Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Writing in
Educational Technology
Dr. Henny van der Meijden (Msc, PhD)
Department of Educational Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
Radboud University Nijmegen
The Netherlands
October, 8, 2013
UTM
Johor Bahru
Malaysia
Bacholor Educational Science
Coaching and counseling
Educational design
Traning in educational research
(international students)
Master Educational Science
E-learning
Learning environment
Supervisor Master Thesis
PhD projects
International students
Coordinator internationalisation
Educationnal Sciences
Teaching
• CSCL (Doctoral Thesis)
• ICT in Education (e.g. Games)
• PhD projects
International students
• Keyboarding skills (effects typewriting course on language skills)
Research
Facts & Figures Social Sciences
2012
• Students 4.231
• Enrollment 1.02
• Staff 515 fte
• Dissertations 36
• Academic Publications 897
Faculty of Social Sciences
Bachelor programmes
School of PS&AI
• Psychology
• Artificial Intelligence
School of Education
• Pedagogical Sciences/Education
School of Social Cultural Sciences
• Sociology
• Communication Science
• Anthropology & Development Studies
Faculty of Social Sciences
Study programmes ba+ma First year 12/13 Total
• Psychology 429 1.860
• Pedagogical Science/ Education 264 1.221
• Artificial Intelligence 51 183
• Sociology 44 156
• Communication Science 104 374
• Anthropology & Development Studies 73 239
Total 1.024 4.231
Research master (2 years)
• Cognitive Neuroscience 49 89
• Behavioural Science 37 83
• Social Cultural Science 13 22
Total 99 194
Faculty of Social Sciences
Study programmes ba+ma First year 12/13 Total
• Pedagogical Science/ Education 264 1.221
• Bachelor program
Research skills:
BA Year 1: academic writing 1 6 EC‟s
descriptive statistics 5 EC‟s
BA Year 2: academic writing 2 6 EC‟s
inferentional statistics 5 EC‟s
BA Year 3: psychometrics 6 EC‟s
data-analysis 5 EC‟s
BA Thesis 10 EC‟s
Total research courses: 43 EC‟s (43 x 28 = 1204 hours)
Collaboration UTM- Radboud
University
2011: co-supervisor Nurbiha A. Sukor, first visit Nijmegen
2011: visiting lecturer at UTM
2012 :co-supervisor Nurbiha A. Sukor, second visit Nijmegen
2012: viva at UTM
2013 : visiting lecturer at UTM
2014 : PhD students/post doc at Nijmegen?
Bagarukayo, E., Van der Weide, T., & Van der Meijden, H. (2012). An
approach to learning by Construction. International Journal of
Education and Developing using ICT 8(3), 43-61.
Vos, N., Van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of
constructing versus playing an educational game on student
motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers &
Education 56(1), 127-137.
De Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., Van der Meijden, H., Kleine Staarman, J., &
Janssen, J. (2005). Regulative processes in individual, 3D, and
computer-supported cooperative learning contexts. Computers in
Human Behavior 21(4), 645-670.
Van der Meijden, H. (2005). Knowledge construction through CSCL.
Student elaborations in synchronous, asynchronous, and three-
dimensional learning environments. Doctoral Thesis Radboud
Universiteit Nijmegen
Research: Publications
Outline of the presentation
• Impact factor
• An example of research in
educational technology
• Guidelines for writing an article
• Submitting an article
• Do‟s and Don‟ts
Impact factor
Measure reflecting the average number of citations
to articles published in science and social science
journals
Used for the relative importance of a journal
within its field
Calculated yearly, 2 years average
Computers & Education: 2.6
Lancet: 38.5
Impact factor
Indicator for the quality of the publications and
therefore important for the academic carrier,
and the status
of the academic
institution
Outline of the presentation
• Impact factor
• An example of research in
educational technology
• Guidelines for writing an article
• Submitting an article
• Do‟s and Don‟ts
Bagarukayo, E., Van der Weide, T., & Van der Meijden, H. (2012). An
approach to learning by Construction. International Journal of
Education and Developing using ICT 8(3), 43-61.
Vos, N., Van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of
constructing versus playing an educational game on student
motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education
56(1), 1-11.
De Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., Van der Meijden, H., Kleine Staarman, J., &
Janssen, J. (2005). Regulative processes in individual, 3D, and
computer-supported cooperative learning contexts. Computers in
Human Behavior 21(4), 645-670.
Van der Meijden, H. (2005). Knowledge construction through CSCL.
Student elaborations in synchronous, asynchronous, and three-
dimensional learning environments. Doctoral Thesis Radboud
Universiteit Nijmegen
International Publications
Writing Educational Technology: EXAMPLE
(IF 2.6)
3 steps
1. Research (experiment)
2. Draft a manuscript
3. Submit a manuscript
EXAMPLE
3 steps
1. Research (experiment)
“Effects of constructing versus playing an
educational game on student motivation
and deep learning strategy use”
What can you tell from the title?
EXAMPLE
STEP 1: The experiment
Effects of 2 learning tasks (conditions)
1. Play a game on Dutch proverbs
2. Construct a game on Dutch proverbs
235 students primary school (age 11-12)
Elementary schools group 7 and 8
4 schools Master student Educational Science: Nienke Vos
Supervisor: Dr. Henny van der Meijden
Statistics: Dr. Eddie Denessen
STEP 1: The experiment
LITERATURE ON
GAMES,
MOTIVATION
DEEP LEARNING STRATEGY
Games can provide opportunities for:
Reflection on action
Experiences across various situations
Confront learners with complex situations
Authentic learning environments
Enhance motivation and knowledge construction
Enhance use of deep learning strategies
STEP 1: The experiment
Research question
In the present study we investigate how
different interactive tasks in which a game was
included, affect student intrinsic motivation and
deep learning strategy use
Why games?
GAMES (review of literature)
• fit within social constructivism
• provide a flexibel, complex, authentic learning environment
• have a positive effect on learning outcomes and motivation
–better understanding, remembering and active use of knowledge
• stimulate inquiry learning
• give opportunities for interactions and collaborative learning
• enhance keyboarding skills (laproscopic reseach, surgeons)
Step 1: The experiment
Methods
• Procedure:
– Two different lessons: game construction and game play
– Pre-test on intrinsic motivation and deep strategy use
during school lessons
– Post-test on intrinsic motivation and deep strategy use
during game lesson
• Participants
– 4 primary schools (5th and 6th grade (groep 7 en 8)
– 235 students
– Group 1: 128 students
– Group 2: 107 students
Games in education
The lessons
• Introduction on subject
– Dutch proverbs
– Students searched for 10 proverbs (internet,
books)
– 20 minutes
• Game lesson
– Game playing 90 minutes
– Game construction 120 minutes
Games in education
Game play lesson
Play an existing „drag and
drop‟ game about
proverbs
STEP 1: The experiment
Game construction lesson
• Make a „drag and drop‟ or
“Memory” game
about proverbs
• Game will be placed on a
public website
STEP 1: The experiment
Construct a
game
STEP 1: The experiment
Results
STEP 1: The experiment
Intrinsic Motivation
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
In school During Game
lesson
In school During Game
lesson
In school During Game
lesson
Perceived competence Interest Effort
Game play
Game construction
d = .35
d = 1.09 d = 1.36
Results
STEP 1: The experiment
Deep strategy use
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
In school During Game lesson
Condition
Deep
str
ate
gy u
se
Game play
Game construction
d = 1.07
Conclusions
• Constructing games seems to be more motivating and
stimulates deep learning approach more than playing games
– Due to nature of the tasks
• Students in play condition seemed less motivated during
game play than in school
– Games do not always provide higher intrinsic motivation
and deep strategy use
• Limitations
– Game play might have been to easy
– No attention paid to learning outcomes
– Lessons were not equal in length
Games in education
STEP 1: The experiment
METHOD
• Research design
• Participants, procedures
• Operationalization of ALL variables
• Measurements related to the research question
STEP 1: The experiment
Results
Descriptive statistics: how many, boys girls,
language level, etc.
Results of the statistical tests
Answers to the research questions
STEP 1: the experiment
DISCUSSION
• Summary of the results:
• Significant difference between the 2 learning tasks
• Connection with literature
• Limitations
The master thesis was approved with a very high grade and
won the yearly national price for the best master thesis in the
field of pedagogy and educational science in the Netherlands
Would it be possible to get it published?
STEP 2: the draft
We transformed the thesis into an article
We looked for a possible journal
We summarized the theoretical part
We sought for help (3th author)
We changed all the statistics (advise 3th author)
We checked if we followed the guidelines for publishing
We checked our references (APA)
We had it corrected by a native speaker
And we submitted!!!! (Computers & Education)
STEP 3: the submission
• After a few months (almost forgotten that we
submitted): accepted with major revisions,
comments by 3 reviewers
• We had to add several parts and
be more specific
• We had to change all the statistics
to the original version
• And other small changes
• We did it all, AND IT WAS ACCEPTED
European Journal of Psychology of Education
Viewpoint from an editor
European Journal of Psychology of Education
Viewpoint from an editor
EJPS
Viewpoint from an editor
Guidelines for writing an article
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusion
• Discussion
• Depends on the journal!!
Viewpoint from an editor
Guidelines for writing an article
INTRODUCTION
• What is the problem
• The purpose of the study
• Review of the literature
• Statement of the hypothesis
• Operationalization of the variables
• Research question
• Relevance/significance of the study
Guidelines for writing an article
METHODS
• Subjects/participants/respondents
• Tasks and materials
• Instruments
• including quality of instruments
• including reliability
• Procedures
• Data-analysis
Guidelines for writing an article
RESULTS
• What is/are the answers to the research
question(s)?
• Hypothesis 1
• Statistical outcomes
• Tables and graphs
• Acceptance or rejection
• Hypothesis 2 etc.
Guidelines for writing an article
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
• Summarize the results
• Interpret: what do these findings mean?
• Why do the findings meet (or not) the
hypothesis?
• What circumstances account for the
unexpected findings?
• Integrate the findings in literature
• Recommendations: practice, future research
• Limitations
Impact factor: Peer reviewed journals
Procedure after submitting
• Submitted papers are made anonymous
• Send to peer reviewers
experts in the field
• Anonymous reviewers
give advice to the editor of the journal:
accept, accept with revisions, reject
Do’s for journal selection
• Ask your supervisor, colleagues other scientists
• Consider your „favorite‟ journals
• Search on the internet: e.g.
www.PapersInvited.com
• Look for a journal publishing studies with
comparable designs and subjects
• Consider the average reader of the selected
journal: is he or she interested?
Don’ts for journal selection
Select automatically the journal with highest impact
factor
Select automatically the journal that accepted an
article of you or your colleague before
IF 3-4
Do’s before submitting
• Produce an
„elevator pitch‟
• Find „future‟ readers
• to judge about the manuscript
• Read comparable articles
in the selected journal
Don’ts before submitting
• Wait too long with your first draft after
finishing the study
• Spoil much time with detailed editing of the
text, tables or figures (but DO follow the
guidelines of the journal!)
Do’s before submitting
• A short (100-200 words) clear invitation letter:
Give a good first impression of the research
subject and its relevance (in title, introduction,
abstract)
• Read carefully the information notes for the author
• Accept ALL (!) requirements and conditions from
the editor
• Adapt your draft maximally to the objective, style
and lay-out of the journal
• Look for a native speaker (English) to correct your
manuscript
Don’ts during submitting
• Pass deadlines!
• Submit the same draft for other journals
After
submission
REJECTED
Needs major
revisions
Needs minor
revisions
ACCEPTED
Not
rejected
After submission
Do’s when rejected
• Stay optimistic
• Reconsider your journal selection
• Make use of the comments and advices of
the editor or reviewers (if available)
• Try again!!
Don’ts when rejected
• Jump in the river or get depressive
• Give up
Do’s when not rejected
• Be available for questions of the editor,
always and anywhere
• Meet maximally the comments of the editor
and reviewers with recognizable corrections
in the text and by correctly answering their
questions
• Again: write a cover letter, indicating which
changes you have made
• Be aware of deadlines for additionally
required information or revisions!
Don’ts when not rejected
• Passing deadlines (your paper is still under
consideration)
• Planning a party with friends and colleagues
(publication is not guaranteed yet)
Do’s after acceptance
• Inviting colleagues and friends for a big party
• Last check of the text, figures and tables on
print mistakes (mostly) required by the editor
Don’ts after acceptance
• Change the manuscript
• Think that in a few years you will gain the
Nobel price
Conclusion: Think it all over!!!!
• CARRY ON!
AND REMEMBER:
EASY READING (for the editor or reviewer)
IS HARD WRITING (for the researcher)
Questions?
