kkim.wmwikis.net. Kim's Feedbck o… · Web view... social studies classrooms on creative thinking skills as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative ... these developments affect

Running head: EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY ON CREATIVITY 1

Effects of Technology Usage on Adolescent Creativity

Kyung Hee Kim, 11/01/15,

Can you be a little bit more descriptive?


But you are specifically looking at high school students’ social studies, which does not seem to have any theoretical ground.

EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY ON CREATIVITY 2

Abstract

Researchers explored the relationship between creativity in adolescent learners and

collaborative technology in secondary education. A review of the literature shows a positive

effect on creative skills in adolescents ages 12-17 with the use of various technology forms,

including blogging, classroom technology, educational apps, and Wikipedia. A further study

evaluating the effects of collaborative technology usage in secondary social studies classrooms

on creative thinking skills as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking has been

proposed.

Keywords: adolescents, collaborative, creativity, technology


Abstract must provide the readers with COMPLETE information about the study. Your abstract does not show what your study is about at all.What have you found? What do you suggest? Please review the ppt for literature review and APA.


Why this specific test?


Why social studies?


How is this technology?


Like what?


Like what?


What kind of blogging?


Which one is your IV? technology or collaborative technology? Your title says "technology," but your abstract says both technoloty and collaborative technology. You must be consistent for the entire paper.


But, here you are indicating an experimental study where you examine IV’s effects on DV. Which method are you using for your research proposal?


Abstract must be in past tense.


If you are specifically focused on high school social studies, you need to say here. So that you do not repeat in the next sentence where you talk about “secondary social studies.”


You need to define what you mean by “collaborative technologies” before you talk about anything else.


Here you are indicating a correlational study there you examine a correlational coefficient between IV and DV.


If you mean you and your group members, you need to say “We.” But if you mean other researchers, you need to indicate the studies.


What kind of researchers? Who are they? Are you talking about you and your group members? It is better to say “ This study explored~”


You must present a complete and concise picture in your abstract what you have done and what you have found from this study with unique and useful recommendations to the readers.


Effects of Technology Usage on Adolescent Creativity

Purpose of the Study

This study explores the relationship between creativity in adolescent learners and

collaborative technology in secondary education.

K. H. Kim defined creativity as “a process that leads to innovation in all fields” (2015, p.

3). Besides artistic expression, creativity includes problem-solving skills, exploratory thinking,

and synthesizing ideas (Kim, 2015). Public schools are increasingly incorporating educational

technology into the learning environment. Further research is needed to understand how these

developments affect creative thinking.

The literature on technology usage and creativity in the classroom, and more specifically

with adolescents, will be reviewed. This includes the findings on technology, collaboration,

applications (apps), blogging, and Wikipedia and their creative outcomes. Then, a research

proposal will follow. We hope to further illustrate how collaborative technology can increase

creative thinking with students in a high school social studies class.

Literature Review

Technology and Creativity in the Classroom

Hong, Peng, and O’Neil (2014) studied the relationship between openness to experience,

conscientiousness, creative self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and perceived intellectual ability,

and Chinese adolescents’ accomplishments in music, visual arts, creative writing, science, and

technology. The studyHong et al. found that “the number of activities in the technology domain

may not consistently relate to the degree of adolescents’ creative self-efficacy” (Hong, Peng, &

O’Neil, 2014, p. 99). However, Cheung’s (2004) study of music education in Hong Kong found

composing with information technology and using a student-centered approach can enhance


Is this one of your IV? If not, why do you talk about this here?


What is this?


Do you have a reason to present this detail?


What is your argument using this research finding? How does this support your conclusions?


Are you using “selfiefficacy" as the same as "creativity" or your DV?


Only when you use the first time, you spell out all authors names for studies with authors 3-5. After that, Hong et al., 2014.


I emphasized in class "minimum qauotation mark" and said, "no more than one quotation mark for the entire paper."




These are not one of your interests, then why do you talk about them here?


What is this? Why do you talk about this? You need to focus on your IV, which is


Are these also your study interests?


ANY technology? OR Co


In order to say that these "students in a high school social studies class" are your population of interest, you must use research findings only for these people. Are your literature reveiws discussions are only based on research findings for this population?More importantly, you must have a logical reason and importance to have these people as your population.


Why specifically only “a high school social studies class” Is there important reasons? You need to make sound like this study is VERY important, which I have emphasized repeatedly.


You will examine or study, not illustrate.


You do not need to write this.


What kind of outcomes? Are creative outcomes the same as creative thinking? Are they different? If they are the same, they do you use two different terms?


Why is this different from “the use of various technology forms, including blogging, classroom technology, educational apps, and Wikipedia” which is in your abstract. Also, your literature review must support the criteria for including each collaborative technology or technology, depending on what your DV is. I am not sure whether your IV is technology or collaborative technology.


Why only adolescents?


Earlier you said you are interested in “collaborative technology”, but here just “technology usage” why?


Why?


Support your claim using evidences.


You need to incorporate the definition of making something unique and useful also.


This is inconsistent with the section where you say you are looking at specifically high school social studies classroom or class.


A more detailed definition of “collaborative technology” than one (you need to have one there) in your abstract.


learner creativity. Mellor (2008) and Nielsen (2013) found a positive effect of music technology

on adolescent creativity. This outcome suggests computer-based music composition assignments

help adolescents develop different perspectives, synthesize ideas, and show self-reflexivity.

McNally (2012) states five consistently successful innovative educational principles for

student engagement in scientific problem solving, emphasizing the importance of technology,

specifically Molecular Workbench and Science Buddies software, as a visual and analytical aid

in the secondary classroom. Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2015) suggest using student built

graphic organizers in secondary social studies classrooms.

Additionally, Koh (2013) found technology-based collaboration leads to visually

engaging presentations and “a sense of empowerment” (p. 1833). Dillon (2003) identified

problem solving as an outcome of a collaborative, technology-based music composition project

in the United Kingdom. Bryant’s (2010) study described the outcome of an art classroom

assignment on creating autobiographical movies as sophisticated and possessing “personal

meaning and value” (p. 45). Biasutti (2015) discovered the use of metacognitive skills while

collaborating in a synchronized online environment. Furthermore, teenagers demonstrate strong

beliefs in the positive impact of technology on their organizational, information gathering,

creative, and innovative skills (Fitton, V., Ahmedani, B., Harold, R., & Shifflet, E., 2013).

Collaboration and Creativity

Shapira and Liberman (2009) found creativity is enhanced by exposure to certain

environments and interventions. A link may exist between increased collaboration and

heightened creative output. Sawyer (2006) postulated collaboration is an integral component of

creativity, if not its foremost component. Cocu, Pecheanu, and Susnea (2015) studied a

collaborative online platform called ILab and determined the cooperative nature of the platform

Noel Williams, 10/29/15,

You don’t need first initials, just last name


How so?


I cannot believe that you use all kinds of differnt words. Learner, students, adolescents, and now even teenagers?? Why do you use all of these differnt words? Do you mean differntly for differnt research findings?


Does your IV include this?


How is this related to your DV? You cannot just list bunch of research findings like this here. You need to review all of your research findings and then synthesize them, and then logically argue how your IV support DV.


What does this mean? Why couldn't you rephrase this? How are they related to your DV? How does this research finding support your main conclusions?


Does your IV include this also?


Make it simple: "Bryant (2010) found that an art classroom"






What do you mean by “collaborative"here?


Does your DV include this?


You really only want 1 direct quote, and this is the 3rd one so far


How are these related to your DV? Do your DV include them also? How do all of these support your main conclusions?


Why couldn’t you rephrase?


Is this different from or the same as "collaborative technology"? If so, why do you use different terms for the same meaning?


By specifying, “secondary social studies classrooms” only for this research finding, you are suggesting that all the other research findings are not for “secondary social studies classrooms.” If this is true, there is no way you can say your population is only the students in high school social studies classrooms.


What is this? Does your IV include this also?


Make all of your literature review in past tense.


Do not ever use “&” outside of a parenthesis.


How does it help with visually and analytically?


What is this? Does your IV include this also? If so, what does it do?


Does your DV include this also?


You say, “five” and then you do not even talk about what those are? Then, why do you say “five”?


Past tense


Does your DV include “different perspectives, synthesize ideas, and show self-reflexivity”?




Lit Review should be in past tense


Does your IV include “music technology”?


Why do you use “learner" here? You need to decide which term you use for your population of interest: students? adolescents? learner? learners? high schoolers? And then use the one term consistently in your entire paper.


had a positive impact on both individual and collective levels of creativity. Moffat (2010)

described her colleagues’ efforts in developing courses that collaboratively approached a

singular subject (a theatrical performance of Shakespeare’s The Tempest) from separate aspects

(textual analysis and performance pedagogy). The result was “a production [that] was far more

informed and technically ambitious than it would have been if it had been presented simply as a

cocurricular event” (Moffat, 2010, p. 288). Further, Johnson (2010) indicated online blog

activities promote creativity by fostering a collaborative learning environment that encourages

critical and analytical thinking. Farrell (2001) stresses the difficulty of establishing an

educational platform that both promotes creativity and utilizes collaborative factors such as

communication, leadership, and support.

Educational Apps as a Source of Instructional Support

Educators are hesitant in incorporating a particular app for instructional purposes without

knowing if the app fosters or inhibits a student’s opportunity to engage in creative activity

(Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). Baker, Isbell, Wendt, and Wilson (2013) argued that when educators

implement apps they understand and support, students and teachers alike benefit. Jahnke and

Kumar (2014) found contemporary students are familiar with apps and use a litany of online

programs to perform didactic functions. The combination of enthusiastic and well-trained

educators with a technologically savvy student population can yield powerful learning outcomes.

Yet, how can educators ensure students use apps to foster their creative development rather than

for quick and easy answers? Educators have developed programs designed to encourage creative

thinking in students by requiring them to develop their own apps centered around specific issues

(Bowen & Finch, 2014; King, Gardner-McCune, Vargas, & Jimenez, 2014). Cole (2014) asserts

that apps only support instruction when they are not intrusive or detrimental to the educational


You are citing several works here, but you are not explaining how we do this or what it is? why not?


Do both of these references support the previous sentence?


What is this? How do they do this? How does it support your main argument? Are you saying that in order for your IV to be effective on your DV, it is better for students to develop thier own apps? If so, how can we do this? And what kind of apps again?


Is this your DV?


What does this mean? Is this a necessary detail? or redundant?


What kind of apps?


What kind of outcomes? Is this one of your DV also? OR, How is this related to your IV?


Is this your population of interest? Why do you use "student, students, student population, learner, adolescents, teenagers, etc." do these mean all differnt?


This is not related to technology or collaborative technology, which is your IV. Are you saying that in order for technology or collaborative technology to be effective on your DV, educators should be enthusiastic and well-trained about technology or collaborative technology? Whatever you write must support your main conclusion SOMEHOW!


Well-trained about what?


What does this mean? Enthusiastic for what?


ANY APPS? Or what kind of apps?


WHY IS THIS HERE ALL OF A SUDDEN? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? WHAT IS YOUR POINT FOR ADDING THIS SENTENCE HERE? HOW DOES THIS SUPPORT YOUR MAIN CONCLUSION?


Past tense


Does that mean your definition of “creativity” OR “CREATIVE THINKING” INCLUDES CRITICAL THINKING AND ANALYTICAL THINKING? HOW CAN YOU JUST SAY THIS? IS YOUR DV CREATIVITY OR CREAETIVE THINKING? WHY ARE THEY THE SAME OR DIFFERENT? HOW SO?


Why do you quote again?


Clarify. You need to rephrase these words so that they can be more consistent with other content or words in your paper.


Be objective.


What does this mean? How can it support your main conclusion?


Is this a necessary detail?


Now you are using “theatrical performance” when your population of interest is students in high school social studies classroom.


I told you not to use “her, she, he, him, his, etc.


process. Therefore, the promotion of creativity can be supported through the use of apps after a

proper vetting process that limits student access to definitive answers and demands their

participation in challenging problem solving activities.

Blogging in the Classroom

Weblogs (blogs) are a common form of internet social-interaction apps among

adolescents. Blogs are similar to journals posted online in a public forum for others’ viewing

and commenting. Research has demonstrated links between blogging and enhanced creativity

skills (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Ramsey, 2014; Reich & Daccord, 2009; Witte, 2007).

L. C. Ducate and L. L. Lomicka (2008) conducted a study on how reading and creating

blogs as a foreign language classroom intervention might increase student learning and

creativity. Through assignments, students gained a greater understanding of their cultural

differences as well as shared struggles and interests with the bloggers (Ducate & Lomicka,

2008). The project assisted students in developing empathy, cross-cultural awareness, cultural

curiousitycuriosity, and a greater capacity to imagine friendships on the other side of the world.

Ducate and Lomicka (2008) also reported that blogging activity increased student participation

levels, fostered greater self-disclosure, increased student self-awareness, and generated a sense of

inter-connectedness among classmates.

J. Reich and T. Daccord (2009) conducted a similar study with a high school social

studies class. The assignment was based on Ben Shneiderman’s framework, Collect-Relate-

Create-Donate (CRCD), which was first developed in Leonardo’s Laptop (2002). Reich and

Daccord’s (2009) subsequent research applied the CRCD framework to the context of blogging.

Students were required to write blogs imagining themselves as characters from historical

readings; they were also required to comment on each other’s blogs. The results indicated


Is this necessary? Describing what they did specifically and what they found are more important and USEFUL than the name of the framework or when and where they developed this framework, UNLESS THIS IS YOUR MAIN FRAMEWORK FOR YORU MAIN CONCLUSION.


Do you need a first name here?


BECAUSE YOU INDICATE "HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES"HERE, IT SUGGESTS THAT ALL THE OTHER RESEARCH FINDDING ARE NOT FOR "HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES" Is this true? If so, there is no way you can say your population of interest is students or adolescents in high school social studies classroom at all. If not, which means that all the other research findings are also for high school social studies classroom, then you must not write here that this specific research finding is from high school social studies.


Don’t need first initials


DOES YOUR DV INCLUDE ALL OF THESE ALSO? YOU NEED TO ADD EACH SENTENCE ONLY WHEN IT SUPPORTS YOUR CONCLUSION OF YOUR STUDY.


Within the same paragraph, you do not need the year (2008) again unless you are using the same authors' another different study.


DOES YOUR DV INCLUDE ALL OF THESE?


Make it simple: Ducate and Lomicka (2008) found their IV(??) was effective on their DV (???) instead of saying that they conducted a study on what and what they wanted to examine, etc. Get rid of all unnecessary details FOR THE ENTIRE PAPER.


Now you are using “foreign language classroom intervention” when your population of interest is students in high school social studies classroom.


THE GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE BLOGGING WILL BE VERY USEFUL.


Don’t need first initials


Do all these sources support the previous sentences?


Is this your DV? Is this the same as “creativity, creative thinking, creative output”, etc.?


In order for blogging to be effective on your DV, are there some guidelines for using blogging?


Need a citation here?


THIS CAN BE USEFUL ALSO. However, you did not build your argument for this conclusion. You just talk about this all of a sudden, but you use the word, “therefore” how or why? How do the previous sentences support this conclusion?


This can be useful information if you argue logically and clarify what it means exactly. SO FAR, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON OR ARGUMENT REGARDING WHY YOUR POPULATION OF INTEREST SHOULD BE STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM AT ALL. SO, YOU NEED TO EXPAND YOUR POPULATION BASSED ON THE RESEARCH FINDINGS THAT YOU HAVE USED FOR YOUR STUDY. YOU CAN DISCUSS WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY OR COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY ARE EFFECTIVE and HOW EACH IS EFFECTIVE ON YOUR DV, AND THEN WHEN OR HOW THEY SHOULD BE USED TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE.


Clarify. For example?


increased empathy for historical characters, increased curiosity about the characters, and

elaborative, creative story-telling amongst the students (Reich & Daccord, 2009). The authors

suggested that future studies should require students to rewrite their blogs after receiving student

feedback, and to possibly hold radio interviews with characters or public performances to

increase imagination, curiosity, and creative interpretation (Reich & Daccord, 2009).

S. Witte (2007), conducted a study using blogs as a means of student reflection on

reading assignments regarding poetry and imaginative storytelling. The results indicated

increased participation, emotional expression, and creative writing skills. Due to administrative

concerns over student privacy being compromised through the blogging process, the project was

prematurely terminated (Witte, 2007). After the weblogs were replaced with paper notebook

assignments, students openly appealed the decision, stating, “You’ve taken away our voice”

(Witte, 2007, p. 85). This statement indicated the blogs’ facilitation of self-expression.

Similarly, J.D. Ramsey (2014), conducted a study with Middle School students by asking them

to post creative writing assignments on personal blogs and provide constructive feedback to their

classmates on a weekly basis. Ramsey (2014) found that these assignments enhanced

collaboration, self-expression, and improved creative writing skills.

Consistent with literature on other collaborative endeavors, studies show that when blogs

are used as a classroom intervention, student participation increases (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008;

Ramsey, 2014; Reich & Daccord, 2009; Witte, 2007). The research also shows that blogging

assignments that require peer feedback increases creative thinking skills (Ramsey, 2014; Reich

& Daccord, 2009). Furthermore, when blog assignments are given with minimal structure,

students show an increased level of self-expression, curiosity, and empathy towards others

(Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Ramsey, 2014; Reich & Daccord, 2009; Witte, 2007).


Do all these references support the previous statement?


ARE THEYSE YOUR DV ALSO? IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO YOUR DV, YOU NEED TO LOGICALLY CONNECT THEM INTO YOUR DV. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SAY THAT SUCCESSFUL CREATIVITY REQUIRES CREATIVE CLIMATE, CREATIVE ATTTITUDE, AND CREATIVE THINKING. AND THEN YOU CAN SAY "SELF-EXPRESSION, CURIOSITY, AND EMPATHY ARE ELEMENTS OF CREATIVE ATTITUDES. PLEASE REVIEW CHAPTER 2 OF MY BOOK ON BB.


THIS CAN BE USEFUL INFORMATION ALSO IF YOU ARGUE LOGICALLY. WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY OR COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOTY IS EFFECTIVE ON YOUR DV AND IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE OR ONLY EFFECTIVE WHEN USED IN WHAT WAY.


Why not “blogging assignments”? What I ask here is that why do you use two different terms when they mean the same thing.


Why not “blog assignments”?


Which research? You need to just state “Blogging assignments that require peer feedback increases creative thinking skills (Ramsey, 2014; Reich & Daccord, 2009).” without “The research also shows that” there. “The research also shows that” is redundant.


If not, you need to cite differently. You can cite each phrase separately using a comma, OR You can also use “e.g.," in front of your citations within the parenthesis if YOU made this statement OR CONCLUSION based on more than one study.


Do all these references support the previous statement?


Past tense


What was the IV of the study? I do not think that it is only becuse of "blogs" or "weblogs," it might be because the quality of the "constructive feedback."


So, it is not from high school social studies classroom.


No first initials


Is this necessary? How does it support your argument?


Is this the same as “blogs" above? Then why do you use "weblogs" here?


IS THIS NECESSARY? HOW? How does this support your argument or conclusion?


Need a citation here


This is obvious that it is not a research finding from "high school social studies classroom."


No first initials


Why is this necessary? How does it support your conclusion of your paper? They just “suggested” these things, so they did not really “find” these, which means that these are not their research findings. Why do you use these then?


Do not use “the authors” Use the name of authors consistently.


Are these your DV also?


Wikipedia as an Appropriate and Collaborative Learning Tool

While the open-source, online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia has its share of

detractors, multiple studies have demonstrated its reliability to be comparable to standard

alternatives such as Britannica (Giles, 2005; Rahman, 2008). Wikipedia’s reliability and its

open-source, collaborative nature may make it appropriate for implementation in the classroom.

In two studies, Wikipedia-based interventions increased the comprehension skills of participants

learning English as a second language (Khany & Khosravian, 2014; Shi, 2015). Furthermore,

subsequent research suggests that Wikipedia’s collaborative nature and increased effectiveness

when combined with cross-referencing can enhance creativity and student research skills.

Studies have revealed that students who were charged with collaboratively researching and

editing Wikipedia entries demonstrated enhanced creative and critical thinking skills (Cattapan,

2012; Kennedy, et al., 2015). It is our prediction that the collaborative and synergistic nature of

Wikipedia will make it an appropriate tool for enhancing creative thinking skills in adolescents.

Research ProposalDesign

Research question

Does the use of collaborative technology result in increased levels of creativity in

adolescents?

Hypothesis

The use of collaborative technology will result in increased levels of creativity in

adolescents.

Definitions

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) will be administered as a pretest and a

posttest to two groups of participants, ages 15 – 16. Collaborative technology is defined as the


Here you use two groups, but see below, which indicates you use four groups?


What kind of two groups?


Once you change your research question appropriately, you need to change the hypothesis also.


Change this so that the answer is not just yes/no/one right/simple answer. AND, You need to change your IV, DV, and population after you decide exactly what to do.


Clarify this. How is it “synergistic” and how is "synergetic" different from "collaborative"?


This is the first time you have used Kennedy, therefore, it should not be et al.


By saying this, you are implying creative thinking skills are DIFFERENT FROM crtical thinking skills. But, creative thinking requires critical thinking. You have to make every term clear in your paper. Look at Chapter 2 of my book.


FINALLY NOW YOU ARE SAYINT THAT THEY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN CREATING A CONTENT OF WIKIPEDIA HERE! YOU NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING.


Which study? You need to say the specific study. Are you saying “Cattapan, 2012; Kennedy et al., 2015” then, you need to say "Cattapan (2012) and Kennedy et al. (2015) found~"


Is this what they found or is that what they suggest it can happen? You need to use only research findings, not what others just suggest.


What do you mean? Clarify.


Use the specific study, instead of saying “subsequent research”


Do both of these references support the previous statement?


Because of WHAT? JUST USING WIKIPEDIA, INSTEAD OF OTHER SOURCES, DOES NOT INCREASE “comprehension skills of participants learning English as a second language” And, also, is this one of your DV? How is this related to creativity? You need to make a connection.


I am not sure how its collaborative nature can become “technology” or “collaborative technology” (your IV) for your population of interest. Let us say that your population of interest is adolescents. How Wikipedia is collaborative TO the adolescents? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE STUDENTS PARTICIPATED IN CREATING A WIKIPEDIA CONTENT TOGETHER? THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE COLLABORATIVE. IF THIS IS THE CASE, YOU NEED TO SAY THAT.


But, there is also ONLINE VERSION OF BRITANNICA. THEN which one did they compare to? The online one or the paper one?


What does it mean? Remember that reliability means consistency. AND, you do not care about its validity then? You do not care whether the contents of Wikipedia are valid?


What are they? If you mean “Giles, 2005; Rahman, 2008” then you need to say Giles (2005) and Rahman (2008) found the reliability of Wikipedia is similar to that of Britannica. You cannot just say “multiple studies.”


YOU CANNOT JUST IMPLY THIS. What are the detractors? How do you know this? Who found this?


incorporation of Wikipedia research projects and blogging applications in a high school

social studies curriculum. The intervention group will use Wikipedia and Google Blogger.

Variables

The independent variable (IV) is the use of collaborative technology in social studies, and

the dependent variable (DV) is the level of creativity. The effect between IV and DV can be

DEPENDENT ON THE MODERATORS OF moderated by factors like ethnicity, gender, and

the engagement of the instructors. Students’ interest in the subject is a covariate affecting the

DV. Using online technology is a mediating variable, as it will increase the level of

collaboration and engagement with others, thus contributing to increased levels of creativity. By

using public online platform, students can edit the contents in platform as well as people beyond

the scope of the project. A confounder then is the content added by outsiders.

Participants

Researchers will select two public high schools (School A and School B) in

Williamsburg-James City County. Participants will be members of two social studies classrooms

in each school. Each classroom will consist of 30 participants, giving a total of 120

participants in the study.

Design and InterventionProcedure

A quasi-experimental design will be used. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

(TTCT) will be administered to all participants at the start of an academic semester. This test

was selected as it is the accepted evaluation of creative aptitude (Treffinger, 1985).

Participants in School A will be given non-technology collaborative assignments

throughout the semester. Researchers will provide technology-enhanced collaborative

assignment, such as blogging and wiki editing, as the intervention in School B. At the end of the


Your IVs are these two. So, you need to make the entire paper consistent wit this, if you want to do what you wrote in this section.


WHAT KIND? HOW DO YOU DO THIS? THIS MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT USE COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY AS YOUR IV BECAUSE YOU NEED TO SAY WHAT YOU ACTUALLY USE AS YOUR IV, WHICH ew "Wikipedia and Google Blogger." AND ALSO, WHY DO YOU SAY "TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED COLLABORATEIVE ASSIGNMENT"? IS THIS DIFFERNT FROM "COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY" WHY DO YOU USE SO MANY DIFFERNT TERMS FOR THE SAME MEANING?


This means that your DV is “creative aptitude.” THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU INTEND TO MEASURE.


There are SIX different quasi-experimental design. Which one are you talking about?


I did not want you to describe all of the procedures, which is why I asked you to talk about only what your INTERVENTION is. So, you do not need a PROCEDURE section.


Here, you use four groups?? but see the above, which shows that you use two groups?


WHY TWO CLASSROOMS?


HOW? RANDOMLY OR NON-RANDOMLY? IF IT IS RANDOM, WHICH RANDOM METHOD? IF IT IS NON-RANDOM, WHICH NON-RANDOM METHOD?


HOW? What does confounder affect?


Is this supported by your literature review?


IS THIS SUPPORTED by your literature review?


CLIRIFY. ARE YOU SAYING WHETHER THEY USE ONLINE TEHNOLOGY OR HOW OFTEN OR HOW LONG THEY USE ONLINE TECHNOLOGY? AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ONLINE TECHNOLOGY?


IS THIS BASED ON YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW? ALSO, IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO INCLUDE IT IN YOUR STUDY TO SEE WHETHER IT REALLY AFFECTS YOUR DV AND HOW IT AFFECTS YOUR DV?


GOSH, WHY YOU INCLUDE THIS ALSO? IF YOU WANT TO USE THIS AS ONE OF YOUR MODERATORS, YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW YOU MEASURE IT. MORE IMPORTNATLY, YOU NEED TO USE MODERATORS BASED ON OUR LITERATURE REVIEW.


WHAT IS YOUR BASIS? DOES YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW SUPPORT “ETHNICITY” OR “GENDER” IS A MODERATOR?


WHAT KIND OF CREATIVITY? ONLY CREATIVE CLIMATE? ONLY CREATIVE ATTITUDE? ONLY CREATIVE THINKING? OR SOMETHING ELSE?


THIS IS NOT YOUR IV. YOUR IVS ARE “USE OF WIKIPEDIA AND USE OF GOOGLE BLOGGER.


YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT IVS. ONE IS WIKIPEDIA AND THE OTHER IS GOOGLE BLOGGER.


YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS FOR THIS. ALSO, YOU HAVE STATED EARLLIER THAT YOUR INTERSET OF POPULATION IS STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM. BUT, HERE YOU ARE SAYING “high school social studies CURRICULUM.” ARE THEY DIFFERENT?


If this is your IV, then you need to talk about ONLY THE RESEARCH FINDINS THAT ARE RELATED TO “Wikipedia research projects and blogging applications” IN YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW.


term, the TTCT will again be administered to evaluate the effects of collaborative technology on

creativity.

Internal and External Validity

Since there is a small sample size (about 60 students in each group) the results of the

study would have limitations in generalizability, decreasing the external validity. Also, the

students are 15-16 year olds in social studies class, so the results may only apply to this age and

subject.

Internal validity may be compromised by the lack of random assignment. The

experimental group and control group were selected simply by the school and class the students

attend. Internal validity may be limited by students’ attitudes. Some students may be

unmotivated by the subject material or by the assignments. Similarly, the attitudes of the

implementers or teachers may affect the validity of the study. For example, if teachers are

stressed or physically exhausted, they may participate less frequently in the students’ online

activities or provide less valuable feedback. The experimental group and control group were

selected simply by the school and class the students attend. Internal validity may be

compromised by the lack of random assignment. Finally, students may show an increase in their

creative thinking skills simply as an indicator of maturation over the course of the semester

rather than as a result of the intervention.

Methods of Analysis

The researchers expect to see a difference between the pretest and posttest scores. To test

the significance, two-sample T-tests will be applied. Equal variance will be tested to see the

distribution of the testing results. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is applied in the follow-up

analysis to test the difference of the performance among the sub-groups.


You need to do only one analysis together.


What do you mean? Which groups are you talking about?


what do you want to compare? the scores of which group to the scores of which group?


Significance for what?


THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR HYPOTHESIS. You worte, "The use of collaborative technology will result in increased levels of creativity in adolescents." So, you are expecting to see "an increase." What I cannot understand is that you have many group members, but nobody could notice any of these many inconsistencies at all? How come? All of you just assumed that everybody else was right?More importantly, a difference between the pretest and posttest scores in who? or which group? How many groups do you use? If you use more than two groups AND you use more than one IVs, you must use fatorial ANOVA.


Does your literature review suggest that creative thinking skills are increased by time or age?


Is this your DV then? It is not “creative aptitude” which you stated earlier?


I do not think that whether teachers provide more or less valuable feedback is only dependent on their stress or physical exhaustion. There are many factors that affect the quality of the feedback. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE QUALITY OF TECHERS’ FEEDBACK IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT MIGHT BECOME YOUR MODERATOR OR MEDIATOR DEPDENDING ON YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS.


What kind of validity? Test validity? Internal validity? External validity?


WHEN YOU DISCUSS YOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS AND OTHER RESEARCHERS’ RESEARCH FINDINGS, YOU MUST USE PAST TENSE. BUT, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH PLAN, YOU MUST USE FUTURE TENSE BECUASE YOU HAVE NOT DONE IT AND YOU WILL DO IT IN THE FUTURE.


THIS SENTENCE MUST COME FIRST.


You need to have a reason or basis why you use only 15-16 year olds.


BUT EARLIER YOU SAID 30 STUDENTS IN EACH GROUP. AND, WHY DO YOU SAY, “about”? be accurate.


I emphasized this a lot in class. You can use “since” only when it is time-related. You have six group members and twelve eyes, but nobody could remember this at all? I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED.


YOU MUST ALSO TALK ABOUT HOW TO CONTROL EACH THREAT.


This is NOT.


Are you using “term” or “semester”? You cannot just use two different words here.


Conclusions

Utilizing online apps for student produced assignments and assessments may provide a

powerful tool for educators interested in promoting creativity and collaborative opportunities for

students. Yet, online blogs, apps, and editable websites are useful only when there exists an

opportunity for self-expression and student academic freedom. The use of technology based

instruction can be effective and can promote creativity provided that instructors choose guided

and reputable programs, establish clear expectations within their assignments, and actively

encourage and foster student self-discovery within an online forum.

Implications

Online apps, blogs, and editable websites are available to every academic subject

available within the K-12 setting. The use of technologically driven lessons must be turned over

to students who are willing to express themselves within a format that encourages them to

interact with the online tools introduced by the instructor. Students must be willing to take

academic risks and should be rewarded for doing so. With an understanding of collaboration

existing between student and student, supported through teachers trained in online programs and

useful web applications, web based programs can be a powerful tool for educators.

Limitations

Key limitations to the effectiveness of using web based applications and programs are

most clearly linked with access to software, hardware, and internet access. If a school lacks an

appropriate amount of internet-ready devices and/or has limited or unreliable access to the

internet, then students will be unable to participate in such technology driven lessons that may

improve their creative output. Additionally, if teachers and students lack an interest in

participating with programs that allow for the self-expression in unique formats, the lessons will


THIS CAN BE ONE OF YOUR INTERNAL VALIDITY THREATS.


YOUR IMPLICATIONS MUST BE BASED ON YOUR MAIN CONCLUSIONS.


AS A GROUP, Think about what the originality or uniqueness of your study is. Your study must be different from previous studies AND MUST BE USEFUL. As it is, your study is not very unique or useful.1) you must think about the structure or organization of your study. As it is, your study does not logically flow at all. Do you have any reason to talk about "adolescents" or "students in high school social studies classroom" as your population of interest? How do all of the parts of discussions in your literature review support your main arguments or conclusions of your study? How are they related to either your title or your abstract of the study? You have to discuss in your group how to organize the paper before you start writing. Remove something or make the parts that are not directly supporting your main arguments very concise, so that you can have more room for your main arguments that will become your conclusions. Every section of your main literature review must support your main arguments that will be restated briefly in your conclusions section.Everything must be cohesive and must support your conclusions. 1) You must explain your definitions of and the significance and/or benefits of your study, and then 2) you need to discuss the researdh findings that are related to whether and how your IV affects your DV.3) you can talk about how educators, high school students, students, or others can motivate their students, or themselves (whoever your population of interest is ) to have more creativity, creative thinking skills, or some other contents, so that your study can become very unique and useful 4) You must briefly summarize the main findings (from your main sections of your literature review) in your Conclusions section. 4) In your implications section, you must suggest what to do (some guidelines) for the people who are related to your population, such as educators, students, or high school students ??(I am still not sure who your population of interest is) and/or others to improve students’ or others' creativity, creative thinking, or something practically??(I am not sure what your real DV is). Next, you must also suggest what future researchers can do or should do. So, there are two different suggestions: one to practitioners and the other to future studies.Based on your suggestions for future studies, you need to make your own resesarch question and hypothesis. And then, you need to make a complete research proposal based on your suggestions.Your research question and hyposthesis must use the same IV and DV from your literature review.


AS A GROUP, YOU NEED TO DECIDE “WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN CONCLUSIONS FOR YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW”?


Your population is SUPPOSED TO BE EITHER ADOLESCENTS OR STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM. THEN, WHY YOU DO NOT TLAK ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR POPULATION IN YOUR CONCLUSION SECTION AT ALL?


WHAT IS YOUR main argument? YOUR MAIN ARGUMENT MUST BE the relationship between your IV and DV or the effects of your IV on your DV.


become tedious and futile. Finally, some parties may be unwilling to allow their student to

participate in academic activities where their personal thoughts may be exposed to an external

audience. Whether this be a division administration, school administration, or parent decision,

should this event occur, the student in question would be unable to engage in the beneficial

scholastic experience shared by their peers.

Word Count: 2500


your word count must be at the end of the research proposal section. So, you must move your conclusions and implications sections before the research proposal section.


1901


What is your purpose of this section? For a research proposal, you should not have a Limitation section because you have not conducted your study yet, so you can still control those limitations. For research reports and other actual research studies that have already finished studies, you have a Limitation section because you you have tried control them but you could not. So, when you write a research PROPOSAL like yours, you need to include internal validity and external validity threats where you talk about POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS for when you actually conduct your study. Thus, you must change this section into internal or external validity threats. Again:YOU HAVE NOT EVEN CONDUCTED YOUR ACTUAL RESEARCH YET. YOU ARE WRTING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL, WHICH IS YOUR FUTURE RESEARCH PLAN, SO YOU MUST NOT WRITE ANY LIMITATION YET. THAT IS WHY YOU NEED TO WRITE ABOUT YOUR EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL VALIDITY THREATS AND DISCUSS HOW YOU WILL TRY TO CONTROL THEM. IF YOU LOOK AT PPT FOR LITERATURE REVIEW AND APA, THERE IS NO LIMITATION SECTION. YOU ONLY WRITE YOUR LIMITATION ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETELY FINISHED YOUR ACTUAL RESARCH, AND THEN YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO DO.


THIS ALSO CAN BE ONE OF YOUR INTERNAL VALIDITY THREATS.


References

*Baker, J. C., Isbell, J. K., Wendt, J., & Wilson, B. (2013). V-SPACE: Training teachers to use

iPads to create virtual spaces for accessing content in English. Journal of Technology in

Teaching and Learning, 9(1),): 64-80.

*Biasutti, M. (2015). Assessing a collaborative online environment for music composition.

Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 49-63.

Bowen, B., & Finch, J. (2013). There’s an app for that. Science Teacher, 81(3), : 41-47.

*Bryant, C. (2010). A 21st-century art room: The remix of creativity and technology. Art

Education, 63(2), 43-48.

*Cattapan, A. (2012). (Re)writing "feminism in Canada": Wikipedia in the feminist classroom.

Feminist Teacher, 22(2), 125-136. doi:10.5406/femteacher.22.2.0125

Cheung, J. (2004). Mapping music education research in Hong Kong. Psychology of Music,

32(3), 343-356.

*Cocu, A., Pecheanu, E., & Susnea, I. (2015). Stimulating creativity through collaboration in an

innovation laboratory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, : 173-178.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.753

Cole, J. (2014). It’s not about the apps. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(1), : 48-51.

*Dillon, T. (2003). Collaborating and creating on music technologies. International Journal of

Educational Research, 39(8), 893-897.

*Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to

blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28.

Farrell, M. (2001). Collaborative circles. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

*Fitton, V., Ahmedani, B., Harold, R., & Shifflet, E. (2013). The role of technology on young


I told you not to use “the” for any journal names or any publishers’ names.


Check


Check


Check


Check


Check


Check


Check


Check


Make sure this citation needs an issue number. It only needs an issue number if each issue journal starts on page 1


adolescent development: Implications for policy, research and practice. Child &

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(5), 399-413. doi:10.1007/s10560-013-0296-2

*Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaediasencyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070),

900-901.

doi:10.1038/438900a

*Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Gollinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J.

(2015).

Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34. doi:10.1177/1529100615569721

*Hong, E., Peng, Y., & O’Neil, H. (2014). Activities and accomplishments in various domains:

Relationships with creative personality and creative motivation in adolescence. Roeper

Review, 36(2), 92-103. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.884199

*Jahnke, I., & Kumar, S. (2014). Digital didactical designs: Teacher’s integration of iPads for

learning-centered processes. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3),:

81-88. doi:10.1080/21532974.2014.891876

Johnson, D. (2010). Teaching with authors' blogs: Connections, collaboration, creativity: Blogs

promote critical and analytical thinking and allow students to create content in ways not

possible in traditional paper-and-pencil environments. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 54(3), 172. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.3.2

*Kennedy, R., Forbush, E., Keegan, B., & Lazer, D. (2015). Turning introductory comparative

politics and elections courses into social science research communities using Wikipedia:

Improving both teaching and research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(2), 378-384.

doi:10.1017/S1049096514002157


Check


Check


Check


Check


*Khany, R., & Khosravian. (2014). Iranian EFL learners' vocabulary development through

Wikipedia. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 57. doi:10.5539/elt.v7n7p57

Kim, K. H. (2015). What is creativity?. Manuscript submitted for publication.Unpublished

manuscript, Department of Education, The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

*King, L. J., Gardner-McCune, C., Vargas, P., & Jimenez, Y. (2014). Re-discovering and re-

creating African American historical accounts through mobile apps: The role of mobile

technology in history education. Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(3), : 173-188.

*Koh, K. (2013). Adolescents' information-creating behavior embedded in digital media practice

using Scratch. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology,

64(9), 1826-1841. doi:10.1002/asi.22878

*McNally, T. (2012). Innovative teaching and technology in the service of science: Recruiting

the next generation of STEM students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching &

Learning, 12(1), 49-58.

*Mellor, L. (2008). Creativity, originality, identity: Iinvestigating computer-based composition

in

the secondary school. Music Education Research, 10(4), 451-472.

Moffat, W. (2010). Creativity and collaboration in the small college department. Pedagogy,

10(2), 283-294. doi:10.1215/15314200-2009-039

*Nielsen, L. D. (2013). Developing musical creativity: Student and teacher perceptions of a high

school music technology curriculum. Applications of Research in Music Education,

31(2), 54-62. doi:10.1177/8755123312473610

*Rahman, M. M. (2008). An analysis of Wikipedia. JITTA : Journal of Information Technology

Theory and Application, 9(3), 81.


check


Is this necessary? Check it again.


check


check


check


check


check


Not sure if there is a reason this is capitalized


Check


Check


Missing 1st initial


*Ramsey, J. D. (2014). Writing to the world. Educational Leadership, 71(7), 54-58.

*Reich, J., & Daccord, T. (2009). The “day in the life of a teenage hobo” project: Integrating

technology with Shneiderman’s collect-relate-create-donate framework. Social

Education, 73(3), 140-144.

*Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2015). Exploring sensitive subjects with adolescents:

Using media and technology to teach about genocide. American Secondary Education,

43(2), 4-17. doi:10.1080/14613800802547680

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo’s laptop: Human needs and the new computing

technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shapira O., & Liberman, N., (2009). An easy way to increase creativity. Scientific American.

Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-easy-way-to-increase-c/.

*Shi, J. (2015). An analysis of the application of Wikipedia corpus on the lexical learning in the

second language acquisition. English Language Teaching, 8(8), 171.

doi:10.5539/elt.v8n8p171

Treffinger, D. (1985). [Review of the test Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking]. In The ninth

mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved Available from http://www.unl.edu/buros/

*Witte, S. (2007). “That’s online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs

and the talkback project. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(2), 92-96.


Check


Not sure why they have brackets


check


check


check


check


Dr. Kim’s Concluding Overall Feedback

Strengths of your paper:

1. Your research proposal has most of the requirements of this assignment. Most

descriptions for the sections of the research proposal part are close to my expectations.

2. The APA style of your references list is close to my expectations.

3. Your paper has all required sections of the assignment including, the purpose of the

study, main literature review, conclusions, implications, and research proposal. They are

generally in the right order, for example, your Who Did What (although you named

wrong) is after the reference list.

4. Your paper included no more than minimum numbers of words, and you correctly

counted the total words for both your literature review section and research proposal

section.

5. The empirical studies of your sources are indicated with “*”. However, whether or not

they are really empirical studies will be checked when you submit (on December 7) all of

your sources in a CD or a USB drive after submitting your final revision.

Weaknesses of your paper:

1. Your paper has too many quoted sections, which is against the rule of “Minimum

quotation marks” and needs to be rephrased.

2. Your in-text citations did not follow the APA style, especially using first name initials for

citations.


3. The contents of your title, abstract, main literature review, conclusions, implications, and

research proposals are inconsistent especially in terms of the IV, DV, and population of

interest of the study.

3. Your literature review section does not have logical arguments that must lead into your

conclusions, which in turn must lead into your implications, which in turn must lead into

the IV and DV of the study.

4. Your internal validity and external validity discussions are incomplete, and you included

unnecessary section of “Limitation.”

5. Your paper does not show unique and useful conclusions and implications neither for the

population of interest or others nor for the future researchers who are interested in this

topic.

6. Your conclusions and implications are in a wrong place, which need to be before the

research proposal section.

7. Your literature review discussions are focused neither on your IV nor on your DV, and

you just listed bunch of research findings that are both relevant and irrelevant. Also, you

included too many unnecessary and distracting details that do not support your main

arguments or conclusions. Thus, you have little space for your main arguments. You need

to look at my feedback on the literature review section of the “Aging Creative Satisfaction:

A Review of the Impact of Creativity on the Life Satisfaction of Older Adults” paper.

8. Neither the previous research findings in your literature review section nor your abstract

section was written in past tense.

9. You were supposed to check with 1) the PPT for “Literature Review and APA,” 2) the

Draft Rubric, 3) the Syllabus, 4) Chapter 2 of my book that is posted on Blackboard, and 4)


other materials on Blackboard. Even though your group has six different people with

twelve eyes, your paper has so many obvious errors and mistakes. You must not just agree

with your group members, which I have emphasized again and again since the beginning of

the semester.

Literature Review/Research Proposal Draft Grading Rubric

Names of the Researchers: ________________________

Criteria 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 TotalContent Accuracy & Completeness

Little evidence

Some evidence

Almost complete evidence

Giving readers a clear sense of the main idea (-0.2) . A variety of sources & significant facts researched & interpreted accurately with supporting information (-0.1) . Completed including all sections needed according to the PPT, directions, & Rubric.

0.7/1

Format, APA Style, Number & Currency of References, & Word Count

Little evidence

Some evidence

Almost complete evidence

APA style followed (-0.2 for in-text) . References included more than minimum numbers of appropriate articles (with empirical studies).& current (within 20 years).Paper included no more than minimum numbers of words.

0.8/1

Contribution to Group

Little Some Almost Contributions appreciated by all of the group members

?/1

Total I really hope you review all of my comments carefully and thoroughly so that you can give me a perfect final revision of the paper.

?/3

Documents

kkim.wmwikis.net. Kim's Feedbck o… · Web view... social studies classrooms on creative thinking skills as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative ... these developments affect