Section 1: Component Parts of a typical Research Project or Report

A research project or report is a paper written by an investigator to describe a research study that he or she has completed. The purpose is to explain to others in the field what the objectives, methods, and findings of the study were. The organizational format for research project is basically the same, regardless of the field of study in which the author is working. The following diagram illustrates the major sections of a typical research project in the order in which they are usually presented.

Typical Sections of a Research Project or Report

To help you understand the basic format of the research report, we present here a report originally published in a professional journal. The report describes a study carried out in the field of agricultural education. The study evaluates the effectiveness of using microcomputers to teach economic principles to university students in a graduate course.

USING MICROCOMPUTERS IN TEACHING

Norman F. Rohrbach, District Supervisor

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education

Jefferson City Missouri

Bob R Stewart Professor

Agricultural Education

University of Missouri.Columbia

Abstract Although microcomputers are now common in classrooms throughout the United States, it is not clear what their most effective role is in the teaching-learning process. This study compared the effects of microcomputer-assisted instruction and traditional lecture-discussion on the performance of graduate students enrolled in an agricultural education course. Students in the control group performed significantly better on a written test than either of the two treatment groups. Students having previous experience with computers did not perform significantly better than those new to computer-assisted instruction. Further research needs to be conducted to determine the most appropriate place for computer-assisted instruction in agricultural education.

During the past 40 years, the United States has experienced the integration of the computer into society. Progress has been made to the point that small, inexpensive computers with expanded capabilities are available for innumerable uses. Many schools have purchased and are purchasing microcomputers for infusion into their directed learning programs.

Most individuals seem to agree that the microcomputer will continue to hold an important role in education. Gubser (1980) and Hinton (1980) suggested phenomenal increases in the numbers of computers both in the school and the home in the near future. There are always problems with a sudden onslaught of new technology. Like any new tool that has not been fully tried and tested, the role of the computer is in question. How should the computer be used in the classroom? Should the computer be the teacher or used as a tool in the classroom in the same way as an overhead projector? Can teachers do a better job of teaching certain types of materials with the microcomputer than with conventional teaching methods? Will the microcomputer have different effects on students with varying levels of experience? Schmidt (1982) identified three types of microcomputer use in classrooms: the object of a course, a support tool, and a means of providing instruction. Foster and Kleene(1982) cite four uses of microcomputers in vocational agriculture: drill and practice, tutorial, simulation and problem solving.

The findings of studies examining the use of various forms of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) have been mixed. Studies by Hickey (1968) and Honeycutt (1974) indicated superior results with CAI while studies by Ellis (1978), Caldwell (1980) and Belzer (1976) indicated little or no significant effect. Although much work has been done to date, more studies need to be conducted to ascertain the effects of microcomputer-assisted instruction in teaching various subjects in a variety of learning situations.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effect of using microcomputer-assisted instruction as compared to a lecture-discussion technique in teaching principles and methods of cost recovery and investment credit on agricultural assets to graduate students in agricultural education (Rohrbach, 1983). This topic was identified as being of importance to teachers in providing them the necessary background to teach lessons in farm records.

Method

The study was conducted as a three-group controlled pre-experiment following the static-group comparison design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). It involved the use of three experimental groups, including a control Group A, a treatment group consisting of beginnerlevel microcomputer users Group B, and a treatment group consisting of intermediate-level microcomputer users Group C (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Design of the Study

Population

The population for the study consisted of graduate students in agricultural education at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Participants in the study were enrollees in courses offered through agricultural education at the University of Missouri-Columbia during the summer of 1983. This provided 21 students for control Group A, 25 students for beginning microcomputer Group B and 16 students for intermediate microcomputer Group C. The assumption was made that the participants represented a sample of graduate students in agricultural education. Therefore, the findings and implications of the study should be generalized to the extent that future groups of students are similar to the participants.

The 21 students designated as the control group were taught using a lecturediscussion technique. Forty-one students were divided into two treatment groups to receive microcomputer-assisted instruction. The class consisted of two sections with placement determined by previous microcomputing experience. Students with the ability to run and edit software programs were assigned to the intermediate-level group, and the remaining students were assigned to the beginners group.

Demographic data were collected from all subjects in relation to age, teaching experience, and knowledge and use of principles and methods relating to cost recovery and investment credit. Prior experience with the information was calculated on a nine-point scale.

Before receiving instruction, each group was introduced to the study by giving them the same orientation to the procedures to be used. It was explained that the learning sessions would be followed with a written evaluation on the material presented. They were told that the evaluation score would not count toward their grade in the course, but that it was important that they do as well as possible.

The classes comprising the control group were organized into two-hour class sessions. The instructor used two-hour sessions on two consecutive days for teaching using a lecturediscussion technique. The written evaluation was given during the first hour of the third day.

The treatment groups were given general instructions about operating the microcomputer learning program and were told they could spend a maximum of four hours in the laboratory working with the microcomputer-assisted instruction. The instructor who taught the control group was in the microcomputer laboratory to respond to questions and monitor student progress. Students were given two days to complete the task, were asked to keep a record of the amount of time used, and were given the written evaluation during a one-hour time period of the third day.

Development of Materials and Instrument

The materials used in teaching principles and methods in cost recovery and investment credit with the lecture-discussion method have been in place for three years and were the basis for writing a computer teaching program. The microcomputer learning modules, written in BASIC Language for the Apple microcomputer, contained the principles, methods, examples, objectives, problems and so forth to be learned by students in the segment of the class devoted to cost recovery and investment credit. The modules were designed to present the concepts using the same problems and examples used in the lecture discussion procedure. All teaching materials and related microcomputer learning modules were checked for technical accuracy by a professor of agricultural economics responsible for preparing inservice materials related to tax law changes, a professor of agricultural education responsible for in-service education in farm management and a graduate research assistant in farm management.

The evaluation instrument used in the study was developed to measure the attainment of concepts in the learning package. The written evaluation was subjected to the Kuder-Richardson 20 test which yielded a reliability coefficient of .89. Validity of each question was established by a panel of experts with experience in teaching the concepts related to the material. There were 29 questions on the test which were worth one point each.

Null hypotheses were developed to test the research questions of the study. A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the first null hypothesis of no difference in performance among the groups (Ho1). Differences were isolated using the Scheffe post hoc procedure. A Pearson correlation coefficient was used to ascertain the relationship between time spent on microcomputer-assisted instruction and student performance (Ho2). Demographic data were examined to ascertain the homogeneity of the control group and experimental groups. An alpha level of .05 was used in testing the hypotheses. The data were analyzed with the Statistical Analysis System library computer package at the University of Missouri-Columbia (Ray, 1982).

Results

The age, teaching experience, prior experience with materials and time on task varied somewhat among groups as shown in Table 1.2. Time on task was held constant at 200 minutes for the control group, but ranged from 30 to 221 minutes for Group B and from 45 to 180 minutes for Group C.

Table 1.2 Characteristics of Participants

To help explain differences in student scores, correlational coefficients were calculated to ascertain if there were significant relationships between scores on the test and the subjects’ age, prior experience with material, and years of teaching experience. As shown in Table 1.3, there was a significant positive relationship between prior experience or knowledge of the material and test scores (i.e., more prior experience influenced a higher test score). When prior experience scores (from Table 1.2) were compared on a group-bygroup basis, Group A was not found to differ significantly at the .05 level from Groups B or C (+ values of .212 for A-B and 4.93 for A-C).

Table 1.3 Correlation Coefficients for Test Scores with Prior Experience with Material, Age and Years of Teaching Experience

Note. Critical value at the. 05 level of significance=.25.

Each experimental group was given the same written test after being subjected to the lecture-discussion or microcomputer-assisted instruction sessions as outlined in the design and procedures of the study. Mean scores and general results from each of the three groups are presented in Table 1.4, and the results of the analysis of variance test are reported in Table 1.5.

Table 1.4 Test Scores of Control and Experimental Groups

Table 1.5 Analysis of Variance for Differences among Control and Treatment Group Scores

The F value of 9.29, reported in Table 1.5, indicated a significant difference in group mean scores. The Scheffe test was used to isolate more specifically where those differences occurred. There was a significant difference between the control group and each of the CAI groups. There was not a significant difference found between the two CAI groups. The test scores from the control group were higher than from either treatment group.

A Pearson correlation coefficient of-.016 indicated no significant relationship between time spent with the microcomputer-assisted instruction and test scores of students.

Discussion

Our first hypothesis, that there would be no significant difference among group mean scores, was rejected. However, our second hypothesis, that there would be no significant relationship between the amount of time utilized by the students with microcomputerassisted instruction and students’ test scores, was not rejected.

The following conclusions are subject to the conditions and limitations of this study: (a) the lecture-discussion approach was more effective than the microcomputer instruction in teaching the application of principles and concepts; (b) experience with the microcomputer had no effect on test scores, so it appears that the microcomputerassisted learning modules were as easy for the beginners to use as for the intermediatelevel users; and (c) the amount of time spent by students subjected to the microcomputerassisted instruction did not significantly affect their scores when given freedom to select the amount of time spent.

The influence of prior experience with the subject matter was examined in two ways. As expected, there was a positive correlation between experience and student scores. However, there was not a significant difference for prior experience between Group A and treatment Groups B and C. Therefore, it does not appear that prior experience with subject matter was a confounding variable in this study.

The findings indicated that the lecture-discussion method of teaching was more effective than the microcomputer-assisted technique in teaching the principles and concepts presented under the conditions described. Given a choice, students in the microcomputer groups spent less time than did the students in the control group. Students in the control group were taught during regular hours while the treatment groups participated during laboratory time.

Since most studies indicated that students using CAI have generally performed as well or better than students under conventional instruction, the implication is that the difference in performance found in this study should be carefully evaluated. The findings might have been different if all students had spent a minimum of four hours using the computer program. Additional studies should compare groups using a mix of traditional instruction and CAI and should require groups to spend a specific amount of time on task. The challenge for agricultural educators is to better utilize the capabilities of microcomputer assisted instruction in the learning environment.

References

Belzer, T. J. (1976). A comparative study of a traditional lecture method and a group paced, multimedia, non-lecture method used in teaching college biology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 133 026).

Caldwell, R. M. (1980). A comparison of using computer-based education to teach literacy and numeracy skills to CETA and non-CETA participants enrolled in programs of adult basic education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 194 721).

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Ellis, J. A. (1978). A comparative evaluation of computer-managed and instructormanaged instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165705).

Foster, R., & Kleene, M. (1982). Opportunities with computer assisted instruction. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 54(7), 12-14.

Gubser, l. (1980). Schools of education—a time for revolution (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195524).

Hickey, A. E. (1968). Computer-assisted instruction; A survey of the literature. Newburyport, MA: ENTELEK.

Hinton, J. R. (1980). Individualized learning using microcomputer CAI (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196409).

Honeycutt, J. K. (1974). The effects of computer managed instruction on content learning of undergraduate students (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 682).

Ray, A. S. (Ed.). (1982). SAS user’s guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Rohrbach, N.F. (1983). Microcomputer use in teaching graduate students in agricultural education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Schmidt, J. R. (1982). Computer utilization of resident instruction at the land grant university. Unpublished manuscript, North Central Computer Institute, Madison.

Activity 1-1: What have you observed?

Read the research report on microcomputers and answer the following questions.

1. Are there any major sections having no heading?

___________________________________________________________________

2. What kind of information does each major section contain? Do any major sections have more than one kind of information? What are they?

___________________________________________________________________

3. How does the format of this report compare with the general model in Figure 1.1?

___________________________________________________________________

Activity1-2: Write out the component parts

Look back at the research report on microcomputers in teaching. Determine the research question, the hypothesis and locate the literature review part. Them write them out in the following spaces.

1. Research Question:____________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. Hypotheses:__________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

3. Literature Review: ___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________