Article Review # 3

 Kodippili, A., & Senaratne, D. (2008). Is computer-generated interactive mathematics homework more effective than traditional instructor-graded homework? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 928-932. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e0ed8f42-b0b8-4a19-ad64-9782b569b3f4%40sessionmgr4005&vid=3&hid=4206

My most recent reading regards the use of online homework versus traditional paper and pencil instructor graded homework.  The basis of the article revolved around College Algebra courses taken at the college level.  Two instructors were selected who each taught two sections of the College Algebra course.  For each instructor, they assigned homework in one section using the online homework program MyMathLab, and for the other section they assigned homework to be completed on paper and graded by the instructor. 

Before discussing the study, I would like to give some background on MyMathLab.  MyMathLab is a web based program that students can purchase in association with a particular textbook.  An instructor sets up the online homework by choosing select problems from each section that is taught in class.  Students create and account, and login to the website to complete their homework.  The online homework gives questions that are similar to the textbook exercises.  A student will put their answer into the online program, and then MyMathLab will tell the student if the answer is correct or incorrect.  The teacher can limit the number of attempts on any given problem to whatever number the choose.  If the student gets the question correct, they move on to the next problem.  If the student uses all their attempts and still does not get the question correct, the program will tell the student the right answer, but mark the question wrong on the assignment.  Students are able to click on resources for aide such as seeing an example or asking for a similar exercise to practice.  Some online homework systems even have videos for specific problems to aide students in understanding.  The homework is automatically graded, with a total score calculated at the end of an assignment. 

For this study, 72 total students were enrolled in the four different sections.  The results for the study showed that there was not a significance difference (using a t-test with a significance level of .05) in performance on homework assignments when comparing the online homework versus traditional homework.  However there were other benefits that seem to be correlated to the online homework sections.  The 2 sections using online homework had a student success rate (meaning the student received an A, B, or C in the course) was 70% versus 49% in the traditional homework sections. 

These results could be explained by several factors.  First, although homework is not counted as a large portion of the final grade, it could be that students using the online homework were better prepared overall going into an exam.  Perhaps the extra practice and examples caused those students to perform higher on the tests, even though there homework score did not show a significant difference.  Another possibility could be that in the online homework sections, the instructor had more available time to work with students on questions, because the instructor did not have to manually grade each assignment.  Also students are able to access the online homework any time of the day, whereas the instructor only has select office hours during the week to seek assistance.  Some limitations of this study are that the sample size is not very large,  outside influences such as private tutors was not accounted for, and the participants in the study were not selected in a completely random manner.  However the dramatic difference in success rates should call for more exploration into using online homework in mathematics classes. 

This article has several implications.  First, online homework is a great tool for instructors because it frees up a lot of time for the instructor to be more focused on designing lessons and assisting students.  Grading can be an overwhelming task for teachers, and online homework gives the students  the ability to still earn points for the class while not occupying a majority of the instructors time.  Second, online homework calls into question what resources a school must provide to students in order to be successful.  Not all student may have a computer or internet at home, and so schools need to be sure they are providing opportunities for students to complete their homework using on campus resources.  Lastly, online homework opens up options to students as to when the complete their homework.  Lots of students work full time and can not make it to see instructors during office hours.  Or perhaps students can not afford to pay for a private tutor.  The online homework allows students to work on their schedule, with assistance built in to the online program.  There are some downsides to online homework, but in general I believe the pros outweigh the cons.  Overall I think online homework is a benefit to the students and instructors, and as time progresses, traditional homework using paper and pencil may quickly become a thing of the past. 

Article Review # 2

Beauchamp, G., & Jones, S., & Kennewell, S., & Tanner, H. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (1), 61-73. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1926f8df-d5fa-4916-b2ab-b9c6782f06a2%40sessionmgr112&vid=3&hid=107

The purpose of the study conducted in the article was to determine how including a piece of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in a classroom altered the learning atmosphere and outcomes.  The particular technology used for the study was interactive whiteboards (IWBs).  A feature of the IWB that was used is the ability to “manipulate items directly on the display” (61).  This study was conducted in England, where a majority of the IWBs are found in mathematics classrooms.  The characteristics used to determine the level of interaction was based on how student’s involvement in the lesson is encouraged, expected, and extended to higher order thinking.  Also the increased level of interaction should lead to more control by the student over the direction of the lesson.  In an interactive classroom, the group should be able to investigate new ideas through exploration.  The goal of the IWB is to increase the ability and productive outcome of this exploration.  Thus the emphasis should be changing from teacher-centered to student-centered.  The study was broken into two parts: the first part comparing the difference in interactivity between classrooms that are ICT based and classrooms that are not ICT based for students ages 5-14, and the second part involved looking in depth at teacher’s lessons specifically for the ICT based classrooms. 

I will focus on the second part of the study.  The teachers who were selected for the study were chosen based on their effectiveness in teaching in general, rather than an extensive knowledge of the IWB technology.  One particular lesson observed was a mathematics class of 29 boys and girls between the ages of 9-11.  The classroom had an IWB at the front of the classroom, as well as 3 network computers in the back.  There was a teacher and two aides in the classroom for the lesson.  The math lesson involved teaching students how to add and subtract, first with a number line setting, and then extending their understanding to be able to use purely mental math to complete a problem.  The lesson began with the entire class working together on a problem presented on the IWB involving a temperature question.  Students were invited to come to the board and explain their answer to the class utilizing the IWB to assist them.  The teacher then validated or questioned the student’s response.  After the class explored the topic together, students broke up into several groups.  One particular group of six students was allowed to work at the IWB, while three other groups worked at the desktop computers.  At the IWB, the group was manipulating questions to help solve addition and subtraction problems randomly generated by the technology.  The goal was to move from counting on the number line to using mental math.  After a problem was completed, a student was told they found the right answer, or a wrong answer would trigger a noise from the machine indicating a mistake was made. 

The results of the study found that while the IWB assisted students initially in discovering answers, students quickly became more interested in avoiding the noise made by a wrong answer.  Students were reluctant to switch to using mental math, because they wanted to optimize their number of correct answers.  Thus the importance of the lesson objectives diminished, and students focused mainly on completing a base goal of finishing their task. 

When reflecting on the results of the study, several ideas come to mind.  Perhaps the most important understanding gained from this study is that “technical interactivity is not in itself effective in securing learning, and that students also need the intention of learning and the skills required to marshal resources – including the features of ICT, their own cognitive faculties and those of their peers – towards learning goals” (71).  This means the technology can be used as an aide, but the structure of that use in the lesson is extremely important.  Technology by itself will not raise scores, but technology is a useful tool that can be used to enhance lessons and provide a valuable tool for interaction between students.  When continuing this discuss of interactive technology, a focus on the role of the teacher, the role of reflection, and the dynamic of student interactions would be important aspects to examine to decide the best way to implement ICT into our classrooms.  It is obvious that technology provides a great resource for education, but further analysis is needed to create a path for best practices.