Research proposal

So I’ve hit a bit of a hitch lately. About a month ago I was diagnosed with pneumonia, meaning I’ve been spending a lot of time at home doing not much at all. As a result, all progress on this journal (along with everything else) came to a halt, so I haven’t had much time to do anywhere near as much work as I had planned.

At any rate, there’s not much I can do about it now, so here is my final entry. I have been preparing a research proposal of sorts for the second EDPC5025 assignment, discussing a research plan and methodological issues. I did some brief work on research methods in my undergraduate degree, but probably not as much as I would have liked to by now. As a result, I’ve been doing some reading in preparation for the assignment.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

(Chapter 24 — Preparing Research Proposals and Reports)

Having never really written a research proposal before, this chapter was an invaluable aid. It went through all the major sections of a research proposal (and a report, but that’s a fair way off), explaining each in details. It helped me to realise what parts of my proposal I hadn’t even considered yet, and by using their outline I prepared myself not only for the proposal, but for everything you need to have planned in order to write a proposal.

I had a few issues with the chapter however. Although there were two clear sections — research proposals and research reports — a number of the examples in the proposal section were actually from reports. This made it hard to know how one would word sections in a proposal and what should be mentioned, as all of the report examples were discussing things that had already happened.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

(Chapter 9 — Self-completion questionnaires, Chapter 18 — Interviewing in qualitative research, Chapter 22 — Qualitiative

data analysis, & Chapter 26 — E-research: using the internet as object and method of data collection)

I read a number of chapters from this research methods text in order to familiarise myself with some of the methodology for my assignment, and it proved very useful. I particularly found the chapter on e-research interesting, as previously I hadn’t considered that there were potential differences between conducting research on paper and online, for example with regards to delivering questionnaires. While there are obvious differences with cost and accessibility, it hadn’t crossed my mind that there were concerns that results could change based on the mode of delivery.  

Literature Review Done

My literature review is done. I changed focus at the last minute a bit, moving more towards some of my original ideas. The review focuses on the literature surrounding barriers to technology integration in schools, from the point of view of the classroom teacher.

If anyone is interested, you can download the literature review here. I'm not completely happy with it, but I think it's okay. I definitely didn't review enough of the literature due to changing topics at the last minute.

Here are two of the readings that are discussed in the review, which I came across very last minute.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary Technology-using Teachers: Perceptions of Factors Influencing Success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61.


This paper discusses the factors that enable a teacher to overcome extrinsic and intrinsic barriers to technology integration. The authors suggested that with the right intrinsic enablers — such as technological knowledge and a positive attitude towards technology — teachers can overcome extrinsic barriers such as lack of resources and find a way to meaningfully use technology in their lessons.

In their study, they found that intrinsic barriers such as skills, views and beliefs about technology were more influential in determining the use of technology than extrinsic barriers such as lack of resources or support from above.

There were a number of methodological issues with this research however. A small sample size, along with potential bias — all of the teachers surveyed were winners of technology in education awards — limit the results.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.


This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current research on barriers to technology integration. It outlines six main barriers, organised into extrinsic — resources, institution, assessment, and subject culture — and intrinsic barriers — knowledge and skills, and attitudes and beliefs.

The paper discusses each of these, also listing strategies for overcoming each. The main point I took from the paper as a whole however was the relationships between these barriers, which has not received much attention. For example, it is difficult for a teacher to modify their attitudes and beliefs to be supportive of technology (an intrinsic barrier) when external assessments (an extrinsic barrier) such as the HSC do not often encourage the use of technology. As a result, it is hard to consider strategies to improve technology integration if they do not consider multiple barriers, rather than looking at them in isolation.

How to write a literature review

This post takes a side-step, and looks at some ideas on what a literature review actually is, and how to write one.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

This paper discusses a 'crisis' of sorts in educational research, namely that there is not enough focus on the literature review as an important component of research. The authors believe that textbooks and university programs often focus most on the methodology component of learning how to conduct research, and do not give adequate time or attention to developing the skills of scholarship in research students.

The authors discuss the concept of a literature review, which they suggest is vague for many students as a result of this lack of attention. I have to admit that until recently I felt the same, and I am still coming to grips with the real purpose for a literature review, as something more than just a summary of the relevant literature. Instead, the literature review should be a key component of any research writing — it explains what research needs to be done and why, discusses and synthesises the existing research in an area, and critically analyses the methodologies used, and inferences drawn.

Boote & Beile developed a 12-point rubric for assessing the quality of a literature review, which should be a useful resource for evaluating my own.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

(Chapter 4: Getting Started — Writing the Literature Review)

This chapter discusses practical advice on how to find and select relevant pieces of literature, and how to write the literature review.

Instead of providing a superficial discussion like the examples cited by Boote & Beile (2005), the chapter begins with a comprehensive treatment of the purpose of a literature review as being more than a summary of past research.

This chapter also provides guidelines on getting the most out of reading articles, referencing and other aspects of writing, and has been useful in the production of my literature review.

More reading and questions

My latest reading has focused mainly on attempts to measure and further define the TPACK framework and its applications. From here, I need to do a lot more reading on technology in mathematics and related topics — it is all well and good to have a framework to work within, but I need something to actually apply it to!


Albion, P., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2010). Auditing the TPACK confidence of Australian pre-service teachers: the TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS). In: 21st International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 2010).

This paper describes an attempt to create an instrument that will measure teachers' TPACK, using a number of pre-existing instruments measuring ICT confidence in teachers. The paper suggests that the Teaching With ICT Audit Survey (TWictAS) is a valid and reliable instrument to measure teachers' TPACK.

TPACK is a relatively new framework, and is not necessarily straightfoward to measure. As a result, it is important to be aware of previous attempts at measuring TPACK.

New Directions and readings on TPACK

Upon further reflection and consideration of some feedback, I'm rephrasing my ideas and heading in somewhat of a new direction.


I will be looking at the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework (also more recently referred to as TPACK), and still considering questions surrounding the same basic ideas as I recently discussed: What type of discipline-specific knowledge is needed for technology integration in education? How can we measure this knowledge? What sort of TPACK do mathematics teachers have in NSW schools? How can we increase the TPACK of mathematics teachers?


I have been looking for articles on both TPACK generally, and in mathematics. Here are two that I read recently.


Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.


This paper, from the authors of TPCK, outlines the framework and discusses its applications in practice and research. TPCK extends earlier work on PCK by Shulman (1986). TPCK suggests that there are three base types of  knowledge when considering the integration of technology in education:

• Content Knowledge: The subject matter to be taught
• Pedagogical Knowledge: How to teach
• Technological Knowledge: How to use technology

This model is then extended through combinations of these three bases:

• Pedagogical Content Knowledge: How to teach a particular subject in an effective way
• Technological Content Knowledge: How technology is used in a particular subject
• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge: How to use technology to teach

Finally, all three types are combined to give Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, the type of knowledge that teachers need in order to know how to integrate technology in an educationally meaningful way for a particular subject.


I am finding TPCK an interesting and useful framework for thinking about learning technology. 


Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Technology and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.


This paper uses the TPCK framework, and provides five case studies of student teachers in a science and mathematics teaching preparation program, outlining their challenges and successes in meaningful technological integration. The paper is a useful example of the application of TPCK in educational research, and found that students teachers own views and beliefs about technology impacted on their development of TPCK.

Research ideas so far

Things have taken a little bit of a turn again, with a slight alteration in my research area.


This post explains my ideas so far — it is quite long, but that is because it is part of my assigned tasks for this week.

Topic, focus and rationale

The concept of ‘new literacies’ has been a growing focus of discussion and research in recent years. Of these new literacies, ‘digital literacy’ and ‘information literacy’ have received attention when discussing new approaches that educators should take when integrating learning technology into their teaching. These literacies are not necessarily the same, but I consider them to be closely related, as much of the concept behind information literacy has been made possible through the use of technology. Much of the research into these literacies has taken a holistic approach, discussing the skills and attributes of ‘digitally literate’ learners, and suggesting that these are important for success in all disciplines in our current technological, highly connected world.

In my literature review and further research, I would like to study these concepts of digital literacy and information literacy and suggest that they are not generic, but rather that they are discipline-specific. That is, if we are to be digitally literate it is for a purpose — the skills and attributes of someone that is digitally literate in Mathematics are not necessarily the same as those of someone that is digitally literate in English or History. Some might disagree that there are inherent differences in the types of knowledge between disciplines, and that this viewpoint subscribes to traditional views of knowledge that may not be correct or relevant any more. That said, it is a practical reality that our education systems still operate in very discipline-specific ways.

I hope that by considering the definitions of digital and information literacies within a Mathematics context, these suggest either an agreement or conflict with the already espoused concepts of these literacies. This could outline some areas for future research, or perhaps shed some light on why certain technologies are not adopted in disciplines such as Mathematics, when they are shown to be useful and effective in more general contexts.

Literature Review Conceptualisation

In my literature review, there are a number of areas I would like to look in to. First, the overall concept of these new literacies, and an identification of what are considered key skills and attributes of someone who is considered literate in these areas. Second, a treatment of these ideas within the specific context of mathematics, and identifying what kinds of technologies are and are not utilised by mathematics teachers, and some of the underlying beliefs of mathematics teachers in terms of what kinds of learning technology they consider useful and appropriate for their teaching.

I will be looking for papers that discuss these areas either generally or specifically in terms of mathematics. Where possible, I would like to use the most recent research available. I will also be looking for papers that have discussed these literacies in a discipline-specific context, to see if there are gaps in the knowledge and to find ideas for research questions and methodologies.

Literature Search Strategy

I have identified a number of relevant papers that I will be reading, through keyword searches on Google Scholar and the University of Sydney library catalogue. There are also a number of relevant journals that I will be using, mostly from the supplied list of suggested resources, including the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, the British Journal of Educational Technology, the Journal of Information Science and the Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment.

I have included some sample references below that I believe will be useful for my literature review.

Sample References

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of the concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259.

Abstract: The concepts of ‘information literacy’ and ‘digital literacy’ are described, and reviewed, by way of a literature survey and analysis. Related concepts, including computer literacy, library literacy, network literacy, Internet literacy and hyper-literacy are also discussed, and their relationships elucidated. After a general introduction, the paper begins with the basic concept of ‘literacy’, which is then expanded to include newer forms of literacy, more suitable for complex information environments. Some of these, for example library, media and computer literacies, are based largely on specific skills, but have some extension beyond them. They lead to general concepts, such as information literacy and digital literacy, which are based on knowledge, perceptions and attitudes, though reliant on the simpler skills-based literacies.

Rationale for use: I am hoping that this paper will provide an insight into and introduction of the concepts of information and digital literacy.

Grafstein, A. (2002). A Discpline-Based Approach to Information Literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197–204.

Abstract: This article, which proposes a discipline-based approach to teaching information literacy, argues that the responsibility for teaching information literacy should be shared throughout an academic institution, rather than limited to the library. An outline of the complementary responsibilities of librarians and classroom faculty in teaching information literacy is presented.

Rationale for use: This paper discusses some of the key ideas that I want to investigate — namely a discipline-based approach to the teaching of information literacy.

Manuel, K. (2004). Generic and Discipline-Specific Information Literacy Competencies: The Case of the Sciences. Science & Technology Libraries, 24(3), 279–308.

Abstract: The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education engage in a complex balancing of generality/universality and discipline-specificity in both their intended application and constituent competencies, the implications of which for library instruction have largely been unexplored. This article explores some of the tensions between discipline-specific and generic information literacy (IL) competencies as they relate to the sciences and suggests that disciplinary needs can largely be addressed through the application of generic standards. More problematic for IL in the sciences is the ahistorical and decontextualized nature of “general” discussions of IL and library instruction; misconceptions that the sciences are unreceptive to library instruction; and some of the rhetoric generally surrounding IL.

Rationale for use: Again, this paper suggests that there are discipline-specific aspects of information literacy, however it will be interesting because it suggests that these can be overcome with a more generic approach.

Deyrup, M. M. (2009). Information Literacy: Discipline-Specific or Core Competency?. Slavic & East European Information Resources, 10(2), 185–199.

Abstract: Building on the results of her 2005 survey of information literacy practices among  American Slavic librarians, the author suggests that information literacy, as a theoretical approach to teaching research skills, has not been widely embraced by Slavic librarians. To a large part this is because Slavic studies is a highly specialized field, while  information literacy programs tend to map to general education requirements. This article examines whether information literacy has any place in a subject discipline such as ours, and if so, how it should be taught. The author provides examples of discipline-specific information literacy initiatives both from inside and outside the field of Slavic studies.

Rationale for use: This paper is an example of a discipline-based approach to information literacy, and will hopefully provide some evidence or examples to support such an approach.

Hammond, N., & Bennett, C. (2002). Discipline differences in role and use of ICT to support group-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 55–63.

Abstract: Small-group teaching and learning is traditionally central to UK Higher Education. This paper explores how disciplines differ in their use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to support smallgroup activities. A framework for considering discipline differences and evidence from surveys and case studies conducted by the ASTER Project are presented. While many uses of ICT are common across the disciplines studied (drawn from the Humanities, Physical Sciences and Psychology), there are also some striking differences, in particular the infrequent use of ICT to facilitate discussion in the Physical Sciences compared to the pattern of use in the other disciplines studied. It is vital that such differences are considered when advising on the take-up of innovative teaching and learning methods.

Rationale for use: This paper discusses some differences in the application of a particular type of ICT between different disciplines, which would be useful information in considering whether there are differences between disciplines that would require different approaches in terms of digital or information literacy. 

Seeing mathematics

I've been thinking about some of the areas of learning technology that interest me, and having some discussions with various researchers in the field.

As a result, I have come up with a broad direction for my literature review and dissertation next semester.

As a mathematics teacher and technology enthusiast, one piece of technology that has always interested me is dynamic geometry (and more generally, methods of modelling and visualisation). From some of the research I have seen, these technologies can be beneficial and engaging for students — including those of a perceived lower ability — but I haven't seen or read about a lot of adoption in the classroom. Within this broad topic, there are a number of things I could investigate, including the technology itself and how beneficial it is for some kinds of knowledge that are hard to teach in any other way. Alternatively, I could take the approach of considering the adoption of the technology, and investigate if there are either practical barriers or underlying beliefs or cultures of teachers that would prevent the widespread adoption of such technologies.

I have updated my reading list with some appropriate resources.