Standards for research

I recenlty searched for the topic of how student blogs affect metacognition with a combination of keywords including “metacognition,” “blogs,” “blogging,” “secondary school,” and “high school,” and got all kinds of resources and materials. A Google search of the full question yielded about 377,000 results in just over a second, while Google Scholar found an additional 51 results- mostly scholarly research papers. The simple Google results were a bit more diverse, including pages from edutopia and other such blogs, as well as a few scholarly journals. Similar searches through Twitter and Pinterest gave mostly blogs and lesson plans, though very few were specifically about metacognition in blogging. The best research came from library databases. LearnTechLib immediately found 49 extremely relevant articles, and Concordia’s library search found over 1,200 appropriate books and articles, although the text for many of them is not available online. Although such articles have already proven helpful in my own practice, many of my colleagues rely heavily on their own PLCs within the building, as well as online resources. Several teachers use Twitter as a large PLN.

There are two distinct types of resources I notice in the gathering of my materials. The first is the traditional scholarly research, which uses specific variable (i. e. blogging) and measures the outcome (i. e. metacognition). The other approach, usually in the form of blogposts or lesson planning ideas and materials, generally argues: this is what works for me; try it out for yourself. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this approach, but if educational technology is ever going to have the canon of research Roblyer (2005) argues that it needs, much of the latter resources need to be restructured as specific research founded on the five pillars. While it’s near impossible for every blogging teacher to carry out such rigorous studies, they can still “level up” the scholarly practices, so that future researchers can build on their ideas. After all, ISTE’s fifth Teacher standard and nearly all Standards for Coaches demand professional growth and the refining of pedagogy (International Society for Technology in Education, n.d.; International Society for Technology in Education, n, d.). With TPACK’s focus on using technology to enhance pedagogical content (Koehler, Nishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenburg, n.d.), teachers need to be constantly evaluating and reevaluating how specific technologies can influence their classrooms, and those who are in positions to conduct specific research must do it.

While some teachers regularly investigate educational technology through scholarly journals, most of us get a majority of our ideas from the blogosphere, which has a wealth of resources that are much more readily available. If we bloggers can raise our standards to those of scholarly research, the positive outcomes will be noticeable much more quickly,

References:

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). ISTE standards for coaches. Retrieved

from http://www.iste.org/standards/ISTE-standards/standards-for-coaches

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved

from http://www.iste.org/standards/ISTE-standards/standards-for-teachers

Koehler, M. J., Nishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., & Rosenburg, J. M. (n.d.). The technological pedagogical

content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators. Retrieved from

http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/ICT%20teacher%20education%20Module%20

1%20Final_May%2020.pdf

Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Educational Technology Research That Makes a Difference : Series

Introduction. Educational Researcher, 5(2), 192–201. Retrieved from

http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/seminal/article1.cfm