Other studies

During my research, I have come across many studies both which concur with my own findings and other which in fact conflict with them. Most notably studies by Fuchs and Wossman in 2004 that apparently students who used computers with EDGs as part of their education were attaining lower grades than those who did not. The same study concluded that even the frequent use of EDG’s in the classroom made the pupils attainment levels particularly those related with numeracy sizeably lower. However the study was strongly criticised for having an "ability bias" – whereas teachers may not want their LAPs to use the computers and EDGs. The study also failed to consider how the computers and EDG’s were incorporated into the pupil’s studies.

It was very interesting to read the results of these tests and to try and investigate why these results occurred so that I could avoid the same pitfalls in my own study. Most notably I would ensure that I would not just take a large random sampling of student to enlist into the experiment, instead I would ensure that pupils of each ability level are represented and measured against each other respectively. This would be made easier as often classes are divided into groups of ability levels so as they are delivered a lesson that suits. These are aften  referred to as Higher Achieving Pupils (HAPs), Middle Achieving Pupils (MAPs) and Lower Achieving Pupils (LAPs).

Contrasting to the study by Fuchs and Wossman, I also found a study conducted by Pye and Sullivan in 2001, their results showed that not only was there a clear improvement in the pupils who used the EDG's but also a noted change in the pupils enthusiasm. This was something that my own observations corroborated as well.