Computer Networking in Communication Disorders – CD 315

September 19, 2006

A4.7: Week 4 Reflection

Filed under: Online Journal, Week4 — by kmk22 @ 5:23 pm

Aims and Objectives: This week I set out to revise and create a better research question by analyzing my previous question on cochlear implants in order to learn more about my topic.  I also set goals to use the search strategies that we have discussed the past few weeks to help me with my research question, and to learn how to accurately evaluate a website and information.  I did these things to prepare myself for future research that we will do for our class projects.

Declarative Knowledge:I learned that revising the essential research question and analyzing the support questions will give you a better understanding of what kind of question is needed for this project.  I also learned that developing a well planned search strategy will ultimately give me the most accurate results when doing my research.  Along with these things, I learned that it is important to analyze the key words in the essential question in order to revise the question in a more researchable way.  Having a question that is either too broad or to narrow will not yield the best search results. Additionally, evaluation of different websites and information is very important when doing research.  Looking at aspects such as accuracy and objectivity is vital when deciding if the information is from a reliable source and useful for projects like the one we will conduct.

Procedural Knowledge: In order to revise my essential question, I had to take each of the content words and think of how they could be more specific.  Some examples are “implantation-pacemaker, cochlear, embryo” and “development-language, growth, physical, maturity.”  After making a list of these, I had to choose which words to use in order to make my question much more specific; thus, giving me my revised question.  Next, I took my revised question and made a list of the foundation questions, or questions that lead me to answering my essential question.  Some of these included “what is a cochlear implant?,” and “who can be implanted?”  After revising and coming up with the foundation questions I then had to think about search strategies. It is important to consider key terms/phrases and where I can search for these terms.  I then had to conduct a search on my topic, and then on collaborative software.  Next, I learned how to evaluate a website using the Purdue Worksheet and then an evaluation guide on the internet for evaluating information.   

Conditional Knowledge:Learning and knowing how to revise questions is a very important skill to have in order to be successful both in school and the real world.  Until now, I did not know the correct questions to ask myself in order to narrow a topic down.  Again, search strategies are important for everyday life, and evaluating information is very important since it is so easy to publish things on the internet.  I ultimately need to know how to do all of these tasks in order to accurately conduct my research, not only for this class but for my future classes and profession.  I feel like I will use these search strategies and evaluation techniques for my career because we will be obligated to use evidence based practice as speech-language pathologists. 

September 18, 2006

A4.6: WWW-Evaluating Resources II

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 10:27 pm

Resource URL: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/coch.asp

Authorship
   This resource did not list a specific author but led me to believe that the group organization, the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) collectively created the site.  I came across this site by searching “cochlear implant” on Google which I have found to be a fairly reliable place to search.  The NIDCD’s geographical information is listed on the site along with an e-mail address to request additional information. The address is nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov. Also, when you click on the NIDCD website link, their telephone number is also available to contact them with listed office hours.

The publishing body:  The name of the organization is clearly listed on the document, along with contact information. I’m not certain what it is, but there is some sort of stamp on the bottom that says “National Institutes of Health” and “FIRSTGOV”. I am not aware of this organization being recognized in our field, however I have used their information for other classes. I feel like the organization is suitable to address this topic considering cochlear implants are interesting and useful for the deaf community. I can’t tell about the relationship of the author/publisher because no specific author is presented. This document is not someone’s personal website, it is an official website which the link is provided to the observer in the document.

Point of view of bias: Since there are no other sources cited in the document, I assume that this is the NIDCD’s point of view. However, I don’t really feel it is opinionated because it is more informative. 

Referral to and/or knowledge of the literature: There is no bibliography. The author does use a statistic and gives the proper assocation credit. The author gives the appropriate information about cochlear implants, what they are, who can get them, and what the future holds for them.  Additionally, related topics and different sources where to find more information on cochlear implants.

Accuracy or verifiability of details:  There is no explanation of how the data was gathered, but statistics were accurately cited and given credit.  This document does not rely on other sources.

Currency:  The document refers to the FDA’s 2005 data. There is no copyright date listed but the content was updated in May 2006, and the page was last updated on Sept.  7, 2006.

A4.5: WWW-Evaluating Resources I

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 9:38 pm

Site Name and URL: BetterDogFood   Http://www.betterdogfood.com 

Accuracy
1. Does the author cite sources to develop the site? no
2. Is it possible to verify the legitimacy of these sources? No, there are no sources
3. Does the background of the author point to knowledge of the subject covered? No, the information about the author says he worked for the telephone company and speaks different languages.
4. If the site is research-based, does the author clearly identify the method of research and the data gathered? No, this site is not research based.

Aurthority
1. Do you recognize the author’s name? No, but the president Rebecca Hargrave sounds familiar.
2. If you don’t recognize the name, what type of information is given about the author? Position? Organizational affiliation? E-mail address? Biographical information? The president’s e-mail was listed as petchick@betterdogfood.com but there was no other information or organizational affiliation.
3. Was the site referenced in a document that you trust? Yes, it was listed for class.

Objectivity
1.  Determine what is the aim of the author or organization publishing the site. I’m not positive because it’s strange but you give them a dog and they sell you dog food.
2.  What is the purpose of the web site. Advertisement and sales.
3.  Do you trust the author or organization providing the information? Given the information, not really.

Currency
1.  Is the date clearly displayed? Yes, 2000 
2.  Can you determine what the date refers to? When the page was first written? When the page was first posted on the Internet? When the page was last revised or updated? The copyright date? It is the copyright date but that is the only date listed.
3.  Are the resources used by the author current? There were no resources
4.  Does the page content demand routine or continual updating or revision? No
5.  Do the links on the page point to the correct Internet site addresses? No, most of them are no longer in use.

Coverage
1.  Are the topics covered on the site explored in depth? No
2.  Are the links on the site comprehensive or used as examples? Most don’t work
3.  On the site, are the links relevant and appropriate? Assuming they worked, they would be appropriate if you had an interest in the topic.
4.  How valuable is the information provided? Not very valuable and strange.

A.4.4: Collaborative Software

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 9:08 pm

In order to find information on collaborative software I used Google to do my search.  With google, I received 1,450,000 “hits.”  I first found that collaborative software, also called groupware by some is the basis for computer supported cooperative work.  The purpose of this software is for groups of people who have a common interest, task, or goal to provide and share information in a particular environment.  Anyone can use collaborative software and its popularity is currently growing.  Some examples of collaborative software are e-mail, calendaring, chatting, instant messaging, web-conferencing, and others.  A few of the makers of this software include IBM/Lotus, Microsoft, Novell, and Oracle. 

As a student, collaborative software may be utilized for several different tasks.  A few examples of what students can use them for is what we are doing in this class.  You can access and generate information, and then publish the results.  This gives you information and a different point of view which can enhance learning.  Opening up to new ideas and different ways of thinking about different topics can give you a new understanding just from other people’s comments.  This also makes me think that you could use this type of software as a student and clinically since we are in the age of evidence based practice.  This type of software could introduce ideas and link you to different sources that may be helpful in finding evidence for therapy, etc.  I think this kind of software will be beneficial to our field.

A4.3: Search Strategy

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 2:03 pm

In order to research my question “how has early cochlear implantation in deaf children been more beneficial for language development?” I will need to use a few different key words and a few different combinations of those key words.  The key words from my question are cochlear implantation, deaf children, beneficial, and language development. With these, I will search for “cochlear implants”, “cochlear implants in deaf children”, “benefits of cochlear implants in deaf children”, “benefits of cochlear implants for language development.”  I intend to use Google, Ask, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, and Miles on the school library webpage in order to find articles and books to utilize the information for my research question.

Throughout the past few weeks we have learned that it is important to come up with a good research strategy in order to find accurate, reliable information.  I think my strategy will help me find a variety of resources with accurate information to answer my research question.  I want to use the websites and search engines I listed because I think they will give me a wide variety of information to choose from, and will not be very narrow by using more than only one source.  I feel like the articles, books, journals, and webpages will be very useful in my search.  I feel that using only the internet or only books would give me a narrow point of view, which is not a very good search strategy.  I believe having an abundance of information is better than having too little in order to find the answer to my question. 

September 17, 2006

A4.2: Foundation Questions

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 8:44 pm

Revised Question: How has early cochlear implantation in deaf children been more beneficial for language development?

Essential Questions:   
   1. What is a cochlear implant?
   2. Who can be implanted?
   3. What is the prime age for implantation?
   4. How does cochlear implantation affect language development?   

September 16, 2006

A4.1: Revising Research/Essential Question

Filed under: Week4 — by kmk22 @ 11:14 am

Question:  Has early implantation in children proven to be more beneficial than implantation later in development?

Content words and additional terms:

implantation- pacemaker, embryo, cochlear
early- near the beginning, premature
children- hard of hearing, deaf, hearing, typical developing, babies, toddlers, school-age, girls, boys, prelingual, postlingual
proven- confirmed, verified, demonstrated
development- language, physical, growth, maturity

Revised Question: Has early cochlear implantation in deaf children proven to be more beneficial than implantation later in development?

Revised Question: How has earlier cochlear implantation in deaf children been more beneficial for language development?

Powered by WordPress.com