Research Paper Process Blues

I have confronted some real obstacles with the research process this month. While some interesting findings have come from the research Fran and I are doing and discussing the survey data itself could keep us going for awhile, I am frustrated with the lack of reading and thinking skills my students have come to me with this year. The first two steps of the process -- pre-search and information gathering and now note taking - have taken at least four more class periods than they usually do! I am hoping that spending this extra time will result in a better result for the end product, and we do see evidence that some students are grasping the "method in the madness."

Fran and I did an interesting experiment to kick the unit off - we let students surf the internet to do some preliminary reading the way they would if we turned them out on their own with no instruction. We asked them to track the web sites they visited on a tracking sheet. For many students this worked well, but many of the students didn't know the difference between a search engine and a web site. Even two weeks in as I grade bib cards, several students put the name of the web sites they were citing as "Google" - when we move to the major research paper later this year, I know we will want to more explicitly teach the distinction. In my period 7 section, the students didn't do a very good job writing down the web sites they were visiting, but this is the group that would rather talk about what they are doing versus recording what they are doing! (In the Career Ladder Action Research group we are participating in, several members had good ideas: have students copy and past the URL's into a Word document.) Watching the students complete this activity told us that the students are not very discriminating or advanced seekers. We made photocopies of the students' sheets which should provide more useful data. (Later in this unit, Fran and I plan to do a web evaluation lesson to address the need to increase our students' internet search skills and information selection skills.) Unfortunately, we have not been able to analyze the data we are gathering in a comprehensive or organized fashion yet because of the massive amount of time spend this week grading bib cards and schedules that keep Fran and I being in the same place at the same time. Another issue we are facing is student motivation - they just don't want to do the work, any work, regardless. In addition, behaviorally, they are young for their age, requiring constant attention and monitoring. I want to figure out some ways to structure research groups that make students accountable for keeping each other accountable!

After learning a little bit about podcasting, I am thinking of using podcasts as a way to respond to student research papers. Offering students a narrative review/critique of their work . . . I am working on the logistics of this.

Neuroscience - the iBrain

This month's Scientific American Mind issue contains an (Oct./Nov. 2008) article by Gary Small (dir. UCLA Memory & Aging Research Center) and Gigi Vorgan (also Small's wife) "Your iBrain: How Technology Alters Your Mind" offers some interesting research about how your brain processes conventional reading differently than internet surfing (information gathering). Essentially, the experienced ("computer-savvy") Google searchers showed activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (left front part of brain) while the "computer naive" subjects did not. When the "computer-naive subjects" were exposed to five one hour Google sessions over five days (remember, these subjects are in an MRI tube!), these subjects quickly developed the same neural activity in that left frontal area that the computer-savvy users had at the baseline. According to researchers, this suggests that "the neural circuit training occurs relatively early and then remains stable." (p. 46) The authors also say the the dorsolateral PFC "is involved in our ability to make decisions and integrate complex information" and is "thought to control our mental process of inegrating sensations and thoughts, as well as working memory, which is our ability to keep information in mind for a very short time - just long enough to manage an internet-searching task . . ." (p. 42) Obvioulsy, I will need to read Small's full book iBrain to learn more about this interesting research. I can see educational applications of this research in that, as Fran and I work to create an information literacy (research) model for our "21st century" students, we will want to consider that this internet surfing is a different process than reading hard copy text. I don't know what this means, exactly, but I think this may be significant in building our approach to teaching students pre-research reading strategies - strategies that build a schema for selecting and de-selecting information.

I am also reading Marc Iacoboni's Mirroring People about mirror neurons that guide our social relationships. One of the key researchers whom Iacoboni references is Giacomo Rizzolatti, a member of the Italian reserach team that shook up the world of neuroscience with its "discovery" of mirror neurons, completely upturning views of how neurons can operate. Rizzolatti has published his own book, Mirrors in the Brain, which I will have to read as well. I think this research could have important implications for teaching and learning - especially as we integrate more social networking and live group work into our instruction. As I read more about mirror neurons, I will post any hypotheses and strategies I develop based on those hypotheses. I would be interested to know if any education researchers are working in this area of neuroscience as it applies to learning and teaching.

Students Respond to Survey

Prior to teaching the mini-research paper process to my senior English students and as a precursor to our Social Psychology unit in AP Psychology, I surveyed them on their use of technology, what technology means to them, web sites they use, what they thought about adult monitoring of online activity, technology access and other related information. The questions were developed by group participants in the ASU course I am taking (Eng 598) "Media Matters." In addition, I added access questions to inform me as Fran and I work through our action research project, "reading strategies in the research process" into which we will integrate information literacy skills and the use of technology. Back to the ASU group mini-research, our group responsibility is to interview 3 students about their technology use each and post their responses so that our group may share the data. Fortunately, one group member is going to compile the results from two sections, and I will figure out how to compile the other classes' data. I will report on this findings as they unfold.

When I administered the surveys in my classes last week, I took two approaches. In my AP Psych class, I asked the students (grouped in dyads) to interview each other and fill out the surveys that way; then I group the students in groups of four to process their responses, looking for commonalities or trends they noticed. My only regret is that I did not have a recorder going in all the discussions - they were rich and interesting and could offer further data. While they were occasionally off-task (usually relating some incident somewhat connected to the questions), their overall behavior was engaged and interested. I had explained the purposes of the data and also discussed with them creating a class wiki for Social Psychology, which they were genuinely excited about. (Sidebar: in this class, all students have access from home and are frequent users of the web; in addition, all the students in this group are strong students.)What I found interesting in talking to them and getting their feedback about the class wiki project, all of them use Wikipedia, but only a few of them really understand what a wiki is! Because this class is small and generally responsible, it is a good place for me to experiment with integrating web 2.0 technologies into my instruction.

In terms of the administering the survey to my three "regular" senior English classes, I had them respond to the questions individually on paper, then I grouped them. The activity went well and generated some good group discussion in my morning sections, but in my afternoon section, the activity didn't go as well as the social relationships among the students are weak (with some active aversion to working with others at all) and a greater number of generally unmotivated students are in the class. Just watching the difference between how this last section of the day processed the activity versus the morning session taught me more about teaching this socially and academically challenged group.