250 Education Research
This course examines the fundamentals of educational research, including qualitative and quantitative methods in the development of reliable knowledge in the field of education.
In iMET, this course is taken in conjunction with EDTE 281 - Tools and the Curriculum. Using what they are learning about technology tools and the curriculum in EDTE 281, and based upon the students' area of interest, students participating in this section of EDTE 250 will develop an action research proposal for a study of the impact combining a curricular strategy with a technology tool or tools in their learning environment. The coursework includes: the identification and formulation of research problems, research designs and methods for establishing trustworthiness and validity.
250 Final Final Project Focus Review with Comments from Dr. John Cowan
1. Area of Focus Statement
The purpose of this study is test the impact of vocabulary attainment through reading comprehension with the use of reading software tailored in the manner that combines text with visual cues and ASL signs to bridge the language gap between English and American Sign Language (ASL) speakers.
2. Research Questions
Does the use of reading software tailored in the manner that combines text with visual and ASL signs help bridge the gap between English and American Sign Language (ASL) Speakers?
3. Description of the Innovation/Intervention
Collaborate with peers in the field of Deaf Education and Assistive Technology and develop reading software tailored in the manner that combines text with visual and ASL signs. We will develop a teaching strategy that incorporates the means with the reading software to allow deaf students and ASL learners develop reading comprehension through vocabulary attainment.
--- Here you state that you are going to develop a teaching strategy. The specific strategy you use will be part of the blanks above. The other piece will be the technology. What technology will you use in combination with your strategy?
4. Annotated Bibliography (Note: Find and include 2-3 more resources)
Marschark, M. and P. C. Hauser (2008). Deaf cognition: foundations and outcomes. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
"Deaf Cognition examines the cognitive underpinnings of deaf individuals' learning. It contributes to the science of learning by describing and testing theories that might either over or underestimate the role that audition or vision plays in learning and memory, and by shedding light on multiple pathways for learning."--BOOK JACKET.
This book focuses on the cognitive development of deaf children. Different experts in the fields of anthropology, psychology, linguistics, basic visual sensory processes, education, cognition and neurophysiology share complementary observations. Even though the study and analysis was done on Italian deaf preschoolers with hearing children, it proves bilingual language develop is a problem world-wide. This book also shows that theory can intersect practice through the authors’ research and insights on literacy, cognition and language development.
(Marschark and Hauser 2008)
Strong, M. (1988). Language learning and deafness. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
This books draws upon work done in linguistics, psychology and education. It focuses on the relationship between language acquisition in deaf and hearing populations. The relationship mentioned in the book is focused on the differences of learning English by the deaf and hearing speakers of other languages.
(Strong 1988)
García-Carbonell. Simulation/Gaming and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence in Another Language. Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 32, No. 4, 481-491 (2001) DOI: 10.1177/104687810103200405
This article focuses on the issue of communicative competence as a goal in language acquisition and how to reach that goal. In this article, the authors address the issue through combining simulations and gaming methodology with the means of learning English.
Ibertsson, Tina, Willstedt-Svensson, Ursula, Radeborg, Karl & Sahlen, Birgitta (2008). A methodological contribution to the assessment of nonword repetition a comparison between children with specific language impairment and hearing-impaired children with hearing aids or cochlear implants. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 33 (4), 168-178. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/14015430801945299
Akeroyd, Michael A. (2008). Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. International Journal of Audiology, 47 (1), 53-71. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/14992020802301142
Engel-Eldar, Ruth & Rosenhouse, Judith (2000). Reading Difficulty Characteristics in Dyslexic and Hearing-impaired Students. Educational Psychology, 20 (4), 459-482. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/01443410020016680
Arnold, Paul & Horner, Louise (1995). Word comprehension by hearing-impaired and hearing children. Educational Research, 37 (2), 185-191. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/0013188950370206
5. Description of Study Participants
Deaf students in a community college or university. In college entry level English classes that focuses on reading. The study participants will also include Children of Deaf Adults (CODAS). They are native to ASL and also struggle with English.
6. Description of Negotiations
Use my network with different community colleges and universities in the state of California that have a large (50+) deaf population. Such as California State University of Northridge, Pierce College, Ohlone college, American River College and enlist the aid of PEPnet (Postsecoardany Education Programs Network for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students - http://www.pepnet.org/). Also will touch base with the High Tech Center Training Unit at DeAnza College (HTCTU – http://www.htctu.net/) for feedback on what assistive technology resources are out there.
7. Timeline
April 3-5, 2009: Contact my network of colleague in the field of Deaf Education and Assistive Technology for resources.
April 5-10, 2009: Develop website design template and questionnaires based on resources gathered.
April 10, 2009: Deploy website and contact network to distribute among their students.
May 10, 2009: Compile all data gathered through the website.
May 10-15, 2009: Work with focus groups to develop content for simulation.
May 15-June 15, 2009: Develop a simulation that develops vocabulary attainment and strengthen reading comprehension.
June 15th, 2009: Finish data collection
8. Statement of Required Resources
People and resources from PEPnet and HTCTU
Computer labs at various campus for study participants to be a part of the focus group
Server Space for website
Working closely with a IT company to develop a simulation.
9. Description of Data Collection Strategies
Data collection methods:
Journals for observation notes
Surveys and questionnaires
Focus groups
10. Description of Validity
I put a lot of thought into this and reviewed the models several times and at the end I choose Validity Model 2 by Anderson, Herr and Nihlen.
Since my area of focus is communication between language. Since language is culture, I felt Validity Model 2 is most fitting.
The use of Democratic Validity includes multiple perspective of all participants in the study community are represented. Since the deaf community and users of ASL are a part of a high contact culture, I feel that their full participation in the study is very valuable. As well as their insight with ASL since many ASL users come from different backgrounds and how they learned English and ASL.
Outcome Validity is whereas action emerging from a particular study leads to the successful resolution of the subject of the study. This is my hope and intent when I choose this focus – I see the problem and I want to find a solution.
Process Validity takes place when the study is designed and conducted in a manner that is obviously “dependable” and “competent”. If I come up with an outcome that is a solution, I want my study to have merit and have future use.
Catalytic Validity is possible when the results from the study motives participants to take action on the basis of what they have learned from participating in the study. I know my area of focus has been brought to attention before and many different approaches has been taken to resolve the issue of bridging a conceptual language and a linear language. Sometimes those approaches work and sometimes they don’t. Hopefully participants are more aware through their experiences in the study and help bring about change for the better to improve language comprehension.
Dialogic Validity gives the strength of the findings of the study are shared and processed with peers are capable of providing an insider critique of the study data. Also the findings that are shared with peers will take on more strength as a valid study as well as to be shared with others outside of the study.
All of these together I feel will strengthen my area of focus and the action research behind it.
Validity Model 2 - Anderson, Herr and Nihlen
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Anderson, Herr and Nihlen establish by describing several forms of validity that are designed to support classroom teachers in developing trustworthy practitioner research studies.
11. Special Considerations:
There are a few considerations such as determine what background my study group is from and does that factor in my study? There can be deaf students in my study from residential deaf schools taught in ASL vs. mainstream classrooms with interpreters using a mix of English and ASL. Should I study those two groups separately or mix it up? Conduct surveys to find out their learning environment? Give out a assessment test to determine the skill level of the students? I.e. study deaf students that are in college level English classes vs. remedial or basic skill English classes? Assess how they learn English differently? My considerations come in the form of questions.