Instructional Technology Program

Department of Secondary Education

College of Education

University of South Florida

 

Ref # 11538 EME 7939-901

 

Research Methods in Technology-Based Education

(OR How Do I Design and Implement the Study?)

 

DEPARTMENT COURSE SYLLABUS

Spring 2006

INSTRUCTOR(S):

 

CLASS MEETINGS:      Monday, 5:00 - 7:50 p.m., EDU305

CLASS WWW SITE:     http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/

 

PREREQUISITES:         “B” or better in EME 7938

REQUIRED TEXTS:

 

Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN: 0805841458.  Available at USF Bookstore OR FREE online via USF library proxy.

 

Liao, Y. & Bright, G. (1993). Meta-analysis in Technology. In Waxman, H. & Bright, G., (Eds.), Approaches to research on teacher education and technology. Charlottesville, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. pp. 93-100. Available FREE online via ERIC - USF library proxy.  ED382162 (search for WAXMAN in 1993)

 

Cavanaugh, C. (1998). The Effectiveness of Interactive Distance Education Technologies in K-12 Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida. (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

 

Hogarty, K, Harmes, C, Lang, T. and others. (2000). Technology Use in Florida Schools. Papers presented at FERA 2000 Symposium. (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

 

Knupfer, N. & McLellan, H. (1996). Chapter 41: Descriptive research methodologies. In Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. ISBN: 0028646630. ED407934 (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

Majchrzak, T. (2001). Effects of deadline contingencies in a web-based course on HTML. Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida. (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

 

Pable, J. (2000). A Description of Students’ Experiences with a Studio-Based Quick Sketching Course Using Traditional and Computer-Based Instruction Practice Strategies. Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida. (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

 

Robertson, H. (2003).  Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology.  Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296. Available FREE online via ERIC - USF library proxy.  EJ678436

 

University of South Florida, Institutional Review Board, Application for Initial Review, Social & Behavioral Research Involving Human Subjects.  Available http://www.research.usf.edu/cs/download02.htm

VanDeventer, S. & White, J. (2002). Expert Behavior in Children’s Videogame Play. Simulation & Gaming, 33(1), 28-48. (See www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/eme7939/otherdgs.html)

 

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

 

Doctoral-level research seminar in the field of modern instructional technology.  EME 7939 students focus on IT research designs, methods, and instruments. The course is designed to engage students at the highest cognitive levels, requiring extensive independent literature evaluation, conceptualization, writing, and instrument development.  Students must be able to deliver, to receive, and to apply constructive criticism.  Appropriate mainly for IT doctoral students, but doctoral students in other education disciplines who possess the prerequisite competencies may inquire.

 

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

 

1. Student will gain broad understanding of the scholarly literature base pertaining to IT research paradigms and methods.

2. Student will be able to synthesize scholarly literature pertaining to the application of IT research methods.

3. Student will be able to identify and describe the research methods appropriate to a specific IT research question or paradigm.

4. Student will be able to evaluate IT research instruments and designs.

5. Student will be able to employ scholarly processes to develop IT research instruments and designs.

6. Student will be able to develop specific instantiations of IT research instruments and designs.

7. Student will be able to produce a publication-quality research proposal that articulates an IT research design.

8. Student will be able to present to a group of educators a paper that articulates an IT research design.

 

 

STUDENT ASSESSMENT:

 

List Of Course Products:

 

Evaluation of the student will be based on successful completion of the following products and activities:

1) Three (3) AD-Abstract Sets/Discussion guides:  The student will prepare for each assigned reading a written abstract set/discussion guide/study questions.  A printed copy of this document will be submitted to the instructor at the beginning of the class for which the reading is scheduled. You should have a good idea from EME7938 about your preferred method of addressing this.  If not, then do the following: 1) Write at least three study questions about each chapter/document that you read.  The process of answering these questions should leave the respondent with a good breadth and depth of knowledge about the content of the document. 2) Provide sample responses to your questions.

2) Three (3) DE-Evaluations of Dissertations & Journal Articles:  The student will prepare for each assigned reading a list of at least three questions/observations about what is good or bad about the research design.  A printed copy of this document will be submitted to the instructor at the beginning of the class for which the reading is scheduled.

3) One (1) RP#1 - First draft Research Proposal including method section

4) One (1) RP#2 - Second draft Research Proposal with method section including plan for formally validating prototype Technology-Based Instrument

5) One (1) RP#3 - Third draft Research Proposal including prototype Technology-Based Instrument

6) One (1) RP#4 - Fourth draft Research Proposal including results of validation process and revised prototype Technology-Based Instrument, completed IRB application.  Document will be formally "defended" in class week 15 or 16.

7) Four (4) PE#1-4 - sets of Proposal Evaluations: a list of at least three good questions/observations about what is good or bad about the research design and prototype technology-based instrumentation for each of 2 or 3 assigned papers.  RP#3 evaluations will include responsibility to act as instrument validator. (specific assignments TBA)

 

Criteria For Evaluation Of Student Performance:

 

All products except the last will be evaluated by the instructor using a 3-level scale.

1)       “Good” = full credit  2) “Acceptable” = half credit  3) “Unacceptable” = no credit

(The last will most likely use a 5-level scale)

 

Relative product point values are as follows:

AD#1-3                                                    18 points (6 ea.)

DE#1-3                                                    18 points (6 ea.)

RP#1, RP#2, & RP#3                                18 points (6 ea.)

PE#1-4                                                    16 points (4 ea.)

RP#4                                                       30 points

TOTAL                                                    100 POINTS

 

Grade scale is as follows:

A                                                            100-90 points

B                                                             89-80 points

C                                                             79-70 points

D                                                             69-60 points