PT3 Catalyst Leadership Retreat II Washington D.C., USA Sept. 19, 2003 Strengthening Credible Evidence to Nurture a National Research Agenda for Technology in Education PT3 Catalyst Leadership Retreat II Washington D.C., USA Sept. 19, 2003 Gerald Knezek Professor of Technology & Cognition University of North Texas (gknezek@tenet.edu)

Some Perspectives Lederman (2003) What works: A commentary on the nature of scientific research “…it is clear that those chanting the ‘what works’ mantra are as confused as the general public and K-12 students about the meaning of scientific research.” (p. 4) Kemeny (1959) A Philosopher Looks at Science Three major stages of scientific method: Theory formation Deduction of consequences Verification of predictions (p. 247) “The most characteristic feature of science is its method” Fulton et. Al (1995) Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection “With 40,000 participants and a 1993 average of 100,000 log-ons per month, the Texas Education Network (TENET) is among the largest and most successful state efforts to open the world of telecommunications technology to teachers.” (p. 116)

Foundation to Build From: Dissertation Studies Christensen: Teacher Integration Training => Positive Student IT Attitudes Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 411-434. Hopson: Technology Enriched Middle School Group > Comparison Group in Problem Solving Hopson, M., Simms, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Effects of a technology enriched learning environment on student development of higher order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 34(2), 109-119. For others see: Knezek & Christensen (2002). Impact of New Information Technologies on Teachers and Students. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 369-376.

Federal Projects: Suggested Build-on Approach Look across: similar projects within a program (replication) programs for similar findings (meta-analysis) Examine longitudinal (multi-year) impact Add research agenda to program evaluation Consider reversing perspective projects as ‘guinea pigs’ for strong research designs Researchers/evaluators could be lead PIs Find strong comparison group Matched pairs OK if random selection not possible

Areas of Research Needs Roblyer & Knezek (2003) Areas of Research Needs Roblyer & Knezek (2003). New Millenium Research for Educational Technology: A Call for a National Research Agenda. JRTE, 36(1). Research to Establish Relative Advantage Doty, Popplewell, and Byers (2002) - reading via interactive storybooks Research to improve technology implementation methods Roblyer And Marshall (2002-2003) - instrument to predict students’ success in Virtual High School courses Research to monitor technology’s impact on societal goals Chisholm, Carey, and Hernandez (2002) - uses of IT by students of various ethnic backgrounds Studies that help us shape desired directions Harris and Jones (1999) - communication patterns of online mentoring

Area 2: Teacher Stage of Adoption vs Area 2: Teacher Stage of Adoption vs. Home Access 2001(SITE 2003 Research Award)

Area 3: Trends in Computer Enjoyment - 2001 sample (Girls & Computers, NECC 2003)

Area 4: Attitudes Toward School - Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) 7th Graders 2003 (unpublished)

Why are These Types of Research Important? Efficient use of public funds Preservation of national economy Improving quality of life Monitoring long term impact on society

New AERA SIG TACTL (Technology as an Agent for Change in Teaching & Learning) First full year: 100 members strong 2003: Focused on PT3 outcomes - Chicago 2004: 41 proposals submitted - San Diego 88 reviewers reading 2-5 each now Forums at AERA, NECC (SITE, EdMedia?) to build bridges to technology groups

For Further Information Research Findings: http://www.iittl.unt.edu/ AERA SIG http://www.iittl.unt.edu/tactl G. Knezek http://courseweb.tac.unt.edu/gknezek