Abstract
Integrating technology into the classroom has found a lot of interest in the last two decades. Hew and Brush (2007) direct their study in a developing direction; the incorporation of expertise into K-12 teaching and learning. While the article arouses some exciting questions, it has numerous institutional, methodological, and theoretical issues to be of immense value.
Research Problem
Hew and Brush (2007) fail to state the aim of their research explicitly, thus limiting its importance in the study. The research hypothesis in this study is that most of the education writers do not explain what productive integration of technology is. The central objective of the research development paper was to assist K-12 school instructors in incorporating technology into their classrooms.
Review of Literature
The analysis of literature in the article seems insufficient and requires adjustment since they present general information concerning the status of learners’ achievement and instructor’s professional advancement in the incorporation of technology into classrooms, technology as a technique to instructional improvement, and the professional demands that technology can fill.
The sources cited are pertinent and relevant to the study since they are rich in content and recent. A methodical examination of the literature in those domains gives more credibility to the results of the study and proves that there was no bias on how the assignment was performed.
Design and Procedures
Hew and Brush (2007) applied the triangulation method to collect data from the tutor and student journals, education technology journals, field notes through discussions, classroom inspections, conferences, and focus group interviews (mentors and tutors), published and digital documents (Hew & Brush, 2007).
The authors appeared to have applied random sampling in their study since there was no pilot study conducted. Technology into the classroom was the independent variable while instructional improvement and teacher/student impact and development were the dependent variables of the study.
Data Analysis and Presentation
Hew and Brush (2007) expressed data analysis as being performed in tandem with the data collection and “in a series commencing with data gathering, enduring through reflection and examination and then looping back through more information compilation” (p. 240).
They as well pointed out that the information sources were triangulated, but were unclear as to the way this was implemented. Altogether, this methodology collected qualitative data that assisted in supporting the research hypothesis and purpose. Moreover, the article has effectively discussed the research’s weaknesses and problems.
Conclusion and Implications
Generally, this article was inadequately written and did not relate the conclusions of the research to the original purpose. Additionally, the article has failed to outline the results and conclusions of the research effect (Hew & Brush, 2007). This article provides us with several concerns that merit further inquiry.
Hew and Brush (2007) raise conceptual implications, for instance, how to incorporate technology into the classroom and the responsibility of a teacher in the integration process. Another implication of the article is the way to shift from technology proficiencies to technology incorporation and what teaching and learning should do to guarantee that these objectives are met.
Overall Assessment
This article has conceptual faults that act to curtail the influence of the article. Their handling (or lack thereof) of the position of technology in the classroom left questions about what the teachers, in reality, did to incorporate technology into the classroom.
This is astonishing considering the howling at the start of the article that instructional improvement and educational achievement concentrates greatly on computer proficiencies and not adequately on integration into the classroom.
Reference
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.