Evaluating a Socio-Technical Published Paper
Introducing new technology into a structured educational environment is not a trivial undertaking. However, digital artifacts or technology items are potential augmenters to the quality and interest in student learning (Hayashi & Baranauskas, 2013). Within this research paper, Hayashi & Baranauskas studied a group of students and teachers introduced to technology over a very long period. The detailed inclusion of studies and conclusions from the various referenced author’s works is of particular interest. As I read through the research, it became clear that the supporting concepts and ideas shaped many observation methods and data collection methods.
The students were young, and I can only imagine the care taken to protect them from an unpleasant experience while capturing the research data. The non-study-related findings, such as the fear of criminal theft while transporting the laptop back and forth to the school was, clearly unexpected. The study findings of the Student Technology Consultants (Hayashi & Baranauskas, 2013) were an ingenious way to increase the esteem of those students chosen for this vital role and to gather peer experiences. From as far back as 1997, many governments and business leaders believed that integrating technology into the curriculum provides students with the skills necessary to compete in life (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). This research is a tangible and well-executed study of documentation of the formal and informal learning challenges and successes of integrating technology artifacts through a socio-technical research approach (Hayashi & Baranauskas, 2013).
Previous attempts often resulted in the underutilization of technology artifacts and often resistance from teachers and students to change their habits. This study indicates that the socio-technical approach reduced the opposition to only a few teachers and almost no students (Hayashi & Baranauskas, 2013). An essential part of the gathered research findings is the participant’s emotional feelings throughout the research activities. Many research projects collect data too far from actual emotional feeling time. The closer to the actual occurrence, the more accurate the data captured. The study did not include any statistical analysis, which I attribute to a possible agreement with the participants before they agreed to the research project. I don’t think I would want any publication that could reflect poorly on our school. The research was thorough and innovative and increased the body of knowledge (B0K) for integrating technology into structured learning institutions.
In conclusion, I am not sure my evaluation is very technically sound. However, the innovation included provides new knowledge for me as I may work with other schools desiring to integrate a technology artifact into their environment.
References
Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in Education: Current Status. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 385-395.
Hayashi, E. C. S., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2013). Affectibility in Educational Technologies: A Socio-Technical Perspective for Design. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 57-58. https://coloradotech.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/affectibility-educational-technologies-socio/docview/1287029534/se-2
No comments:
Post a Comment