Technology and its Impact in the Classroom Critique
Article Critique
Brief Introduction
In a research-study “Technology and its Impact in the Classroom” conducted by Rozalind G. Muir-Herzig from Bowling Green High School in Ohio, has discussed and presented the effect of using computer technology in educating primary grade students as ineffective, and outlined the technical recommendations that could be adopted by both students and teachers to revitalize the use of computer technology in education.
This paper will discuss and examine Muir-Herzig’s finding through a quantitative research-study. On the other hand, a guideline for an article critique will be used in the process of determining the comprehension of the research-study.
Literature review
The introductory section
The introductory section has been rendered with discussions on issues where the “at-risk” students (non-comprehensive) are mostly concerned by teachers. Muir-Herzig implied the relevance of classroom teaching, as student-teacher interacts, hinting on the use of computer technology as far relevant. It could be interpreted in Muir-Herzig’s introductory section of her study that the “bias” on classrooms’ curriculum learning is highlighted.
Based on the presented literature review (traditional vs. constructivism learning), the empirical discussions on the subject quantifies Muir-Herzig’s referencing on the “observed” situation where she rendered the theoretical values or variables. In one way or the other, it only “quantifies” and “observes” the analysis between “traditional and constructive” learning. Although it may be said the “variable” was clearly identified, but, may not be concluded that Muir-Herzig have consistently defined in the final analysis, in which it still quantify the “measured” prognosis. The hypothesis could have been defined from the literature but may not be attributed to the hypothetical point of view of Muir-Herzig, as otherwise the literature could “prohibit” the flow of empirical findings, vis-à-vis the traditional and constructivism theory. What could be objectively pointed out is the statement of the problem that highlighted the hypothetical finding on traditional and constructivism, in which could be worthwhile thinking of the significance yet may not be explicitly declared as “signifying” the whole issues and could be a fragment or reflective of a systemic and societal phenomenon.
The method section
The sampling of the study in Northwest Ohio High School could only be representing and identified population but may not represent the overall findings. Another findings from the 1985 grouping of Apple Classrooms for Tomorrow (ACOT) that took 10 years of study were only cited by Muir-Herzig to support or “build-up” the theory, as quoted, “results suggest that the impact of technology on education has the potential to change education in a beneficial way if done under certain circumstances” (Sandholtz, et.al., 1997; in Muir-Herzig 2003). The background of the earlier finding from Sandholtz could be a significant derivative that patterns Muir-Herzig’s research-study in Northwest Ohio High School.
Muir-Herzig refers to the method through the used of “Teacher Technology Survey” as developed by Rachel A Vannatta and Blanche O’Bannon (2002). It may be noted from the methodological applications that what Muir-Herzig found could be relevant to her undertaking of the study. However, regardless of the significance of the method and its results, Muir-Herzig could have substantiated the quantified finding at a qualitative perspective through presentation of comparative and varied studies. It may be theorized that findings may only be validated by probable parallelism or similar appraisal based on qualifications of applicability, maturity and appropriateness of the method. These qualifications may provide “equilibrium of thoughts” or balance of insights on the use of computer technology in complementing learning skills for both teachers and students, in which the perspectives could create a “window” for developing an effective curriculum and would “benchmark” the effectiveness for [maybe] global adoption.
Overall, Muir-Herzig could have only discussed and presented the methodological findings of Vannatta and O’Bannon (2002) purposely to exhibit the results of the studies. However, there was no clear alternative findings as to whether the method could adopt a “cutting edge” or innovation, to cite the remark that “teachers are anxious regarding computer due inexperience to use it and only training could enable computer technology as a classroom tool” (Beck, 1994; in Muir-Herzig, 2003). This remark surfaces Muir-Herzig’s personal ascription probing the method and could highlight disbelief or prejudice. Thus, the points of consideration to replicate has not been fully acknowledged or addressed.
The result Section
The statistical techniques used conventional method through survey. The survey was most likely at random, quantitative and cumulative. Although it could be referred as “appropriate”, the appropriateness might contradict with a qualitative research using simulation. The survey could have been integrated with a “trade testing” on the proficiency or basic understanding of the teachers or students with regard to the “usefulness” or “essentiality” of computer technology
The discussion Section
The discussion section has discussed and presented through a review of various literatures that only attempts to “correlate” the finding. In addition, the discussed and presented literatures [from similar studies] tend to only support the finding instead of “examining” the finding (referring to the method). In which case, the discussion “duplicates” the previously discussed and presented literature (empirical studies) and additionally entices the hypothesis.
In contrast, the perspectives of “developing” the research or study has been implied, such as to cite, (1) sharing of vision of to set goals in pursuance of integrating computer technology in school, (2) collaboration to support, develop and implement the use of computer technology in lesson plans preparation, (3) individual instructional approach to fully enhance the training, (4) technology-focused training for specific frequency of sessions on integrating technology into lessons, classroom management, methods of implementation and technology use evaluation, and (5) interactive communication to address the perspectives of long-term goals (Vannatta ; O’Bannon, 2002; in Muir-Herzig, 2003).
Summary
The research-study of Muir-Herzig envisions the development of learning and skills proficiency by enabling an educational curriculum that integrates the computer technology to further enhance the capabilities in education. Although Muir-Herzig’s empirical and quantitative research have not extensively address various perspectives, such as to consider the societal discrepancies and economic conditions, the study attempt to create a “platform” of take-off for technocrats and educators to assimilate the relevant features of “computerization” in the divergent functions of economies.
The conclusion in this article critique can be summarized as Muir-Herzig’s research-study needs continuing examination, regardless of a critique, to positively and sensibly promote the awareness of teachers and students in developing educational proficiency, effective and efficient teaching capabilities, learning skills, and educational curriculum that is tailored fit to the developing world. Thus, the achievement of future professionals and career development growth relies on the early stage of development responding to the archetypes of emerging industrialization and transformation of global workforces.
References
- Muir-Herzig, R.G (2003). ‘Technology and its Impact in the Classroom’. Computers and Education, Volume 42, Number 2, February 2004, pp. 111-131(21). Elsevier Publication. Retrieved 28 June 2008.
