Sarah Tolson May 27, 2014 EDET 780 Critique 2 Murthy, P., Shannon, E., Short, T. K., Morote, E. & Inserra, A. (2013) One-to-one computing, one-to-one learning: Predictors for the implementation of differentiated instruction. Issues and trends in educational technology, 1 (2). Retrieved May 15, 2014, from https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/itet/article/view/16929/17632. Introduction One-to-One Computing, One-to-One Learning: Predictors for Implementation of Differentiated Instruction, as written by Murthy, Shannon, Short, Morote, & Inserra, is a research study about differentiating instruction and the use of technology integration in the classroom. The purpose of their study was to determine whether four variables (collaborative learning, project-based learning implementation, knowledge regarding the use of technology, and years of experience) are predictors of whether teachers will implement differentiated instruction in a one-to-one computing environment. In order to delve into the study, these terms are first defined as:

• “Differentiated instruction: Differentiated instruction occurs when teachers assign individual students a choice of multiple computer-based resources to communicate their learning in a one-to-one computing environment.

• Collaborative learning: Collaborative learning means using technology that promotes learning, including communicating information among groups of students and teachers in the one-to-one computing environment.

• Project-based learning: Project-based learning occurs in the one-to-one computing environment when students use computer programs, media creation tools, and other computer-based tools that support students in the representation of their ideas.

• Teacher knowledge of technology: Knowledge regarding the use of technology is the capacity to apply technological skills in a one-to-one computing environment.

• Years of experience: Years in a one-to-one computing environment were organized by groups.” (Murthy, Shannon, Short, Morote, & Inserra, 2013, p. 3)

Each definition, as used in this research study, emphasizes the one-to-one computing environment in which the study took place.

The study was conducted by creating a survey instrument that was sent from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). It was distributed to 209 teachers, but 170 teachers were selected for the purposeful sample. The 170 teachers chosen were high school teachers who taught a variety of subjects. The results of the survey were strong correlations between collaborative learning and project-based learning implementation, collaborative learning and knowledge regarding the use of technology, and project-based learning implementation and knowledge regarding the use of technology. Conversely, there was a weak correlation between the years of experience with one-to-one technology and the rest of the variables. As demonstrated in the path analysis below, all four variables (collaborative learning, project-based learning, knowledge regarding the use of technology, and years in a one-to-one computing environment) show a positive impact on differentiated learning implementation, especially when multiple factors are combined into the implementation of differentiated learning.

Murthy, et al. imply that the research is limited to the one-on-one computing environment and does not have similar research in environments with higher ratios of people to technology. They also admit that there are limitations since the research was focused on the high school level. The researchers imply that more research needs to be done in this field to see if there are similarities and differences among different grade levels.

If I was going to conduct more research in the area of one-to-one technology with the integration of differentiated instruction, I would begin by implementing a similar study with elementary schools with one-to-one technology, as well as schools with higher ratios of students to technology. I would also extend my research to delve into the different subjects and how technology and differentiation impact student achievement, especially when it comes to standardized testing and meaningful engagement and self-motivation. Critique The research topic in this research study is clearly stated and delimited in that the authors clearly define the terms that are being explored. Although it is not stated as a question, the purpose is to determine whether or not there is a relationship between differentiated instruction in a one-to-one computing environment and four variables: collaborative learning, project-based learning implementation, knowledge regarding the use of technology, and years of experience. The study reviews much literature before delving into the study and its findings. There are many references to literature about technology, especially one-to-one technology. The authors also cite much research about differentiation and customizing learning to be individualized for students. There is also research cited about flipped classrooms, but not much research about project-based learning or collaborative learning. The study would benefit from more facts and findings about how project-based learning and collaborative learning impact the classroom environment and student learning, especially with the integration of technology in a differentiated classroom. The information is well-organized and presented in a way that is easy to comprehend. The facts and findings presented are also critical to supply the reader with background knowledge and an understanding of the terminology used in the research study. Although the researchers do explain the terms referenced throughout the study and try to provide the reader with background knowledge about the topic, the research is still geared toward a targeted audience of teachers and instructors. The study is well-constructed and well-written. The material presented by Murthy, et al., applies to my own research topic for this course as I have selected to research differentiation with the integration-of technology. This study emphasized the factors that allow for successful implementation of technology-infused differentiation, such as collaborative learning and project-based learning, but did not fully cover everything I wanted to research. For example, I still want to learn more about how technology-integrated differentiated instruction impacts student motivation, engagement, and standardized test scores. By the end of the study, it is clear to the reader that there is a correlation between predicting differentiated instruction and the four variables (mainly collaborative learning and project-based instruction.

To a degree, this study utilizes implicit theory, as differentiation and technological-integration can be interpreted in various ways. However, as Murthy, et al., clearly define the terms differentiated instruction, one-to-one computing environment, collaborative learning, project-based learning, teacher knowledge of technology, and years of experience in a one-to-one computing environment, the study becomes a little more explicit as exactly what is being tested has been defined. The authors clarify that the study contains many theories in that information is presented as theories or strategies from the very beginning—such as citing John Dewey and imaginative learning and flipped learning. The authors also suggest how educational pedagogy, as well as technology, is continuously changing. Conclusion One-to-One Computing, One-to-One Learning: Predictors for Implementation of Differentiated Instruction was a valuable research study for me to read. This research study supported the things I witness in my classroom with the use of technology-infused differentiation, collaborative learning, and project-based learning. The findings are limited in that they don’t supply strategies or suggestions on how to incorporate more technology, differentiation, collaborative learning, or project-based learning into the classroom setting. The findings in this study can be applied to my third grade classroom, although things may look different in my third grade classroom in opposition to one of the high school classrooms in the study. The study did not provide me with any shocking information or much new information. Instead, it emphasized things I already experience in my classroom, even though my classroom is not a one-to-one computing environment. Questions that still need to be examined include (1) how do the four variables relate to a classroom without one-to-one technology, but multiple people using one piece of technology, (2) do flipped classrooms relate to this study?, (3) does technology-infused differentiation promote higher achievement in students?, (4) does technology-infused differentiation promote deeper student engagement and self-regulation?, (5) are the findings the same cross-curricular?, (6) how does this apply to different ages, genders, ethnicities, social-economic statuses?, (7) what exactly is project-based learning and how can I implement it into a technology-infused differentiated classroom?, and (8) what exactly is collaborative learning and how can I implement it into a technology-infused differentiated classroom?