Group+Two+March+26

IGroup 2 (Clarice, Sarah, Pam, Nicole)


 * Spires, H., Morris, G., & Zhang, J. (in press, 2012) Discussion**
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**

The theoretical framework includes multimodality specifically as it applies to new literacies and new media literacies. These three interrelated theories emphasize the new skill sets required for the 21st century student. The research question centers around how middle grade teachers from the US and China view the impact of the Internet on teaching and learning. Specifically, 1) What are the perspectives of middle grade teachers from the US and China concerning new literacies and emerging technologies, and 2) How do middle grade teachers navigate the use of emerging technologies from a cross-cultural perspective? A primary reason for the study was to understand "both groups' (China and US) perspectives on integrating new literacies and technologies into their teaching" (p. 2). The study also sought to provide clarity on how the Internet is changing what it means to be literate. I felt that the literature review framing the study with new literacies, new media literacies and multimodality in this article was a true synthesis, rather than a linear outline. I really appreciated the "flow" of this structure. There is a definitive lead to the comparison of US and Chinese education systems when it is stated that our systems share similar concerns.

The study states that a mixed methods research design was used by utilizing a survey and conducting focus groups with teachers from both countries. The survey created with the assistance of a four member panel of experts in the field of instructional technology at the middle school level, and was field tested prior to implementation and tested for reliability (r=84). Purposive sampling was used to create the focus groups based on their ability to provide additional information about their technology use beyond the survey. Continuous open-coding was utilized when analyzing the transcripts from the focus groups based on the frequency of themes. The goal of the survey was to "uncover similarities and differences between the two groups of teachers from the US and China in terms of perceptions and current practices related to new literacies" (p. 7). This allowed the researchers to quantify the attitudes of the teachers, while the focus groups added a qualitative perspective. The participants were 291 (n=291) middle grades teachers from the U.S. and China. There were 193 U.S. teachers and 98 Chinese teachers. The participants " were selected from a random subset of the 557 rural and urban middle schools in North Carolina" (p. 7).  The validity of the measurement (survey) was addressed by having local teachers fill out the survey before the actual test to make sure the questions were syntactically clear. Validity of interpretation was addressed by having the two researchers independently code the qualitative data and then collapse the coding based on similarities between the two. I wonder if the study would have benefited by having a third party code the data since themes were chosen by frequency of mention. I think that you definitely have a point here, but this also limits the researchers' awareness of the data, which would definitely impact the study.
 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**

T-tests were used to analyze the survey data in order to compare the responses of the US and Chinese teachers. These were appropriate in order to show the significance of the results and to show differences between the US and Chinese teachers' responses and to address the research questions. In addition, the qualitative data was analyzed and then coded into six categories. The six categories were collapsed into four interpretive themes: 1) Educate us and support us; 2) Listen to us; 3) We want to engage our students; 4) Align assessments and standards with 21st century skills with teaching and learning expectations.
 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**

Limitations of the study were clearly addressed. First, through the comparison of US rural schools and Chinese rural schools, which may be very different. Also, the study addresses the fact that all US teachers in the study came from one geographical area - NC - and that the sample of Chinese teachers came from a small region of China. The researchers acknowledged that the results may not be generalized to both countries at large. Additionally, the researchers recognized that even though care was taken to ensure that the Chinese teachers understood the survey and focus group questions, there may have been misunderstandings through the translation of the materials. The study found that both Chinese and US teachers ranked "critical thinking and problem solving" skills as the most important 21st century literacy skill, while "media literacy" was the least important skill. The discussion also revealed that both groups of teachers are not regularly using blogs, wikis, or video conferencing in their classrooms. In addition, interestingly, "there appears to be less technology use within school than there is out-of-school in both America and China" (p. 17). This concurs with other studies that have indicated students' in-school and out-of-school literacy practices are different. The researchers tied the finding of less technology use in schools than out in both countries to a recent study, validating the finding. This research study is significant in that it validates what I as a teacher in a rural NC public school experienced: lack of technology resources and professional development and support in technology use. I'm sure that other teachers nationwide experience this as well. Additionally, it is significant to note that both US and Chinese teachers recognize the importance of teaching technology use to students, but that teachers from both countries lack access, support, and knowledge of how to do this beyond their present circumstances. I found the inclusion of the paragraph regarding //Young Digital Mavens// interesting, and it also supports the researchers' awareness of the topic. Furthermore, it supports the premise made that technology is rapidly changing the field of education and thus, it is imperative to maintain growth in its curricular use.
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**

I liked that this study was framed around multimodality, but I would have liked to see it coupled with critical theory since the results also reflected the governmental policies of both countries. Since education policy dictates much of what teachers teach in both countries, it would be interesting to see how the critical theory lens could enhance this study, particularly since the research questions addressed teacher perspectives and their use of technologies. This was a fascinating study with many significant findings, particularly related to the way the teachers ranked 21st century skills. The value that Chinese teachers are placing on creativity should be noted among US policy makers. If creativity is something that Americans "do" well, then supporting creative environments and chances to express ourselves creatively should be top priorities of lawmakers/administrators. Otherwise, the Chinese will soon outpace us in this arena, as well. I find it interesting that this study seems to hit on so many buzz words in one article - globalization, cross-cultural comparisons, new literacies, technology, multi-modality, etc. It references P21 which has been a huge deal in NC and even references Thomas Friedman who has been all the talk. I wonder if having so many trendy components is more beneficial or more of a hindrance in publishing. I have to admit that I was surprised that the teachers placed "media literacy" as least important, and that the US teachers did not feel ingenuity was significantly important. I loved how the mixed methods approach to this study demonstrated a clear benefit for the depth of analysis; everything came full circle and it was as though the use of this method enhanced validity of survey responses so the researchers could focus more of their efforts elsewhere, perhaps in coding. Also, I'm unsure as to if multimodality should be used as it is not referenced anywhere other than the rationale?
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUESTIONS/CONFUSIONS??)**