Jasek SPED 5305 Week 4 AssignmentSpr32021
.docx
School
Lamar University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
SPED 5305
Subject
Communications
Date
Dec 18, 2024
Pages
6
Uploaded by DukeProton14443
Week 4 Assignment: Critiquing Mixed-Methods or Action ResearchOverview:This week’s assignment asks the student to critique examples of published research. During a professionalcareer, one will often be presented with research on a specific topic. As a consumer of research, how will that person know if the research is legitimate and/or worthwhile? At other times, there will be a need to find research regarding problems, issues, or needs at a campus or district. Additionally, if an educator waspersonally researching a topic, this uniform method would assist with establishing a disciplined approach to conducting research that could be shared with others and added to the body of knowledge on the topic. The purpose of the Week 4 assignment is to critique a mixed-methods or action research article.Week 4 targets the following Course Learning ObjectivesCLO4: Review and analyze published, empirical studies using a variety of research methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and action research)CLO5: Develop a coherent research plan that support instructional planning through data-driven decision-makingWeek 4 Learning OutcomesStudents will:Read a mixed-methods and action research article and formally critique one of them.General Instructions(1)Read the two research articles provided to you in the week 4 reading section. One article will be amixed-methods research example and the other will be an action research example.(2)Write a critique on one of the articles. Use the template below for your submission. Five sectionshave been identified. These include the introduction, review of the literature, methodology, findings, and conclusions.(3)Review the grading rubric. Pay close attention to the Exceeds Criteria if you want all points.(4)VERY IMPORTANT – Be sure to cover the required components. There is no need to submit a wordy document. Organize your thoughts and be concise and to the point.Section I Introduction– Review the Introduction section of the article. Briefly describe each of the following three parts of the Introduction and note the degree of clarity and completeness of each. Include any concerns found or suggestions for improvement (This should be at least one paragraph, but no more than two paragraphs and written in a narrative paragraph format.)(1)Setting of the study and problem being addressed(2)Purpose and significance of the study(3)Research questionsSection I: Submit the Introduction section critique in the workspace below:The introduction of the article effectively sets the stage for the study by discussing the growing importance of technology integration in U.S. classrooms, particularly in light of Common Core standards requiring students to develop technological fluency. It highlights a significant gap in research, noting that while much attention has been given to teachers’ perspectives on technology 1PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page
integration, the role and attitudes of principals—key decision-makers and influencers in schools—remain underexplored. The problem addressed is that without principal support and involvement, successful technology integration may face substantial barriers. While the context is clear, providing additional details about the specific types of schools or communities involved could better situate the study within its practical setting.The purpose of the study is to examine principals’ attitudes toward technology integration, identify perceived challenges, and evaluate their openness to using peer coaching as a professional developmentsolution. The research questions are directly tied to these goals, focusing on how principals value technology, the obstacles they see in teacher implementation, and their views on mentoring or coachingas a viable strategy. These questions are clear and relevant, effectively framing the study’s objectives and significance. However, a brief explanation of how these findings might directly inform policy or professional development practices could further strengthen the introduction. Overall, the introduction provides a strong foundation for the research while leaving room for minor enhancements to its contextand practical implications.Section IILiterature Review – Read the Review of the Literature (or Background) section of the chosen article. Address the following four questions. (This should be at least one paragraph, but no more than two paragraphs and written in a narrative paragraph format.)(1)How many different sources were cited?(2)Were the majority of sources current? (Be sure to compare with the date of publication)(3)Briefly describe the consensus (or main point) of this section(4)Did this section adequately cover the body of knowledge related to the topic? Why or why not?Section II: Submit the Literature Review section critique in the workspace below:The Review of the Literature section in Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effectcites approximately 23 sources, providing a robust foundation for exploring the role of principals in technology integration. Most sources are relatively current, with many dating from the late 2000s and early 2010s, aligning well with the article’s 2015 publication date. However, a few older references from the early 2000s suggest that while foundational research was included, some aspects of the rapidly evolving technological landscape may not be fully represented.The consensus of this section is that principals are critical to successful technology integration in schools. Their leadership and vision significantly influence teacher attitudes and practices, helping to address common barriers such as resistance, lack of training, and insufficient resources. The literature highlights that effective professional development—particularly ongoing and learner-centered approaches—is essential for fostering teacher confidence and technological fluency. While the review covers key themes and presents a clear link between principal leadership and successful integration, it could be more comprehensive. Adding more recent studies or case examples of successful technology initiatives led by principals would have strengthened its depth and practical applicability. Overall, it provides a strong, though slightly limited, overview of the topic.Section IIIMethodology – Review the Methodology section of your chosen article. Address the following four questions. (This should be at least one paragraph, but no more than two paragraphs and written in a narrative paragraph format.) Note: To answer questions 1 & 2, refer to the text – qualitative sampling, pages 167-169 and quantitative sampling, pages 191-199. To answer questions 3 & 4, refer to the text – qualitative data collection methods, pages 169-178 and quantitative data collection methods, pages 202-214.2PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page
(1)What type of sample was used?(2)Did the sample adequately represent the population? Why or why not?(3)What data were collected?(4)How were the data collected?Section III: Submit the Methodology section critique in the workspace below:The methodology of Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effect employed a purposeful sampling approach, selecting principals from four school districts in Northern California. These districts were chosen for their diversity in student demographics, academic performance, and median household incomes, allowing the researchers to explore varied perspectives on technology integration. Surveys were sent to 200 principals across elementary, middle, and high schools, and 42 principals participated, yielding a 21% response rate. While the sample captured localized insights and represented a range of school settings, its reliance on voluntary participation may have introduced response bias, as those more interested in technology integration were likely more inclined to respond. Furthermore, the limited geographic scope and relatively small sample size restrict the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of school administrators.Data collection included both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative data were gathered through surveys with structured multiple-choice questions, which provided measurable insights into principals' perceptions, such as the proportion of teachers effectively integrating technology. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended survey questions and follow-up interviews, allowing for more detailed exploration of principals' experiences and the challenges they face. This mixed-methods approach provided a well-rounded view of the topic by combining statistical trends with nuanced personal reflections. However, the study’s limited sample size and voluntary participation suggest that caution should be exercised in applying these findings to broader educational contexts.Section IVFindings– Review the Findings section of the chosen article. Address the following three questions. (Thisshould be at least one paragraph, but no more than two paragraphs and written in a narrative paragraph format.)(1)How were the data presented?(2)Was the manner of presenting the data clear and understandable?(3)Were the Findings directly related to the research question?Section IV: Submit the Findings section critique in the workspace below:The findings section of Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effectpresented data through a combination of tables, descriptive summaries, and quotes from participants. Quantitative datafrom surveys were displayed in tables, showing percentages and rankings that highlighted trends such as the prioritization of teacher willingness and professional development in supporting technology integration. Qualitative data, derived from open-ended survey responses and interviews, were summarized thematically and supported by direct quotes from principals. This method allowed the researchers to integrate statistical information with richer, narrative insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with technology integration.The presentation of the data was straightforward and easy to follow. The tables were clearly labeled,3PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page
making the quantitative data accessible, while the narrative summaries provided context and deeper understanding of the qualitative findings. The findings were directly tied to the research questions, addressing how principals value technology integration, the obstacles they identify, and their thoughts on potential solutions like coaching or mentoring. This cohesive approach ensured that the data presentation was relevant to the study’s objectives and effectively communicated the results in a meaningful way.Section VConclusions– Review the Conclusions section of the chosen article. Address the following three questions. (This should be at least one paragraph, but no more than two paragraphs and written in a narrative paragraph format.)(1)Were the conclusions solely based on the Findings of the study? Briefly describe.(2)What populations can the conclusions be generalized to, and why?(3)Why was the study design (quantitative or qualitative) the appropriate design?Section V: Submit the Conclusion section critique in the workspace below:The conclusions in Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effectwere directly grounded in the study’s findings. They highlighted that while principals place significant value on technology integration in schools, they face substantial barriers such as teacher reluctance, limited professional development opportunities, and inadequate funding or resources. The findings also pointed to the potential effectiveness of peer coaching as a strategy for supporting teachers in adopting technology, demonstrating alignment between the conclusions and the data collected through surveys and interviews.The conclusions are most relevant to districts with similar characteristics to the Northern California schools studied, such as diverse student populations, varying income levels, and differing access to technological infrastructure. Given the small sample size and regional focus, the conclusions are not easily generalizable to all school administrators across the United States. However, they offer practical insights for districts facing comparable challenges. The mixed-methods approach used in the study waswell-suited to its objectives. By combining quantitative data to identify trends and qualitative data to explore nuanced perspectives, the design allowed for a holistic understanding of the principals’ experiences and the complexities of technology integration in schools.Use the following Rubric to guide your work on the Week 4 Assignment.PEDG 5307Week 4TasksDoes Not Meet Minimum Criteria Approaches Minimum Criteria Meets CriteriaExceeds CriteriaPart 1Introduction Section CritiqueCandidate failed to describe setting, problem, purpose, significance, and research questions(0 points)Candidate vaguely describes setting, problem, purpose, significance, and research questions oromits two or more promptsCandidate describes setting, problem, purpose, significance, and research questions but omits one prompt(8 points)Candidate fully and clearly describes setting, problem, purpose, significance, and research questions(10 points)4PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page
(6 points)Part 2Literature Review Section CritiqueCandidate failed to describe number of citations and whether current or not, main point, and whether adequate coverage or not(0 points)Candidate vaguely describes number of citations and whethercurrent or not, main point, and whether adequate coverage ornot and/or omits two or more prompts(6 points)Candidate describes number of citations and whether current or not, main point, and whether adequate coverage or not but omits one prompt(8 points)Candidate fully and clearly describes number of citations and whether current or not, main point, and whetheradequate coverage or not(10 points)Part 3Methodology Section CritiqueCandidate failed to describe the type of sample and whether representative of population, what data was collected and how collected(0 points)Candidate vaguely describes the type of sample and whether representative of population, what datawas collected and how collected and/or omits two or more prompt(6 points)Candidate describes the type of sample and whether representative of population, what data was collected and how collected but omits one prompt(8 points)Candidate fully and clearly describes the type of sample and whether representative of population, what data was collected and how collected(10 points)Part 4Findings Section CritiqueCandidate failed to describe how the data was collected, whether clear and understandable, and whether Findings relateto research questions or not(0 points)Candidate vaguely describes how the data was collected, whether clear and understandable, and whether Findings relate to research questions or not and/or omits two or more prompts(6 points)Candidate describes how the data was collected,whether clear and understandable, and whether Findings relate to research questions or not but omits one prompt(8 points)Candidate fully and clearly describes how the data was collected, whether clear and understandable, and whether Findings relate to research questions or not(10 points)Part 5Conclusions SectionCritiqueCandidate failed to describe whether conclusions were based on research questions, population that study can be generalized to, and why the design was appropriate(0 points)Candidate vaguely describes whether conclusions were based on research questions, populationthat study can be generalized to, and why the design was appropriate and/or omits two or more prompts(6 points)Candidate describes whether conclusions were based on research questions, population that study can be generalized to, andwhy the design was appropriate but omits one prompt(8 points)Candidate fully and clearly describes whether conclusions were based on research questions, population that study can be generalized to, and why the design was appropriate(10 points)5PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page
6PEDG 5307_Spring 2021Page