Final Portfolio Task; Summary and discussion of two academic papers

Computers on Wheels and Technological Affordances

One of the main difficulties with studying ICT in schools is that it is almost impossible for research to keep up with the pace of change. A report or research study might lose nearly all it’s relevance before even being published or only be useful for a short while. I read two research articles which focused on ICT learning environments in US educational institutions. The article I will refer to as article one is called ‘Computers on wheels: an alternative to ‘each one has one’ by Michael M. Grant et al., (2005) and the second, which I will refer to as article 2 is by Kay j. Wijekumar et al. (2005) and is titled ‘Technological affordances: the ‘real story’ in research with K-12 and undergraduate learners’. I am comparing the two because while both were published during the same year I found one far more interesting and relevant than the other and would like to explore why this was the case.

It would perhaps be most appropriate to first confront the similarities between these articles. As I have already stipulated, they are both US based research and both examine ICT’s role in education. Further to this, they both dedicate some time to teacher and pupil attitudes towards the ICT equipment they use. Because this data was ascertain through the collection of surveys, we can see an overlap in research methodology as both employed qualitative data. However, the first article, which looked at the use of ‘COWs’ (computers on wheels) in the classroom, also used a quantity of quantitative data and on the whole was much more general in it’s discussion than was ariticle 2.

It may have been the breadth of the first study that made me, as a reader, lose interest in it and find it difficult to absorb. Indeed, I was initially very interested to see what the study found as regards the benefits of COWs as opposed to computer suites or one on one, most especially because the school I was on for SBT 1 provided each child with a laptop. I was somewhat confused then, when the article digressed to the general effectiveness of ICT and whether laptop use encourages higher order thinking. While I would concede that the study needed to address some of these wider issues because it was not a comparative study and as such needed to draw it’s conclusions from examination of a variety of general observations I believe it failed to keep sufficiently focused on the benefits of COWs as opposed to every child has one.

Furthermore, the conclusion dedicated a lot of time to the role of teacher computer competence. While this is a relevant area for concern in the ICT and education debate it is already the subject of a number of articles and I am unsure as to the appropriateness of going into the subject in an article called ‘Computers on wheels: an alternative to each one has one’.

Ultimately I felt I had took very little away from reading the article that would prove relevant to my teaching and use of ICT in the future. I didn’t feel the article answered in any way the question of how useful COWs are comparatively. I think a comparative study compared different ICT set ups in schools and the benefits and draw backs of each arrangement would have been far more interesting and useful to me as a practitioner.

The second article however, I found surprisingly thought provoking. I was initially put off by the title as I didn’t know what ‘affordance’ meant and didn’t see how it could have any relevance to my teaching practise. Moreover, the study was of Year 12 students and undergraduates.

However, I found it really useful and an easy read. It begins by explaining that a technological affordance refers to the interaction supported by the tool for each individual and is affected by their prior experience. For example, the students in the study expected to be entertained by the computer through playing games or saw it as a means of communication. This, it is asserted within the study, means that computers are viewed as an entertainment medium meaning the user will expect to be entertained by it and not expect to have to engage in effortful thinking. I found this issue a highly interesting one as it initiated me to consider on a personal level how I view technology. In the case of how I view it, I primarily see computers as a means for researching and communicating.

Establishing this made me consider that it is perhaps because my personal experience has been to use computers for these rather narrow purposes that I do not enjoy using programs such as spreadsheets; even if it for a ‘fun’ task involved in a maths lesson or art or music based programs. Furthermore, in the vast majority of the lessons which I have taught which incorporate ICT, the technology has been used for research purposes (for example, to research a history topic) or to write things up on word. Using the technology for these purposes mirrors exactly what I use them for in day to day life.

One aspect of the study which caught my attention concerned having multiple windows open. I am guilty of doing about 5 things at once when I am using the computer; for example I will nearly always have Facebook up, my e-mail, a celebrity gossip website I read a lot and BBC news on top of whatever task it is I am doing, such as essay writing. The study looked at the learning of a group of Ps. Some of whom were ‘multitaskers’ and some of whom only had one window open at once. Analysis of the data revealed that those Ps. who had only one window open remembered twice as much information as their counterparts. Since reading this article I have tried to limit my multi-tasking so that my main task gets my full attention!