Fried (2008) paper and Grainne Conole et al (2008)

Read first Fried (2008) paper and Grainne Conole et al (2008) . After that , Answer the 5 questions perfectly please, I will list some of my friend’s answers and you can divide the number of words as you see fit for each question. Thank you

Q1- Carried Fried (2008) – Limitations of study
After reading the paper you may find there are flaws in the study which affect the findings – there may be a number of these, but what do you think is the most significant? (i.e. which of these affects the outcomes of the study the most?)
a- Alberto answer: I think the most critical area in this study that affected the results is the survey procedure and measure. The study was generated to analyze the correlation of laptop use inside the classroom with learning. However, with this system, they have opted to exclude other forms of learning (discussions, etc) and only limited itself to lectures. This affects learning experience is not confined to lectures alone, there are numerous ways on how learning is acquired and these are different opportunities wherein the laptop can be used. Measuring the laptop use in these various areas can give educators as well as institutions on ways on improving student learning (if it does help).
b- Honggang answer: The most significant flaw is the students. As far as I concerned, students study General Psychology, especially lectured oriented class certainly don’t need laptop to help them. It might help some students, but to most students, it can only serve as a distraction. I read some books about psychology. Study psychology requires many thinking and it triggers contemplation and lecture has the tendency to lose audience’s attention. Laptop just couldn’t have a positive impact in this environment. This certainly affects the outcomes of the study the most.
c- Ayman answer: I think the most significant flaw in this study that affects its findings is the research question itself. I agree with other students that examining student laptop use and how laptops infleunce student learning outcomes is an interesting topic to study. However, I have a problem with the second part of the statemet; “in a traditional lecture course”. It is obvious and does not need any study at all that laptops will be a distration in such a teacher-centered context. To me, this looks like examining the effects of chocolate on a diabetic person. The results are expected and do not carry any scientific significance. It was not surprising at all to read, for example, that 81% of the students in the study reported that they checked email during the lectures. I think that there is a trace of conflict of interests here as Fried who conducted the study is a university professor herself and i could sesnse her sympathy with the no laptop camp since the early beginning of her paper; in the abstract: ” While some research demonstrates that laptops can be an important learning tool, anecdotal evidence suggests more and more faculty are banning laptops from their classrooms because of perceptions that they distract students and detract from learning”. So , this is her perception and she is conducting this study from an epistemological point of view.
d- Alessandra answer: I personally believe that, more or less identifiable, there are always flaws in any study/research which affect it. Freud’s study is an easy target for many reasons which my colleagues have properly mentioned.
I just noticed that this paper has been written in 2008: at the time, the technological and pedagogical knowledge about computer use in classroom was very limited comparing to today. This makes also look Freud’s study really updated.
Moreover, I believe that besides the year, it is limited because it gives no space to students’ perception about their own learning precess while it focuses too much on lectures and not, as also Alberto noticed, on other aspects of a course (students’ interaction and learning outside the classroom for example).
The scientific validity of this study is also very questionable: the sample group and its context don’t challenge enough the outcomes of the research, which are definitely too obvious and predictable.
e- Craig answer: I believe the study is limited as the conclusion, in my opinion, cannot be justified. It would be difficult to replicate the study and with the suggestions that are made at the end you would essentially be completing a new study anyway.
Q2- Carried Fried (200) – Views on findings
The Fried (2008) paper provides a series of findings or conclusions at the end of the study. What are your views on these? D you agree with any of the findings Carrie Fried points out, or not?
a-Alberto answer: I initially thought that the paper written was interesting although the arguments were nothing new. At the back of my head, I was thinking that the results as well as the discussion may arrive at a particular conclusion without even conducting a whole experiment to it. However, there are some things that need to be considered with the paper that has been done. I think that there is too much emphasis on laptop use and its correlation to learning. Yes, I understand that this is the subject of the paper, but what I mean is that laptops are aids and supplements to learning and not the sole reason for acquiring knowledge. By this, each student has a different learning style that will maximize his/her knowledge and the learning tool to be used is the laptop so the student has then the capacity as to how he/she will use this mechanism for his/her learning. At the end of the day, the learner has that capacity to shut down the computer when he/she feels distracted to use social networking sites, etc.On the other hand, the results of the study are something that I can agree with. First, classes or institutions that requires or allows the use of laptops must be ready to maximize this tool. One way is to create software incorporated in classes that actually use them. For example, in a fashion design class, download/use particular software that aids in this aspect (similar to what they have in architecture). Through this, we help the student’s learning. Second, manage the lecture properly. Sometimes, the students are really forced to do other things with their laptops because the lecturer is not as engaging as he/she should be. Provide a clear outline as to what will happen during the day so the students can expect what has to be done. Lastly, create a balance. One of my professors before allowed us to use laptops for class but he also encouraged us to find different means to learn. He challenged us to combine both written note taking and laptop note taking in order for us not to forget that art and even understand the difference between the two.
b- Honggang answer: I partially agree with the findings. The result of the research is unarguable that the use of laptops can have serious negative consequences. The more students used their laptops in class, the lower their class performance.However, the fact that the research was limited to a lecture oriented class where laptops were not utilized in any organized fashion and all the participants study General Psychology draws my attention. There are issues about these two factors:(1) Is it fair to test laptop use in a environment where laptop is utterly unnecessary? (I don’t think so)(2) Do students study General Psychology, especially lectured oriented class need laptop? (I think they don’t)Apart from that, to me, there seems to be an implication in the survey conducted by the author to misguide the students to foucus on the negative side of laptop using in classroom. (those laptop use questions, questions about distracting or that prevented students from paying attention to lectures)The author claimed that the aim is to analyse whether in-class laptops aid or hinder learning. It is an obvious failure of this research to deliver the positive side of laptop use in class due to the structural defect of this research. The findings are fine, but I am not convinced by its approach.
c- Hasan answer: When I started to read the paper, I initially focus on the title of it, because the issue of computer use in classes is a very attractive topic for researches. I have searched on google related to the topic and I found plenty of conducted research which have almost the same topic but different results and conclusions. What I would like to say is the researchers might be interested in computer usage in well-structured classes in terms of formal education instead of looking only at the effects of the computer usage. Participants in the research are students of General Psychology and it can be said that even if the class has an effective curriculum, it has not well-structured design for using computer because the student don’t know anything about what can they do and how they can use their computers for their lesson. Additionally, I reckon that the research’s date has a significant importance in ICT. The number of personal computers is more likely to have had upward trend over the past 7 years. In 2006,which is the date of the research, the learner’s computer literacy and competences are not like learners in 2013. Today’s learners can use computer and ICT effectively. If the same research had the chance to be conducted now, there would have been different results and findings. Due to all the reasons, I think, the conclusion and finding are not applicable. However, Laurillard (2012) points out that even though technology usage by learners is more likely to be beneficial, the educators should control it and they need to give importance to the formal education. That is, technology is an useful tool to enhance education but if it is controlled and designed well. From this point of view, I also reckon, the paper has a point that there is a negative correlation between computer usage in education and learners success because the classroom and the teaching have not well-structured design. Faculties and colleges should have a balance to use technology and pedagogy in order to reduce negative effects of computer usages on learning outcomes in classes.
________________________________________Laurilland, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science – Building Pedegogigal Patterns for Learning and Technology.

d- Sungki answer: I think Carried Fried did not have good understanding of the term “Nature of in-class laptop use” which he used in his paper. In introduction of his paper, he mentioned the terminologies such as “Ubiquitous, computing environment, interaction, motivation, participation, engagement and active learning”. I think these words describe the “Nature of in-class laptop use”. The reason why we should use this kind of ICT in education is not just to take note during the class. It is not about a device itself, it about what we can do with this technology. But Carried Fried only focus on in-class laptop use itself and its negative influences to learning.He even pointed out lacking of objective measures of former researches that advocate in-class laptop use. But I do not find his research is more objective that others. He selected a class that not only students but lecturer do not know how to utilize laptop and ICT for their class. They don’t even think it’s necessary. When he assessed the impact of laptop use on student learning, he should not have used distracted time.(ex. sending email or instant messages or web surfing)And his conclusion is not appropriate. The reason why the use of laptop can have serious negative consequences is not that students use laptop in class. It is just because they did not know yet how to use it and the environment was not ready yet. I think this research has some flaws and limitations.
e- Steven answer: Hi AllAs my views on the findings of Fried’s study seem to largely echo those already posted, I thought it may be useful to pick up key themes in our discussion and summarise them in a table. This is called a thematic analysis (broad overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_analysis):
[Let me know if I’ve mis-quoted/-paraphrased anybody ?]
Narrow/missing research gap Questionable role of laptops in the given context Omission of important aspects Interference of study on findings / validity of findings
Alberto The arguments didn’t seem to be introducing anything new Generally used as supplementary but paper s/times presents them as core to achieving the learning outcomes Does the paper account for inherent learner differences?
Honggang Laptops are unnecessary in this context, so may not be fair to analyse laptop usage here The paper doesn’t sufficiently discuss the positive aspects of laptop use. “there seems to be an implication in the survey conducted by the author to misguide the students to focus on the negative side of laptop using in classroom”
Hasan Students lack knowledge (learner training) regarding how to use computers in the learning environment The research was conducted in 2006 – much has changed over the last 7 years so the research may now be outdated.
Sungki “It is not about a device itself, it about what we can do with this technology. But Carried Fried only focus on in-class laptop use itself and its negative influences to learning.”

The lecturer and the students don’t know how to use laptops/ICT for their classes.

From the above table, it seems that the perceptions of laptop usage and the way in which they were integrated into the course had a large impact on the study itself, leading to questionable reliability / generalizability of the findings. In other words, would these findings ring true if the study was carried out with tech-savvy students and teacher? Perhaps this is actually where this research is pointing us (rather than sufficiently answering the 3 research Qs posed at the end of the literature review).
f- Alessandra answer: Dear colleagues,
thanks a lot for your interesting posts.On my side, what is lacking in Freud’s research is a qualitative analysis about students’ perception about their own learning. At my advice, this paper focuses too much on students’ evaluation about their course, their satisfation, and too little (almost nothing) about their learning processes.On the other hand, I totally agree with Xu in stressing that the research was focusing on lectures not designed for laptop use, while it could have been more interesting to have a comparison as well with lectures purposely designed for being integrated and supported by laptop use.
Also Hasan stresses, citing Laurillard, that technology usage can behelpful for teaching/learning only if there’s a good design, so this confirms the lack of adaptability of Freud’s results to lectures which are meant to be integrated with laptop and other multimedia tools.This leads me to totally embrace Sungki statement “The reason why the use of laptop can have serious negative consequences is not that students use laptop in class. It is just because they did not know yet how to use it and the environment was not ready yet.”Freud’s paper helps us, in this way, to be more conscious of the importance that reflection has, for a researcher, in relation to the context and target group of his research. Generalization is a risk that we all know now it’s important to avoid.
f- Craig answer: Dear all,I felt that Fried clealry identified an area of study that required ‘new knowledge’, there was a lot of disparity between the two arguments. I used Lockes, Silverman and Spirdusos list to critque her paper. My first issue is that the title is, in some ways, misleading. The study isn’t on the impact of laptop use in student learning, its the impact on university student learning – there is quite a difference here. Initially I thought that the study had structure but it became clear that there would be difficulties in repeating it, therefore making it difficult to confirm or refute her claims.There was lots of emphasis on self reporting from studies, which again implies that her data can’t be completely reliable. My view is that Fried clearly acknowledges the issues with her results and methods of study. She also offers many points for future studies. However she makes a clear decision that the ‘results clearly demonstrate that the use of laptops can have serious negative consequences’. With the amount of flaws in her research, how can such a claim be made?

Q3- About the findings of Grainne Conole et al (2008) paper
Do you agree or relate in some way to the findings of this study, or do you think it misses any key points in some way?
a- Alberto answer: I completely relate to the findings of the study given the 8 points that they mentioned as part of the discussion. The first point of being pervasive is correct that we truly manage various technologies that makes us derive to the answers that we are looking for. However, one area that this conclusion forgot to mention is how this emphasis on technology, giving the most convenient way of learning has made the use of traditional forms of researching uncommon. Because of the demands of finding ways at the quickest time possible, the conventional method of going to the library and researching through a book is not as popular as before. Although their are issues of efficiency, there are still benefits of this procedure that is not available from the previous one. Niche and adapt is another point that I can relate to because students find ways to incorporate their study with the technology that best suits them. Even though there is a standard system or software used for a particular study or course, the students belong to that still try to make it their own and learn in the best way possible. This is due to the fact a student learns differently from the others, regardless if technology is present. Last that I can relate to is integrated as it allows the students find to customize everythig and incorporate in the manner that they best suits them.

b- Honggang answer: I agreed with pervasive and personalised, particually with the statement: Students use technologies to support all aspects of their study; They appropriate technologies to suit their own needs. The value of technology is for human services. Not only learning, most young people rely on technology on a daily basis. It has become a habit for the generation who are under the influence of late 90th technology development.
And I feel mostly connected with Time and space boundaries. As I getting familiar with DTCE, I started to realize and understand the resonable existence of distant-learning of this course. As now I spent most of my learning time reading materials and course contents through My Manchester. I kind feel like I am a distant-learner in some way.
c-Hasan answer: I mostly agree with the findings because I also use technology in different ways to support my academic life. I think, the possible reason of positive findings regarded to technology usage among students in the paper is ubiquitous access of the internet provides opportunity to enhance our learning process. Interestingly, Google and Wikipedia are widely used web tools by the students to support learning activities in the research’s findings. Because of that I think, there is something missing in the research. Although almost all findings in the paper seems that there is a positive correlation between technology-enhanced learning environments and students’ success, I cannot see any findings in terms of how the technology affects the students’ learning outcomes. The research only focused on students attitudes toward technology. I reckon that if there were other findings which reveal the students success after using these tools, the research would have been much more reliable. Net generation might have a tendency to use the emerging technologies such as VLE, e-mail, MSN, Google and Wikipedia but it does not mean that there is a positive effect on learning outcomes.
d- Pinelopi answer: I think that this research mostly dealt with the 1st guestion concerning about ‘ how learners engage with and experience e-learning’.I agree with the findings and particularly with personalization and communication.About the 2nd guestion ‘ How e-learning relate to and contribute to the whole learning experience’ I beleive that the research hasn;t given the adequate answers…just made a reference about time and space freedom , but nothing about tangible evidences or measurements ( an increase in grades etc) that the knowledge has been mastered after using the apropriate technology.
e-You answer: I partially agree with the findings of eight factors in this study.As Conole mentioned in this study, I quite agree that the net generation largely rely on online resources when they meet assignments and they could use personalised technologies to suit their needs. As the development of technologies, students become more positive to ‘discover’ knowledge rather than ‘be instilled’. Moreover, students are more likely to use interactive media to get information and communicate with others. They would like to set up some discussions online by using Facebook which is appear not to be a learning website. Besides, technologies indeed break the limitation of ‘time’ and ‘space’ which make students find more flexible and comfortable with learning.However, I have some different opinion about this study as well. As Conole said in this article “they use technologies for particular purposes, not just for the sake of using them”, but I find several students choose to use some technologies due to their peers are using them. They just want to be funky or follow the mainstream. In addition, I cannot agree that Conole said “students appear to be able to integrate successfully for themselves a wide range of diverse technologies”. To some degree, a wide range of diverse technologies could be distraction to learners, that is to say, this is not an effective way to absorb knowledge. I remember that I have read a paper about learning efficiency of using multimedia, which said that not more learning technologies, the better. For example, the combination of audio and image could improve our learning efficiency, whereas, if there are more technologies added to learning environment, learners will be interfered.
g- Ana answer: I agree with the findings of this paper although I had never thought about some of them until I read it. For example, how students are applying the skills gained through using technologies in other aspects of their learning contexts and, also, the individual personalization of use (to fit their own needs) that they make. The third “new” idea is that they feel comfortable with multitasking and are used to work in a constantly changing environment.
h- Jonathan answer: For anyone who’s interested, I decided to take a look at the information on the “JISC Learner experiences of e-learning” project mentioned and linked to in the acknowledgements section of Conole’s paper. Some of it is worth a look for a bit more insight into the study. You can view the questionnaire (link here) and summaries of the audio logs (link here) and of the interviews (link here), amongst other things. It’s all on this page, under LearnerXP Project.
Back on topic…The researchers break the findings down under 4 broad characteristics so I’ll use those to explain how I relate to the findings… Information Seeking & Handling:I could definitely relate to the findings in this section; particularly regarding strategies for “double checking” the credibility of online sources. My own strategy for using a resource like Wikipedia is to head straight for the footnotes (assuming there are some… if not then alarm bells) and see if those link to reputable sources. I always treat Wiki with scepticism however; I’ve seen one or two clever in-jokes on obscure articles over the years that makes me think I wouldn’t pick up on incorrect information on a topic I’m ignorant of. It’s good for basic introduction to a topic and finding some further reading though.
Communication
I can relate to a lot of what was said here too; for example, Conole found a deal of ambivalence about the use of discussion forums… well, I’m much the same in my personal use of them (I don’t use them at all… I usually find that someone else has expressed an opinion similar enough to the position I would’ve taken) but I have in the past found myself having to use them as part of assessed activities (and will have to do so again in the coming weeks for various modules here on the MA DTCE!). So they’re not a tool that I would choose to include in my own personal technological ecology. On the other hand, their use for assessed discussion might force me to engage in thinking about alternate views I hadn’t otherwise considered, and I have found myself interested in the views put forward by colleagues in the past using this medium.
Assignment Preparation
I thought the most interesting thing in this part of the findings was the mention of how students often cited their lack of formal training in the technologies they use in assignment preparation. It also came up regarding students’ use of tech in information seeking & handling; how these skills are expected of students but not necessarily formally taught to them. I can relate to it in the sense of not having had formal training myself in the packages I use to support my learning; but on the other hand there is some suggestion in the paper that student ability to utilise these technologies is expected. I can recall two prior courses of study I’ve undertaken where formal training in basic software (e.g. Office) was “expected” but not formally part of the programmes themselves; however training was available from the Library or a learner support section. Maybe there’s an institutional dimension to this element of technological use that Conole might’ve missed; i.e. that institutes provide optional formal training that students choose to forego?
Integrated Learning
A lot of the learner experiences of VLEs cited in the paper are ambivalent or negative. I have to say that most of my experiences of VLE use have been rather more positive. Perhaps we have simply moved on enough since 2007 (when the paper was published) that educators are now more comfortable or knowledgeable designing for learning through VLE use?
Q4- Comparison – Fried vs Conole
Do you think one of these studies is ‘better’ in some way that the other? If so, which, and why?
a- Alberto answer: The main difference between the two papers is that there is an attempt to understand the learner and the environment that he/she belongs to. Unlike the first one that was solely trying to focus on the laptop as the main source of learning, the second paper gives a better overview of the different needs this has for the modern day student. First, there is a clear dissection of the different uses it has for the learner and how these channels equip students on how they best learn. It does not downplay any tool but instead understands how these can better learning. For example, Integrated Learning as a concept is something that is not discussed in the previous paper but as findings show that is so much potential in this type of use as it is not yet fully maximized by students as well as institutions. Furthermore, the conclusions done cover how it can be best used by people who work in the different schools. One thing I valued was how the writters made the readers understand that based on their research, each study has different requirements for the use of this form. This helps learning institutions to carefully conduct learning outlines that can maximize the learning
b- Honggang answer: Conole’s study is more contributive than Fried’s.(1) Conole’s research involves a wide range of students, whereas Fried’s only limited to students study sepcific major in a specific course. A wider range of students would lead to a more comprehensive and convincing results compared to a very confined group.(2) Conole aimed to analyse and understand the use of technology in leraning process, which Fried neglected and only focused on the data collected form the survey. Conole’s conclusion as well as the analysis provided many useful information, while Fried’s finding is limited to the use of laptop and isn’t very helpful due to the rapid development of technology which brings tablet and smart phone that can serve same functions as laptop.
c- Jonathan answer: I found the Conole paper “better” insofar as it takes a number of steps to prove itself more robust and useful than the Fried paper.One of the limitations of the Fried study is that ultimately you could argue that its findings were only applicable to a very particular group. At the end of the Fried paper we can really only conclude that we know that students of a general psychology class at Winona University use their laptops for activities such as emailing, surfing the web and instant messaging during class. We also know that there is a correlation between laptop use and the level of distraction reported by students of a general psychology programme at Winona University, but not a causal relationship. In the research methodology section of the Conole paper, the author(s) outline several elements of the methodology that enhance its robustness and ultimately, our ability to generalise its findings to larger groups of people in the real world. Firstly, the participants providing the data for the research come from several different “learning centres” rather than the single general psychology class that provided Fried with her data. Thus we have a wider variety of learners and contexts for the use of technology to investigate and draw findings from. Additionally, the use of these varied sources of data is replicated across the three methods of data collection employed by the study: an online survey, audio logs from particpants and semi-structured interviews. Utilising three different methods of data collection provides the study with a lot of rich data to further enhance findings. The paper itself demonstrates this when it says “The qualitative data was organized and coded according to emerging patterns and the results ranked, proportioned or directly quoted to support the quantitative findings.” (p. 514), i.e. one form of data collection was used to support the findings of another. Using the data in this manner allows us to be more confident in the findings of the paper.The Conole paper seems more open and investigative, it wants to discover what technologies learners are using, how they are using them, and in what contexts. This is demonstrated by not just by the more varied sources of data and data collection methods employed, but also perhaps by the length of the discussion section of the paper in comparison to Fried’s. The Fried paper seems somewhat less open to discovery and more intent on proving that technology in the classroom is a distraction in all contexts.
d- Hasan answer: I can initially say that Conole’s paper is a comprehensive research and has effective explanation through the literature and the findings. Although Fried’s paper has a well-structured research, the participants and data collecting methods are not enough to draw a reliable conclusion, whereas Conole’s paper collects data via a wide range of students groups by three different methods namely, online survey, interview and audio logs. Additionally, Conole’s research has satisfactory interpretation of the findings, compared to Fried’s research because Fried’s paper has a conclusion part in which research limitations are mostly discussed rather than interpretation of the findings. However, Conole focused more on the findings to provide an informative conclusion. On the other hand, both of researches only focus on one side of the students’ learning process. For example, Fried did not collect any data in terms of how students use technology. Similarly, Conole’s paper has not any findings associated with how technology affects students’ success in education.
e- You answer: I found Conole paper is better than Fried paper.Initially, one of limitations in Fried paper is that all respondents came from one specific discipline, which might just reflect the utilization of laptops in one psychological lecture. We could not apply the finding about the usage of technology in Fried paper into other disciplines. Furthermore, as to the investigated method, Fried chose to use self-report which might se

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
ULTIMATE