The research proposal discusses the role of the technology (wiki) in the English Language Arts educational process and its connection to the common core state standards (CCSs). The measurements of the chosen learning outcomes, like the challenges teachers face while implementing CCSSs, are feasible indeed as the answers to the open-ended questions help to realize how the technological progress may influence the educational process. Unfortunately, the proposal does not present a clear discussion of such concepts as learner motivation, control, or possible interactions. It contains a brief description of such learner attributes like student’s age (11 and 12 graders), learning style (the use of wiki technologies), and expectations (students need to achieve better results in education using the technologies). This is why there are many potential problems in the chosen procedures. Technology is defined as an issue with no particular standards (Haertel & Means, 2003), and certain attention should be paid to the pedagogical approaches and technological quality. It is also hard to define whether the success of students’ grades depends on the use of the technologies only, or some other outside factors can influence the process.
In the proposal, the author does not define the target audience, and it is impossible to say whether the chosen subject matter is age-appropriate for the audience. Still, the audience should be connected with ELA and the standards. The author’s attention to the ethical issue is also minimal. It is mentioned that all teachers’ answers remain to be anonymous, students have to use information considering certain ethical norms, and teachers should follow the standards set (Burns, Aitkenhead, Frederick, & Huddy, 2013). The author explains how the chosen open-ended questions and case studies may help to evaluate the peculiarities of the educational process and the impact of technologies and what kind of limitations may become a problem for research. The paper does not also correspond with the APA style rules. In-text citations should be put as follows (author’s name, year) (Paiz, Angeli, Wagner, Lawrikck, Moore, Anderson, Soderlund, Brizee, & Keck, 2014). In the proposal, there is no comma between the year and the author’s name. It is also necessary to write the names of all authors in case the source is mentioned for the first time. The author does not follow this requirement as well. There are discrepancies in spacing and headings. There is no page header.
In general, the paper may be strengthened if the author edits and proofreads it properly following the APA standards precisely because minor mistakes take place throughout the paper and adds more specific information about the research variables and the conditions under which the chosen subject should be discussed.
Reference List
Burns, M.K., Aitkenhead, J.M., Frederick, C.M., & Huddy, S. (2013). Undergraduate internship expectations: Strategic encouragement of student involvement. Student Pulse, 5(12). Web.
Haertel, G.D. & Means, B. (2003). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ismail, S.A., Al-Awidi, H.M., & Almekhlafi, A.G. (2012). Employing reading and writing computer-based instruction in English as a second language in elementary schools. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(12), 265 – 274.
Paiz, J.M., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrikck, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., & Keck, R. (2014). APA formatting and style guide. Online Writing Lab. Web.