operations, and efficiency.”8
In general, evaluation consists of systematic investigation of the merit,
worth, or significance of an object, a program, or a process.9 there are
many types of evaluation, including, but not limited to:
• Program evaluation
• Needs assessment
• Process evaluation
• Cost-benefit analysis
The difference between assessment and evaluation is important when
discussing technology issues. To distinguish between assessment and
evaluation, consider the questions’ focus. Questions about technology often
13
revolve around cost-benefit analyses, staffing, support, and infrastructure
(types of and support for hardware and software). Many institutions have
investigated infrastructure, what students want, what faculty feel they need,
and satisfaction with technology support.
These questions
• Develop/refine the assessment question, outcome, objective.
• Define assessment methods that will gather evidence.
• Implement assessment methods, gather evidence, analyze data.
• Interpret the results in terms of the assessment outcome, or
objective.
• Make decisions based on results and interpretations.
Defining What You Want to Assess is concerned with evaluation. In contrast,
assessment focuses on the effect of technology on student learning. If
environment, technology, curricular and co-curricular activities, instruction,
and student variables are part of the question, and if the focus is student
learning, then this is assessment.
Evaluation Questions
•How does technology influence faculty workload? Does technology
improve use of class time? Does technology require more preparation
time?
•Are students satisfied with technology support?
•Can
future
demand
for
technology
be
predicted?
How
many
technology-enriched classrooms will be needed in the next five years?
•What barriers do faculties think inhibit their use of technology in the
classroom?
•Which of the learning management systems available today is most
cost-efficient?
14
Assessment Questions
•When is face-to-face instruction better than online? When is virtual
better? How are they different?
•How does giving student’s feedback on their work via technology affect
how well they think critically?
•How does technology meet different learning styles so that students
are more engaged with the material?
•How can the use of technology improve learning in large-enrollment
classes?
•How does access to Internet resources affect students’ ability to
conduct empirical inquiry?
Level of Analysis
To develop accurate assessment questions, you must identify the unit or
level of analysis. Is assessment for an individual student, a course, a
program, or an institution? Traditionally, assessment is about aggregate
information—students as a group within courses, programs, or institutions.
Table 1 shows the interplay of the level of analysis with the assessmentevaluation spectrum. The columns represent steps on the continuum from
assessment to evaluation; the rows identify the level of analysis; and each
cell shows a sample question. Seeing common issues categorized may help
in developing clear questions.
Table 1. Level of
Analysis Versus
Continuum
of
Assessment to
Evaluation Level
of Analysis
Continuum of Assessment to Evaluation
General
Assess
ment
Technology
Assessment
15
Technology
Evaluation
Staffing
Evaluatio
n
Operations
and
Efficiency
Evaluation
Individual
Student
How well is the How does
student
the
performing?
student’s
proficiency
with
technology
affect how
well
that
student
performs?
Does
the
student
have
access
to
technology
needed for
his or her
major?
How
effective is
technology
support for
the
student?
Is
the
student
satisfied
with access
to
technology
overall?
Classroom
or How well do
Specific Event
students
understand
what
I’m
teaching
in
this
class
period?
By using
a clicker
system in
my
classroom
, can I
tell how
well
students
understan
d
this
topic,
right
now?
What is the
best
technology
to help me
teach
this
topic?
How well is
the support
staff
performing
in support
of
the
technology
needed for
this
specific
topic?
What other
faculty teach
this
topic,
and how can
you
share
the
technology?
Course
or How well do
Specific Event
students meet
the outcomes
and objectives
for
this
course?
Does the
use
of
simulatio
n
software
increase
students’
understan
ding
of
the
course
objectives
?
Which
clicker
system
works
with
other
technology
(hardware/s
oftware)
within
this
room?
How well is
the support
staff
performing
in support
of
this
course?
Are
there
issues
for
operation of
this course
related
to
other
courses?
Program
Are
students
required
to
bring
laptops to
What are the
technology
expectations
and needs of
students in
How much
will the use
of
online
grading
reduce the
How
does
the number
of students
and faculty
within
this
How well do
students
integrate their
knowledge and
abilities from
16
different
courses into a
fuller
understanding
of
their
profession?
Division,
College,
Institution
What do you
or know
about
the
overall
abilities
of
those
who
graduate from
this
institution?
college
this
better
program?
able
to
meet the
program
outcomes
related to
problem
solving?
need
for
TAs within
the
program?
program
influence the
cost
of
technology
for
this
program?
In
the
education
al
environm
ents that
use
technolog
y,
how
well
do
students
master
fundamen
tals,
intellectu
al
discipline,
creativity,
problem
solving,
and
responsibi
lity?
How does
the
infusion of
technology
across the
curriculum
impact the
need
for
support
staff?
Are
you
managing
the
technology
within
the
university
effectively
and
efficiently?
How can you
assure that
faculty and
students
have access
to the most
effective
technologies
for
supporting
teaching and
learning?
To make improvements, you must first decide what types of improvements
are needed. For example, if students in large classes are not learning the
material, appropriate assessment evidence can inform decisions about what
technology to employ to improve that learning.
Accountability is often linked with assessment, particularly when the
audience includes the public, state legislatures, or accrediting agencies, 11
each of whom asks for proof that students are achieving stated learning
17
outcomes.12 Assessment can provide the information called for in these
circumstances.
Defining Interrelationships
Assessing the impact of technology on student learning is difficult. As much
as we’d like to ask what impact technology has on student learning, this
question cannot be answered because technology interacts with many
variables—student preparation and motivation, how the student or instructor
uses
technology,
and
how
well
the
environment
supports
learning.
Assessment questions should move away from an emphasis on software and
hardware, focusing instead on what students and faculty do with software
and hardware.
Assessment
programs
should
include
an
understanding
of
how
the
relationships among learners, learning principles, and learning technologies
affect student learning. Instead of asking what impact technology has on
student learning; ask how you can incorporate the best-known principles
about teaching and learning, using technology as a tool for innovation. For
example, a report published by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities13 articulates the principle of empowering students to become
better problem solvers, to work well in teams, to better use and interpret
data, and to increase their understanding of the world. How can technology
facilitate this?
Technology can help establish effective learning environments by bringing
real-world problems into the classroom; allowing learners to participate in
complex learning; providing feedback on how to improve reasoning skills;
building communities of instructors, administrators, and students; and
expanding opportunities for the instructor’s learning.14 Assessment is
important: “The tools of technology are creating new learning environments,
which need to be assessed carefully, including how their use can facilitate
18
learning, the types of assistance that teachers need in order to incorporate
the
tools
into
their
classroom
practices,
the
changes
in
classroom
organization that are necessary for using technologies, and the cognitive,
social, and learning consequences of using these new tools.”15
Due to the complexity of these interrelationships, it helps to focus on
measurable components. Think about learning, learning principles and
practices, and learning technologies. Define the issues within each category.
Consider the following questions as you identify the issues you want to
measure:
Learners
•What are the learners’ backgrounds?
•What knowledge, skills, and technology literacies do they already have?
•What are their demographics?
•What attitudes do they hold about technology?
•Do students’ learning styles differ?
Learning Principles and Practices
•Where and when do you use technology? Internal/external to the
classroom? Before/during/after class sessions? In virtual labs?
•How is technology used? To share notes, augment lectures? To simulate
critical thinking? To link graphics to real-time data?
•What instructional practices are used in the course? Active learning? Group
problem solving? Collaborative learning?
Learning Technologies
•How well does the technology work, in terms of functionality, support, and
usability?
19
•What specific technologies or tools do you use, including software
(simulation, communication, visual) and hardware (document camera,
laptops, iPods, clickers)?
Focus on Student Learning
Identifying a specific technology and learning situation allows you to focus
on student learning. For example, years ago, engineering professionals
sketched ideas with pencil and paper. Today, CAD programs extend
students’ ability to accurately manipulate a creative reality of the problem.
Consider this question: When using CAD technology for modeling in a
laboratory setting, are students able to think more deeply about an issue or
have a broader understanding? Because assessment focuses on student
learning, however, you must clarify what you want to know about student
learning.
CAD technology allows for nonlinear thinking—thinking in more than two
dimensions—which lets an engineer creatively engage more ideas and
variations without worrying about the technical skill of sketching.16
Clarifying the student-learning portion, the question above can be modified
as follows: When using CAD technology for modeling in a laboratory setting,
how are the students’ critical thinking and multidimensional problem-solving
skills transformed?
Outcomes First, Technology Second
The way technology is used does not cause students to learn better, but
there is a correlation, a connection. Assessing this connection is the most
critical part of the assessment process and illustrates the difficulty of using
traditional assessment techniques in the area of technology.
20
At the course or academic program level, faculty determine what they want
students to learn (outcomes), often using Bloom’s taxonomy17 to clarify the
level of learning (definition, synthesis, analysis, and so on). When you
assess how well students learn at the course or academic program level, you
don’t typically ask about the connection between how the information was
taught and how well the students learned—not, at least, in the first round of
the assessment cycle. Initially, faculty develops outcomes and then
measures how well students achieve them. If faculty finds that students
have met the outcomes, they don’t ask how the material was taught. The
results do not call for improvement, and so no further assessment is
conducted. If students don’t meet the outcomes, however, faculty begins to
ask how the material was taught, when it was taught, and whether it should
be taught differently. Therefore, by assessing the interrelationships among
technology, learners, and pedagogy, you start with the second round of a
traditional assessment cycle. You have not stopped to do the first round,
which determines what students are learning, regardless of the learner
characteristics or pedagogy.
The results from course and academic program assessments can make
questions
about
technology
more
meaningful.
Course
or
program
assessment results help focus attention on areas (outcomes) where students
have difficulty learning. Focusing on what students are not learning well can
refine the assessment questions. For example, does the use of simulation
help students better understand how to solve problems that, prior to the
simulation, were difficult for them to understand?
Five Steps to Developing an Assessment Question
The assessment cycle starts with developing appropriate questions. To
accurately assess technology’s impact on student learning, carefully decide
what you want to know.
21
Step 1: Determine where along the continuum of assessment to evaluation
your question resides. Is your question related to assessment of student
learning or evaluation of resources?
Step 2: Resolve the level of analysis. Is your inquiry about an individual
student, a specific course, a program, a division, or an institution?
Step 3: Establish the purpose of your inquiry. Is it for improvement,
decision making, or accountability?
Step
4:
Characterize the interrelationships among learners, learning
principles, and learning technology to further focus your question.
Step 5: Define student learning. What do you want students to know, think,
or do in relation to the other parts of your question? Use of course or
program outcomes or prior assessment results can differentiate the
learning related to your question.
Applying these steps results in improved questions that more fully address
the impact technology has on student learning. Below is an example
illustrate the process.
Example 1
Does the help of an academic technology specialist create effective learning
experiences for students?
Step 1: The focus is on student learning, which makes this an assessment
question.
Step 2: The level of analysis is not clear in the question. Is it for a specific
course? Is it an institution-level question? If so, the analysis would cross
multiple courses. The level of analysis changes how the assessment
would be conducted.
Step 3: If the purpose is to improve a specific course, the question needs to
include that purpose.
22
Step 4: This question asks about the interrelationship between pedagogy
and technology—whether the changes have an effect. Therefore, the
question can be modified for the specific technologies and pedagogies
used.
Step 5: To make this an assessment question and not an evaluation
question, it needs to reflect specifically what students are learning. Why
was this course changed? One reason might be because students in the
past did not learn the material to the instructor’s satisfaction. Was it a
depth-of-knowledge issue? Could students describe the basic knowledge
but not apply that knowledge to other situations?
In this example, then, the five steps lead to a better question.
Improved question: For this course, did the change in pedagogy to a more
interactive classroom, including the use of technology (changes based on the
advice of an academic technology specialist enable students to use CAD
modeling
systems
and
specialized
software
applications
to
visualize,
develop, and analyze the design of a product at the level appropriate for
potential employers?
Defining Methods
Once a question has been established, the second component in the
assessment cycle is to select the most appropriate assessment methods,
either direct or indirect. Direct methods judge student work, projects, or
portfolios developed from the learning experiences. Some consider this
“authentic” assessment. Indirect methods use opinions of students or others
to indicate student abilities. In many cases, there is no ideal assessment
method, but matching the method to the question is more important than
having a perfect, well-controlled method: “Far better an approximate answer
to the right question…than an exact answer to the wrong question.”
23
18
Direct Assessment Methods
•Course-based performance, including tests, essays, portfolios, homework,
journals,
presentations,
projects,
and
capstone
experienced-based
courses
•National test scores, at entry, midpoint, and graduation
•Certification exams and professional licensure
• Case studies
•Thesis or dissertation work
•Qualifying exams for graduate work
•Longitudinal or cross-sectional comparisons (knowledge, time to do task,
problem-solving skills)
Indirect Assessment Methods
•Surveys completed by incoming, enrolled, withdrawn, and graduating
students, as well as by alumni and employers
•Surveys and inventories related to behavior or attitude changes (pre- and
post-educational experience)
•Focus group meetings of students, staff, faculty, employers, or community
agencies
•Student development transcripts (record of out-of-class experiences)
•Tracking of course-taking patterns
•Student reflection on work, portfolios, and other activities
24
IV. CONCLUSION
Technology in the classroom has a great significance in the teaching
and learning of the pupils or students if the use of technology is supported
by significant investments in hardware, software, infrastructure, professional
development, and support services by the government and the stakeholders
as well.
While complex factors have influenced the decisions for where, what,
and how technology is introduced into our nation's school systems,
ultimately, the schools and other key people will be held accountable for
these investments and sustain other needs as necessary.
ICT in the classroom has the power to increase motivation and learner
engagement and help to develop life-long learning skills. This claim is also
true and a mandate in the article XIV section 10 of the 1987 Philippine
constitution as discussed earlier.
However, even with these technologies incorporated inside the
classroom, it is still an evident fact that teachers are still the best
“technology” that provides the best learning experience for pupils and
students in their pursuit for excellence.
25
V.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. For a history of the development of assessment, see Ewell, P. (2002).
An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta
and associates (Eds.), Building a Scholarship of Assessment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Twigg, C. A. (2004). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons
learned from round II of the Pew grant program in course redesign.
Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation.
3. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001, November 24). Computing experience and
good practices in undergraduate education: Does the degree of
campus “wiredness” matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(49).
Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n49.html;
Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. (2001). Do computers enhance or detract
from student
26