1. Name: Brandy Shelton _____________________________________________________________<br />Research Article # _1_ Critique.<br />The following form will be used to evaluate your critiques. Please attach this rubric to the front of your critique.<br />APA Citation of the author (s) and title.<br />Feng, Y. & Hew, K. (2005). K-12 Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning in Planning Instruction with Technology Integration. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 3173-3180). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.<br />Type of design or methodology was used.: Qualitative, Phenomenological Study<br /> <br />Educational issue being researched.: <br />Planning instruction with technology integration.<br />Research hypothesis, question or area of inquiry.: <br />How teachers generally reason pedagogically while planning instruction with technology integration, and how differently individual teachers reason about their integration of technology in their instruction.<br />Dependent variable(s) (if applicable.). : N/A<br />Independent variable(s). (if applicable). : N/A<br />Where does the research take place and who were the participants? <br />The research was collected in Indiana, USA. The participants were seven inservice teachers, three male and four female.<br />How were data collected? Who collected it? <br />The data was collected in two ways: a face-to-face interview and an analysis of each teacher’s lesson plans before the interview.<br />How was the data analyzed? <br />Both the lesson plans and the complete set of transcribed interviews were read first independently by both researchers to identify the possible themes of the interview data. Then the researchers met again to discuss their findings and interpretations. They looked for more refined themes or ones that might have been missed before. A first draft was written using the themes the researchers identified in the interviews and lesson plans. Lastly, a professor who was “familiar with the phenomenon being explored” read through the draft and critiqued it.<br />What were the results of the study? <br /> Teachers comprehended the purposes of the lessons, curriculum standards, as well as subject matter structures, interpreted the purposes, and reflected about the general pedagogical knowledge and the students’ characteristics. Teachers then engaged in a process of instantiating the standards or instructional objectives in terms of specific activities and modes of teaching, and ways of organizing and managing the class, to meet the needs of different students.<br /> Two additional pedagogical reasoning processes were found during the analysis of the data: selection of technological tools and caution.<br />Critique of the design and methodology of the study. Evaluation of the methodology section. <br />Were the clients adequately described? Please explain.<br />Yes, all of the clients were described with their names, gender, highest qualification, subject (s) taught and grade, school, and number of years teaching. Each teacher’s results analysis were also adequately described using the sections comprehension, interpretation, reflection, specification, selection of technology tools, and caution.<br />Was the setting adequately described? Please explain.<br />Yes, the setting was adequately described. Each participant’s school was described by their location, age of students, and demographics of the students. The technological equipment that was available for each teacher was also described.<br />Was the research design appropriate? Please explain. <br />Yes, the research design was appropriate because questions were created to help the research team find themes within all of the teachers’ interviews and lesson plans. The team also checked one another’s’ work and then had a professor review the first draft.<br />Were the dependent variable (s) and independent variables (s) adequately described? Please explain. <br />N/A<br />