A Critique of Ethnographic Research Practices

PAGE 1

A Critique of Ethnographic Research Practices

Jerry Bleecker

February 5th, 2006

Dr. Mircea Alex. MunteanuETEC 500

Introduction

With the introduction of computers to schools, educators have sought to use technology to improve student learning and success in literacy and numeracy. Promising research suggests that using word processors may help improve students writing skills, organization and express of ideas, and improve overall grammatic presentation. What follows is a critique of The Effects of Incorporating a Word Processor Into a Year Three Writing Program (Beck & Fetherston, 2003.)

The focus of the study was the impact of introducing word processor technology into a primary-level writing program. Working with grade three students and their instructors, the authors gathered information about students writing abilities before, during, and after the study. Student interviews provided insight into learners attitudes and motivation to write preceding and following the study. The studys overall success stems from the anecdotal interviews of students, their teachers, and evaluation of writing skills using Tomsons (1994) Standardised Marking Criteria. To support the success of the program, numerous citations from parallel studies appear throughout this article. The culminating effect of the article is a questionably optimistic assertion that use of word processors, and images improves students attitudes toward writing, while enhancing organisation, the presentation of ideas, and orderly use of grammar.

Approach / Methodology of the Study

Beck & Fetherston (2003) use a three-pronged approach in an ethnographic study of student writing with year-three students. First, student interviews provide insight into students attitudes toward the writing process, including self-evaluation of writing skills. Second, using Tomsons (1994) Standardised Marking Rubric, the teacher interviews provided data establishing a baseline of each students ability to express ideas, organizational flow, style, and grammatic fitness. In total, seven students, five girls and two boys, formed the basis of the study. Researchers had access to students, forty-five minutes daily over six weeks.

Analysis of Results & Concerns

Beck & Fetherston (2003) appear to have introduced several biases in the fundamental design of their experiment. Foremost, the sample size and duration of the study call into question the validity of any results. Although ethnographic studies do not require large sample sizes, it would seem more prudent to include more than seven students in this study because the principle goal was to determine whether or not the use of word processors improve writing. The onus to prove this hypothesis demands some measure of quantitative analysis. Given this, a larger the sample size would improve the reliability of the results, even for an ethnographic study. Further, the multitude of references cited in this study, endorsing the authors contention that word processors improve writing, cannot compensate for a time-limited, size-prohibitive study such as this. Another area of concern is the interpretation of the summary of student results. It is clear that many students dislike writing by hand and enjoyed the use of the word processor during the study. However, the analysis of sentence structure, style, organization, mechanics of grammar, and flow of ideas seems unsubstantiated without the inclusion of writing samples in the results. It is insufficient to claim an improvement without an objective look at students writing. In addition to these concerns, the sample should have included an equal number of girls and boys, or studied one gender exclusively, then the other. Valuable data could be gained from such research. Given that the authors chose seven students also calls into question the randomness of the sample. Most studies use even numbers, or multiples of five because statistics may be used, and it is easier to analyze these values (fewer messy repeating decimals, less rounding, etc.) In lieu of this, the study seems to use convenience sampling, which leads to potential bias (Gay et. al, 2006, pp 112). Additionally, because no profile is provided for each student, detailing ethnicity, socio-economic background, etc., it is difficult to provide potential contexts to explain the results of the study. For example, would students with little previous experience on computers have fared well? If a student cannot use the computer, or is quite unfamiliar with the technology, their success in the writing program could be hampered from the outset.

Summary

By and large, this study provides sufficient insight into the effectiveness of word processor use to improve writing and student motivation. Although the research methodology could be improved and clarified through additional experimentation, there is ample evidence to support the authors assertion that word processors are valuable tools in writers education. This study should be repeated in a more quantitative fashion, preferably with a larger sample size, randomly determined, profiling samples of student writing throughout the study. A profile for each student is also needed to provide insight which might explain differential results among students. For example, students from more affluence socio-economic backgrounds might have a computer at home and have potential word processing experience preceding inclusion in this study.

ReferencesBeck, Natalie, & Fetherston, Tony. (2003). The Effects of Incorporating a Word

Processor Into a Year-Three Writing Program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, pp. 139-161.