Definition of a social scientist

On page 6 of Learning in the Field, by Rossman & Rallis, they discuss the difference between basic research and applied research, then they end the paragraph with mentions of "scientists" and "social scientists", but their research contributions go two different ways. How are "social scientists" not "scientists"? Moreover, if they had reversed the definitions of to read as follows, and if I had just been glossing over the section, it sounds reasonable written either way.

Original:
"Scientists" may conduct research that leads to direct practical application; "social scientists" may conduct research that contributes to theory.

Flipped:
"Scientists" may conduct research that contributes to theory; "social scientists" may conduct research that leads to direct practical application.

In the original definition, the original authors of the Big Bang Theory would be classified as social scientists? To compound the confusion, the earlier parts of the chapter all appear to say research should promote learning and improve a social circumstance, where then I would argue that direct practical application is best to improve those disordered circumstances. Is the whole thing a misplaced tangent in the flow of the chapter or am I just going to extremes?

In-class writing: still life

Begin time: 7:47pm
End time: 7:49pm
Date: Sept 5, 2006
Location: Classroom Building 1, Room 113 at University of Central Florida
Observer: David Kent Norman
Frame: Classroom observation exercise

Time	ON Observer Notes	OC Observer Comments
7:47	Shadow
	Grey background
	Brick wall
	Building in background	Broken with three horizontal lines that are white
	Top hat on shadow figure	Looks like also wearing coat or cloak and is male body build
7:48	Top of building has extra windows	Windows follow a vertical pattern

Solo observation exercise

Assignment Description

Schedule this the week we do not meet on campus. Duration: 15-20 minutes. Decide on a place, a time, and a frame or question to organize your observation. Make sure you provide a map or photo clearly labelled. If you go to observe a speaker or an event and the event is cancelled, either: 1) reschedule your observation or 2) re-frame your frame or question. (Don't write an observation of kids at the zoo after you arrive and find out the zoo is closed!) Feel free to pick a setting that is interesting for you (like the example where the observations were done at a cliff diving location). Please see the rubric which lists other requirements for this assignment which we looked at in class, like the use of a formal heading. Please use OC, ON, and MN which were covered in the class PowerPoint (See the PPT for an example). Please see the samples, but note both the strengths and the weaknesses evident in these samples.

• Keep in mind the prior work needed to set up the observation
• Practice OC ON and MN beforehand if that helps you
• Print our a grid with columns already labeled if that helps you
• Observe for 15-20 minutes
• Keep in mind you may feel awkward writing
• Consider bringing a book or something to write on & shield your writing

Paired observation exercise

Instructions

Schedule this with a partner this week or the next week (over two weeks) Duration: 15-20 minutes Use: OC, ON, and MN (TN and Spradley’s Matrix, optional) Conduct an observation with a partner Keep fieldnotes, write up your notes into a memo. Exchange your notes and memo via CourseMail. Write a half page to a page responding to your partner’s work (strengths and weaknesses) Submit the Fieldnotes, Memo, and Response from your partner to the HW Box in one document. (Make sure you clearly label the Response with your name and your partner’s name.) Decide on a place, a time, and a common frame or question to organize your observation. Make sure you orient yourselves the same way (for example, label people and the objects in the setting the same way, so that it is easier for you to compare your observations). As with your solo observation, if you go to observe a speaker or an event and the event is cancelled, either: 1) reschedule your observation or 2) reframe your frame or question. (Don’t write an observation of penguins on a glacier after you arrive and find out the glacier has melted!) Feel free to pick a setting that is interesting for you both (like the example where the observations were done in a casino).

• Keep in mind the prior work needed to set up the observation
• Practice OC ON and MN beforehand if that helps you
• Print out a grid with columns already labeled if that helps you
• Observe for 15-20 minutes
• Do not talk to each other once you begin your observation
• You may want to sit apart
• Keep in mind you may feel awkward writing
• Consider bringing a book or something to write on and shield your writing

Article Review: Write-up

The study lead by Judith Correson Caruso (2004) was started as a result of a two part publication by Marc Prensky (2001a, 2001b) where he coined the terms "Digital Native" and "Digital Immigrant" to describe students' use of technology.

Methodology

• Literature review
• Review of the 2003 study
• Quantitative portion of the study included 9350 freshmen and 9050 seniors with 4373 respondents over 13 higher education institutions
• Qualitative portion had 132 students in focus groups over six institutions

Findings

• Technology ownership
• 93.4% of respondents own a computer
• 70.7% and 57.1% of seniors and freshmen respectively owned a desktop
• 38.5% and 52.7% of seniors and freshmen respectively owned a laptop
• 11.9% overall owned PDAs
• Internet access
• 82.2% of on campus freshmen had Internet access through their university
• 56.4% of seniors used a commercial Internet service provider
• Students' satisfaction with Internet service was based partially on the institutions IT environment
• Students are often frustrated with crowded computer labs
• Patterns of technology use
• The applications students use on their electronic devices are primarily for educational purposes, secondarily for communication, and lastly for presentation
• Students often used computers for writing documents, sending e-mail, and surfing the Internet simultaneously.
• Hours of technology use
• Academic computer use has a strong relationship to students' academic major and class status.
• Level of skill
• Students gave themselves high ratings with regards to the skill they had attained with respect to applications for communication, word processing, and the Internet.
• Seniors ranked themselves higher with regards to tools such as Powerpoint and spreadsheets.
• Qualitative and quantitative responses differed with regards to the skills students attained. Quantitative results showed students had all the skills they need whereas qualitative results showed students only had enough minimal skills to accomplish specific tasks, with no problem-solving skills or in-depth application knowledge.
• Information technology in the classroom
• Students made a note of preference for technology in the classroom
• Previous positive experiences with technology had a major impact on the preference for classroom technology
• GPA did not have a significant impact on technology preferences
• Impact of technology in the classroom
• The activity with the highest impact was "helped me to better communicate with the instructor".
• Benefits of the use of technology in the classroom
• Students identified convenience as one of the primary benefits of using IT in class.
• Good use of technology helped students learn
• Barriers to the use of information technology in the classroom
• 16.7% of students reported using IT in the classroom felt like extra work
• 14.1% of students reporting having trouble running applications on their computer
• 13.4% of students had limited access to a printer
• 9.7% of students had a lack of technical support
• Course management systems
• Use of technology was most often defined as using a course management system
• Students who had a stronger preference for technology in the classroom had a lower preference for using a course management system
• There was a positive correlation between a higher percentage of students using a course management system with a higher positive assessment of the content management system at that institution.
• Course management system features used
• Students Perceived benefits of using a CMS

Future trends

• Information technology use in the classroom is primarily for convenience rather than for improving learning
• Six trends are likely to lead the way for improved information technology adoption for instruction:
• Data mining
• Increased student and instructor information literacy to pair with academic standards
• Improvement of information technology quality and usability
• Proliferation of scholarly information
• Integration of new technologies, potentially including virtual reality, simulation, video games, or modeling
• Improved planning and creation of work plans for implementations of technology in learning

Conclusion

• Technology is primarily being used for convenience, communication, and management
• Results are only a snapshot
• Students have a working understanding of technology, but need more in-depth improvements

Caruso, J. B. (2004 September). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004 Convenience, connection, and control. Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved on September 5, 2006, from http://www.usit.uio.no/it/suit/stud2004-rapport/ecar.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Prensky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001, December). Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Presnsky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Theory: Write-up for Conceptual Framework

In a two part publication by Marc Prensky (2001a, 2001b), he outlined changes he believes have been affecting the decline of education in the US. Prensky makes the assertion that the thinking patterns and brains of today's students have fundamentally and irreversibly changed, to a point where our education system is not designed to teach to the new thinking patterns. "Digital Immigrants," those instructors of the pre-digital age, struggle to teach "Digital Natives," who's "native language" is grounded in electronics. Though Prensky cites some indirect evidence to reinforce his claims, he confesses he had not directly observed Digital Natives (2001b). This study concentrates on investigating Prensky's specific claim that Digital Natives prefer their graphics before text (2001a).

His list of causes for change includes computers, video games, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and other digital toys. He also makes the claim that students are spending six times more of their time playing video games and watching TV than reading. Prensky named his new breed of student the "Digital Native." The remaining population, who was not born into a digital lifestyle, is conversely named "Digital Immigrant."

The evidence Prensky (2001b) cites for why Digital Natives think differently is based in neuroplasticity, social psychology, and studies of children using games for learning. He discusses psychological malleability, attention span, and the design of games as variables within each respective category of evidence. He claims the difference between Natives and Immigrants is evident in teaching styles and is the cause of why Natives can't pay attention to instructors.

Prensky identifies Digital Immigrants as a population more likely to use the Internet as a secondary resource, print documents rather than review them on a computer screen, and call email recipients to confirm receipt of emails. Part of the claim of difference between Natives and Immigrants is a language barrier, much like children might only know about turntables or phonographs from a history class. Digital Natives are accused of having "the attention span of a gnat" for old ways of learning, favoring instead anything else (2001b). As such, Prensky outlines five generalizations for the preferences of Natives and Immigrants which he thinks affect learning.

Prensky (2001a) believes Digital Natives prefer to receive information quickly, parallel process, and multi-task. He contends Natives prefer random access to resources, graphics in presentations before text, do best when they are networked, and have instant gratification, with frequent rewards. Finally, natives prefer games to "serious" work. Conversely, Prensky's Immigrants prefer performing linear tasks slowly, individually, as part of a serious process.

One explanation Prensky offers for the evolution of digital migration relates back to adoption in cultural migration theory. In cultural migration, children easily adopt new ways of the culture, forcibly resisting the old. It is the older members of the population who are forced to adopt the new ways.

Eggen and Kauchak (1999) say a learning experience involves dispositions and attitudes, metacognition, and general transfer of knowledge. In fact, the more widely recognized process of learning is more complex. The Modal Model (Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning, 2004; Healy & McNamara, 1996) defines information processing in terms of sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Sensory and short-term memory is limited by attention, prior knowledge, and the context in which experiences occur (Bruning et.al., 2004).

Attention is important for converting cues in sensory memory to working memory to be processed for long-term memory (Ormrod, 2006). Without the transfer of inputs from sensory memory to the higher parts of the memory chain, learners cannot rehearse information in short-term memory to remember the inputs in long-term memory (Bruning et.al., 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 1999). Complaints of students not paying attention in the classroom is not new (Kassinove & Summers, 1968; Wetstone & Friedlander, 1974). Gagné (1969) made his attention research the top-most important part of his instructional strategy. Research of graphics in education before the "digital age," shows evidence that students prefer colors in presentations (Gaines, 1970). The Gaines publication references 29 publications related to color-forms acting as a instinctual stimulus or preference for children. The placement of items on the screen determines the importance of the content; items higher on the screen appear to the viewer to be more important and attract attention (Thorsen, 2006). The content at the top of the screen should be used to grab students' attention.

Schema theory relates to reader expectations for inputs (Garner, 1987). When incoming information fits readers' expectations, the information can be encoded into memory quickly (Garner, 1987). In technical prose, comprehension schemas are based on the extraction of information based on extracting the microstructure from text and deriving a macrostructure to serve as the "gist." The macrostructure parts are stored in memory and are used for future memory expansion, recall, and inferences (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Readers' goals are based on their within-culture "textual-schemata", which can be predicted based on what readers consider relevant based on their existing macrostructure (Garner, 1987). Readers' existing schema classifies all propositions of inputs as either relevant or irrelevant (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978).

Motivation is a key component behind the dispositions and attitudes of learning situations (Mueller, 1992). The field of behavioral psychology, or more simply Ivan Pavolv's conditioned response study, may serve as some explanation for graphical preferences of Digital Natives. Combined with cognitive psychology, or the relationship between environmental events and their outcomes, organisms learn particular situations produce particular results (Mueller, 1992). Digital Natives' experience with favorable results from graphical activities may also have a link in cognitive psychology.

All living organisms must categorize experiences to survive since not every situation should be treated the same (Smith, 2004). Learners also have a general state of prediction and expectation (Smith, 2004). The result is that we are far more likely to care about what is going to happen in the future than what is happening right now. Smith says prediction is the core of reading because it cuts down on the number of possible alternatives when we decide what to do with what our eyes are looking at. One of the constraints of prediction is prior experience and knowledge (Smith, 2004).

Smith goes on to discuss two sides of reading, which he names visual and non-visual. The more non-visual information a person has, the less visual information they need to understand what their eye are seeing and vice versa. When reading is difficult, it is because of a deficit in one of the two areas of visual or non-visual input, the link between the brain and visual input can be a bottleneck and cause functional blindness. The functional blindness causes critical information for understanding to not be passed down the memory chain: sensory memory, short-term memory, long-term memory. This point is only exasperated by the link to prior experience where Klausmeier, Ghatala, and Frayer (1974) found prior experience can lead subjects to ignore parts of a later task. Here, the preference of Prensky's Digital natives to have graphical presentation first is a result of the failure for the learners to analyze text stimuli in sensory memory as a cue fore relevant response (Mueller, 1992). On the other hand, noise in a message, irrelevant details, or lack of relevant prior knowledge may serve as a distraction, disruption, or activation of the wrong prior knowledge in a learning experience (Clark & Lyon, 2004).

To date, there are no theories or conceptual frameworks to link Prensky's observations with a solid foundation of research. The preferences of learners may be impacted as a result of conditioning to specific environments; however, even with differing backgrounds of electronic exposure, digital immigrants and digital natives should have statistically insignificant differences exposed to a similar, base set of optimal learning conditions which fit the learning abilities of students outside the window of digital aptitude. Clark and Lyons (2004) give a formula of conditions to support learning with six psychological events, which may support higher level framework of learning. They also put differences between learners on the same level of importance for creating optimal learning conditions, citing prior knowledge and special ability as limiting variables. While using Doom, a classic computer game, in a lesson to teach 20-year-olds may not have the same impact on Digital Immigrants, the reason Digital Immigrants may not have similar impact is not because of limited digital experience per-say, but rather that they simply don't share the same prior knowledge as the Digital Natives who played Doom. There would be a similar situation within a group of Digital Natives if some had not played Doom when others had; the link to building on prior knowledge would be different.

References

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved on July 27, 2006, from the University of Southern Queensland Web site: http://www.usq.edu.au/material/unit/resource/clark/media.htm

Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1999). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gagne, R. M., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1969). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 20, 381-418.

Gaines, R. (1970 December). Children's selective attention to stimuli: Stage or set? Child Development, 41(4), 979-991.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Healy, A. F, & McNamara, D. S. (1996). Verbal learning memory: Does the modal model still work? Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 143-172.

Kassinove, H., & Summers, M. (1968 January). The developmental attention test – A preliminary report on an objective test of attention. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 76-78.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5).

Klausmeier, H. J., Chatala, E. S., & Frayer, D. A. (1974). Conceptual learning and development: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

Mueller, R. J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Principles and practices. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Essentials of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Prensky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001, December). Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Presnsky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thorsen, C. (2006). TechTactics: Technology for teachers second edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Fieldwork: Interview Transcript and Memo

Instructions: Duration 20 minutes. Interview one person (NOT your partner) using your questions for your mini-study and then share the transcript with your partner for peer review. Here you are: 1) practicing the interview process and 2) testing your questions.

Please follow the rubric and submit (as one document) your transcript, the related memo and any field notes (optional). Clearly label each section. Note that your peer review is a separate assignment. Once you have transcribed your interview, please send the transcription and your memo to your peer for critque, and likewise give them written feedback for their work on the interview. Please see Padgett for details on the transcription.

Fieldwork: Peer Review You Received for your Interview

Instructions: Please upload the feedback you received from your peer on your interview transcript here, along with your brief response either: a) responding to the comments or b) documenting your own reactions to reading someone else's interview. (2-3 pages single-spaced total) DO NOT include the transcript or memo from YOUR OWN interview. Please title the document using YOUR last name before you upload as required in the Protocols, but also please make sure the reviewer's name is clearly identified on the top of the document.

Proposal: Presentation Slideshow

A Pilot Study for EDF 7475: Instructional Technology Students' Perceptions of How Age Impacts Proficiency with Electronics

Problem: Marc Prensky makes his conclusions ("research") based his observation from memory
Question: Are Prensky's observations reproducible in the minds of other educators?
Significance: Impacts presentation of content to learners of different backgrounds.

See our texts...

Lit review: Scarce supply of academic research related to Prensky; industry uses his coined terms
Clark & Lyons (2004) "Graphics for Learning" provides a base conceptual framework
Ask educators if their experience matches Prensky

See our texts and the readings related to the IRB

• Population: UCF Instructional Technology listserv
• IT Chair leading research on Prensky
• Researcher has been studying adult learning theory and how varying display formats affects learning

Data

Triangulate:
Distribute web-based questionnaire
Cite similar studies
Quote existing adult learning theory

Interpretivism:
Why?
No validated instrument exists to measure "digital propensity". Even lead researchers in graphics for learning (Clark & Lyons) don't make a definitive declaration to support or refute Prensky.
How?
Use triangulation to compare the results of the questionnaire to educators with existing similar studies and adult learning theory.

Methodological Limitations

Differential selection and selection maturation interaction: Subscribers to the IT listserv have likely had exposure to the topic from professors and have background that may skew their responses.
Self reporting error and bias
Random sampling error: Questionnaire is available to every subscriber. Only particular people may respond.
Instrumentation: Un-piloted questionnaire may not test what it is meant to test

Next steps

• Dissertation topic "An investigation of the relationship between insurance employees' digital propensity and their reactions to instruction"
• Helps form the basis for a hypothesis of the outcome of the dissertation topic

Works Cited

Warne, D. (2006, August 23). Unlock work internet or risk losing staff: Microsoft. APC Magazine. Retrieved on August 23, 2006 from http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/08/1104/unlock-work-internet-or-risk-losing-staff-microsoft

Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Prensky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001, December). Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6). Retrieved November 25, 2005, from the Marc Presnsky Web site: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Mini Study Field Notes/Journal

Date	Entry
9/9/2006	Mom died. Leaving for Houston tonight.
9/12/2006	Finally got some dial-up Internet access. I received an email back from Tracy Dietz asking questions about my IRB application and sent a response today, too. She asked for a copy of the informed consent document, which I thought I sent in the first application, but sent a copy again.
9/13/2006	Apparently I don't understand what the informed consent document is that Tracy Dietz wants, because she said I didn't send it again. I tried to email Dr. Blasi to get her advice on what I should be sending to IRB, but can't stay connected long enough to send the email.
9/17/2006	Back in town. Way behind on everything having to do with regular life. Emailed Dr. Blasi about IRB informed consent problems.
9/24/2006	Quit my job to catch up with school. I haven't done a single assignment for my Wednesday night class all semester. Behind in reading for Tuesday night and need to start doing background research for comprehensive exams.
9/25/2006	Dr. Blasi hasn't replied. Perhaps I should have asked her through WebCT email instead of regular campus mail.
9/29/2006	Dr. Blasi reminds there is no IRB approval letter for my study yet. Perhaps time to try a new approach.
10/1/2006	Read about Zoomerang online survey software and got an account. Got familiar with the interface to build a survey online. I think this will be a perfect tool for getting anonymous surveys online.
10/4/2006	Asked Dr. Hirumi to bump my comprehensive exams back two weeks. Needed more time to do research for mini-pilot and comps. With luck, I'll be able to double up on research between the two projects.
10/5/2006	Discovered the adult learning textbooks from last year might actually be helpful in the research behind Prensky. Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning planted some seeds about expertise related to Prensky's propositions. Should ask Dr. Hirumi what he thinks.
10/9/2006	I entered the questionnaire into Zoomerang and put the informed consent document on the page before the survey starts. Then I duplicated a large part of the informed consent to the first contact email and mixed it with some of the Tailored Design Method. I sent the Zoomerang output and initial contact to IRB for another try.
10/10/2006	Something I did changed IRB's opinion on my informed consent. Perhaps it was actually seeing the flow of clicking on Zoomerang to know informed consent must be viewed before the survey to make the difference. Barbara Ward is expected to approve the IRB application. Also started on the Powerpoint for the proposal presentation for class. Identified Ruth Clark as one of the most likely to be helpful during the research behind the validity of Marc Presnky's claims.
10/13/2006	Meet with Roy Marquez to brainstorm about Prensky's propositions. Roy found an article by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller that appears to serve as a springboard for finding more relevant articles regarding expertise and instructional presentations. I identified "broadcast" and "interactive" as important key words for discussing Prensky. Roy and I discussed the revisions to Prensky to say 1) people gravitate towards interactivity, 2) Digital Natives choose interactivity over work, 3) Digital Immigrants choose familiarity over interactivity. We posited that interactivity leads to exchange of ideas and information, and stimulus with regards to creating interactivity involved the major senses. Discussed propositions by Don Tapscott to say the Internet forces natives to search for information, therefore it develops their thinking and investigation skills; kids learn things easier; that the n-gen doesn't have to memorize as much because they can type it in word and recover it later; even with a supposed short attention span, n-gens can still spend hours on the computer Posited that "discovery learning" allows students to click on their interests and therefore have the instant rewards Prensky identified; familiarity with regards to immigrants or experts leads to the equivalent of convenience and rituals surrounding those conveniences; comfort with text means learning game skills on a computer is too much effort if they're already skilled with text; experts/immigrants are used to broadcast forms of information and may or may not have a relationship to Pavlov studies of conditioning; developed a "hierarchy of interactivity," thought to be related to why young people might choose computers over reading a book.
10/17/2006	Had another brainstorm meeting with Roy Marquez. Developed a list of "attack" to tear apart and reassemble the following statements: Prove people gravitate towards maturity/expertise/learning/interactivity Why do novices (no expertise) work to be experts when experts do not work to be experts in two things Which is better for Prensky talk? Interactivity (exchange of information) or Desire for stimulus (senses) or effort? What is the truth in familiarity/expertise with regards to convenience or likelihood of use Immigrants purposed research is always related to their expertise(s)? Is expertise the reason Digital Immigrants don't become skilled with technology? Is "conditioning" relevant/correct? If dual encoding is a factor in the model (from 10/16), then TV should be more interactive than websites to utilize more senses? Keywords identified to discuss Prensky: active, broadcast, asynchronous, full sync, passive, engaged, interactive
10/18/2006	Pulled some ideas together regarding adult learning theory. Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning remarked that schemas are a source of predictions. I hypothesized that sub-schemas for "research" could be different for DIs and DNs based on their backgrounds of experience (or exposure). Metacognition was related to utilization of dual modalities. DNs know they can get dual encoding from electronics On-demand information means people don't have to remember as much anymore Noted that sensory registers are smaller in kids Good learners have good attention management as part of attention management theory Theory: DNs decode graphics easier, DIs decode text easier Theory: familiarity is directly related to expertise Noted to lookup Glaser and Chi (1988) "The Nature of Expertise" Added an element of power to the hierarchy of interactivity, though don't know if they're equivalent in terms of the ordering or presentation of the chart items Question: where do non-traditional learning environments fit in the hierarchy of interactivity (i.e. paintball, chess, golf)? Other things for interactivity hierarchy placement: TV, book , ITV, telephone, mobile phone, texting, IMs, chatroom, BB, Quake, lecture
10/20/2006	Found schema scripts in Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning. Received script book by Schank and Abelson. The script book is not what I expected and the diagrams inside are hard to read (as in understand). Only the first section of the book appears to be immediately helpful in what I'm working on.
10/22/2006	Added rewards and consequences to the hierarchy of intractivity. Found several resources that I added to my comprehensive exam regarding expertise.
10/24/2006	Presented the proposal presentation Powerpoint in class. Decided some aspects of my research may need to be reinvestigated regarding it possibly being a case study. Piloted my questionnaire. The participant showed the DI and DN names may not be completely appropriate for what Prensky discusses in his papers. Talked with Roy and Ben about doing peer review. Ben gave me a hard copy of his memo and a CD with the recording of his interview.
10/26/2006	Listened to Ben's interview and read his memo. He did a good job with the transcription, adding pauses in the text where appropriate. I noticed there were more pauses in his interview than in mine.
10/29/2006	Entered the transcript of my interview on my personal website. Before I published it, I realized IRB might disagree with me putting the contents on the Internet for the world to see, especially since my IRB document says all my research will be done anonymously. I didn't think there were any true identifying characteristics of my participant, especially if I replaced her name with Anonymous, but I opted to leave it unpublished just in case.
11/1/2006	Did all the final writeup of commentary about Ben's interview. Gave him some advice on how I might have handled parts of his interview differently. Would have been nice to read his reply to my reply instead of it just being submitted to the homework box.
11/4/2006	Submitted the response to Ben's comments about my memo to the WebCT homework box. It was interesting to note Ben thought some of my survey went wrong with in fact it went exactly the way I hoped in terms of information discovery. I'll have to note here to remind myself to tell him in class since I won't be sending him a copy of the Word document.
11/7/2006	Realized during class the title of my study says "students," but the listserv I used is not limited to students or even UCF. There is a good chance UCF IT professors answered the questionnaire as well as industry professionals who have never taken a formal academic instructional technology class also participated in the questionnaire. Dr. Hirumi has noted in the past at his monthly social meetings he encourages people all over the country to join the UCF IT listserv. As far as I know right now, it should only affect my project title.
11/10/2006	Started entering the Digital Propensity Index questionnaire on Zoomerang to prepare it as a possible route for validation. Called Zoomerang to ask how much it costs to purchase a survey audience if I didn't have one on my own. They have a 200 response guaranteed minimum and it costs $1350. Their 500 guaranteed responses from a random sample of general population is $2350. Not only was it too expensive, but they offer incentives for people to take surveys so I would have another thing to have to declare as possible reporting error if I published the results of any research using their population.
11/11/2006	Investigated Keller's ARCS model as a way of measuring Prensky's propositions. Discovered dissertations done at FSU under Dr. Keller that used surveys Keller developed and validated to measure instructional motivation with regards to ARCS. Keller has a manuals titled "Manual for Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS)" and "Manual for Course Interest Survey (CIS)". Was not able to locate them in the UCF library for interlibrary loan, on Google, or in EBSCO.
11/13/2006	Contacted Dr. Keller and Dr. Hirumi to get manuals on the Course Interest Survey and the Instructional Materials Motivational Survey for Keller's ARCS model. Keller didn't reply, but I met with Dr. Hirumi in person, who had a copy of the surveys, the reliability analysis results and some of the details on how to score the results of the survey. 2c thought they would be good surveys to use in my dissertation and that the documents he sent me would have enough details for what he expected to see in Chapter 3 of my proposal.
11/14/2006	Had class tonight. Dr. Blasi was serious about creating a physical poster for the presentation on the 28th. A Powerpoint uploaded to the homework box won't cut it.
11/16/2006	Bought a poster board at Walmart tonight. Got it home and it was too short. Won't be able to go find another one - going to shrink the text to get it to all fit on the board.
11/24/2006	Dr. Keller replied to my email. I just need to tell him where I'm going to school and who my advising professor is, then he'll send me the aforementioned ARCS documents.

Mini Study Analytic Memos [partial]

The Prensky stuff I have been doing has been planned to be researched on insurance industry professionals. When I piloted the survey instrument for the Digital Propensity Index to a sample of the professionals I had planned on surveying, I only had a 0.4% response rate compared to over 4% for undergrads, 10% for the graduate students, and over an estimated 30% for instructional technology cohort, using the same contact emails. It may be time to re-review the Dillman TDM for the 2007 update on doing surveys. I may also need to ask Howard at CHL Marketing in person if I could use his list of customers as contacts.

The idea behind piloting to the insurance professionals, even though I wanted to save them for my dissertation, was to make sure the DPI questionnaire was valid for them. Unfortunately, I probably will not make that discovery, nor will I get enough responses in my dissertation, using that audience and a quantitative method, to graduate. That may mean it is time to open my realm of considerations to a more mixed-method type of survey.

---

Dr. Hirumi forwarded an email to the Instructional Technology listserv about a researcher in the UK who is expanding on Prensky's research, and bringing it to the attention of government. Though I thought some of the comments in the article were made for flash and drama, it still had very little real evidence to explain the differences between Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives.

The article discussed having children get more exercise to release good chemicals in the brain. One of the points said children play games before going to sleep, which releases chemicals in the brain to keep them awake longer when they actually do try to fall asleep, then suffer in school from sleep deprivation. While that doesn't have anything to do per say with instructional technology or the design of instruction, it is a notable point of interest to not have your kids playing games right before they go to bed. In fact, I fail to see why any of the article is related to the design of instruction.

---

Preliminary findings appear to show comments on the following items related to technology, electronics, and digital toys:

Digital Immigrants	Mixed	Digital Natives
Telephones Use VCRs Simple computer functions Copy machines Library searches Typing Digital cameras Limited technological proficiency DVD players Basic features of mobile phones Limited knowledge of Microsoft Office Prefer traditional lecture Communicate face-to-face or by conference call Prefer instruction on paper	Internet navigation Word processing Forwarding of emails	Program VCRs LEET speak Instant messaging MySpace Shortcuts Use of icons and buttons Comfortable with electronics Change ringtones on mobile phones PDAs Blogging Play computerized games Use portable music players (iPods) Full functional knowledge of Microsoft Office Communicate by online chat Prefer web-based instruction Only meet face-to-face to formalize and finalize projects

A recurring theme is how Digital Immigrants use electronics for task completion, whereas Digital Natives additionally use electronics for entertainment.

One downside of interviewing people already potentially familiar with Prensky is how one person preferred to argue with how I asked questions and my use of "Digital Native" and "Digital Immigrant," rather than just answer as I had asked.

I noted one respondent age 60+ said "old school" college processors will deliver course materials as "force fed, instructor delivered, and stale." If older people are truly Immigrants, should they think instruction is stale, even if it is their preference?

Attachment	Size
Norman,David_Kent-Analytic_memos.pdf	557.43 KB

Mini Study Observation Interviews Documents

Instructions: Please title the pages with your name and project title and the IRB number. Please provide narration or written context so that an outsider from our class can look at it and understand what they are looking at (the purpose of the data collected) and what it means (why you collected it for your study, what you found from it).