A Brief Exploration from a Situative Perspective

This week there was an amazing amount of synergy between my courses, which resulted in a very productive opportunity to work through theory and synthesize arguments that emerged in both sets of readings.

Situativity is a sociocultural learning theory that views knowing as the ability to participate successfully in a community's practices and being attuned to the constraints and affordances of an activity system. Knowledge is distributed across people and tools, and learning is the strengthening of practices and participatory abilities in a community (Greeno, Collins, and Resnick, 1996). It positions all members of a community as participants in the learning process, thus redefining the role of the teacher as a perhaps more experienced but equal member of the community who can use their experience to act as a mentor to less experienced members. These core assumptions have shaped the way I taught (though I did not have the language at the time to articulate these definitions) and the way I conduct my research on learning and professional development. Situativity has served as a lens through which I can analyze learning and assessment ecosystems and their parts, so I read this week's readings with this lens as well. I'd like to extend the use of situativity beyond the classroom and into the research community, positioning researchers as members and learners who bring experiences and perspectives to any research study that work together to inform and enrich the community.

In class, I found myself wanting to have a deeper theoretical discussion about affordances & constraints and tools because it seemed that a theoretical grounding would have yielded an even more productive discussion. I was particularly interested in exploring three concepts further: (a) affordances and constraints of activity systems, (b) tools and tool use, and (c) the image of the "lone researcher." I shall do a bit of that here. I'm really just working out ideas here, so apologies if they're not fully formed.

affordances and constrains of activity systems: As I mentioned in class, I was struck by the way that all of the authors we read discussed the concept of affordances in such a broad manner, but I was particularly interested in the debate of the definition of affordances discussed by Conole and Dyke (2004) and Boyle and Cook. While I understand each of their definitions, I was surprised that they chose to work from Gibson's (1979) and Salomon's (1993) definitions, defining the term quite broadly and encompassing both what a thing affords and what it constrains. There have been some very productive and refined discussions of affordances and constraints in the Learning Sciences, specifically discussing the attunement to the the affordances and constraints of an environment as central to learning. Separating affordances from constraints seems to help tease apart and clarify the discussion of (a) what a particular environment or activity system allows or promotes, and (b) how it places boundaries, and whether those constraints and affordances add focus or hinder productivity.

Furthermore, this idea that becoming more aware of an environment's affordances and constraints is learning may be productive in discussing how one can engage with a new technology in the research process. It positions the learner (in this case, the researcher) as interacting more and more productively with the tool, implying that they can interact with it at different levels. Thinking about the levels I outlined last week, this puts less emphasis on the tool itself (therefore giving it less power over the research or the researcher) and more focus on the user and their increasingly productive and meaningful interactions with it.

Finally, by looking at a particular tool or set of tools as an activity system in which a user operates, one can attune themselves to different aspects of the tool, learning what they need to know as they need to know it. There is also likely a user community around any given tool, the members of which will have different levels understanding of the tool and can offer their experiences and insights to a less experienced member. In this way, the power is not in the tool, but in the learner/user; in this way, the tool can be manipulated by the user to do what the user needs.

tools/tool use: I was surprised that Osiurak et al. (2010) decided to narrow their discussion of tool use to physical entities that are"extensions of the upper limbs" (p. 518), providing several definitions of tools as physical things. While they close their section of What is a Tool? with the qualification that any definition of a tool and tool use is one of convenience (p. 519), the discussion frames the rest of the discussion, positioning tools as physical objects to be manipulated by a user. By leaving conceptual tools out of the conversation, it seems we are missing something. This comment needs more thought, but I wanted to mention it because, as we begin to explore technology, I think we should remember that we possess powerful conceptual tools that can be used to make sense of and manipulate physical tools. Tools, both physical and conceptual, mediate our engagement with and understanding of the activity system in which we operate; analyzing and understanding the nuances of those mediations may help us better understand how we can manipulate and use a tool to its maximum potential.

the lone researcher: This is a short comment. A situative perspective offers a different take on this image of the lone researcher, isolated in their lab analyzing their data. Even when we work alone, we bring with us all of the experiences and interactions with the members of our various communities, so we are not operating in isolation from our community. I just think this is important to remember as we explore new ways to conduct and present research, looking for transparency and interaction around the research process. An implication of taking a situative perspective is that the research process does not have to be - and arguably should not be - a solo activity.

Thinking about my own learning process in this way has helped make these abstract and difficult points salient, and I've found them useful in analyzing new information. This is the perspective I bring with me into our discussions, and I hope that we can engage in meaningful discussions enriched by a variety of perspectives as we explore technological tools.

 

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Prentice Hall International.

 Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.

Also:

 Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. In Olson, D. (Ed.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 75–99). Cambridge: Blackwell.

On Affordances

I always enjoy reading published debates, as it is interesting to see what people draw out of a particular work and deem necessary for comment. Conole and Dyke (2004a) present and discuss the affordances of new technologies for educational practice. While the opening of the paper references a Gibsonian definition of affordances (p. 114), the second section references Salomon (1993, p. 51) and presents a clear definition of what is meant by "affordances." Because of this definition, I did not take issue with their characterization of affordances or their description of the kind of technological affordances they promote. Boyle and Cook (2004), however, take issue with the later definition, and therefore take a fundamental issue with the claims and projections Conole and Dyke make in their paper. As a response, Conole and Dyke (2004b) clarify their definition of affordance, pushing back against Boyle and Cook's insistence that they use a broader Gibsonian definition of affordance, and stating that their discussion of affordances is limited to "the intended, prescribed or designed function of technology" (p. 301).

While Boyle and Cook believe that a discussion on affordances could be productive, they take issue with the way in which Conole and Doyle unfold their taxonomy, stating that their broad claims are not theoretically sound. They also contend with Conole and Dyke's definition of affordances as "the percieved and actual properties of a thing ... that determine how the thing" is used (p. 115). Boyle and Cook define them as exiting "[independent] in the environment, and [they] are discovered rather that [sic] constructed by the human (or animal) actor. This fundamental difference in definition yields different ways in which affordances of technologies can be understood and a taxonomy can be drawn.

I appreciate  Boyle and Cook's argument, as I too was surprised when Conole and Dkye presented affordances as the central argument of the paper and presented a taxonomy with very little discussion of what affordances are, and why this would be a needed and productive discussion. In their response, Conole and Dyke state that space limitations prevented them from going into the discussion in detail, but it seems like the central argument in one's paper should be supported prior to laying out their taxonomy.

However, while reading the paper in question, I did not (after my initial surprise at jumping right in) take issue with their definition or conjectures about possible affordances, mainly because they end their discussion asking whether affordances are the right framing and invited critique. While some of their claims are broad or sweeping, as Boyle and Cook point out (p. 297), I generally liked that they addressed these particular affordances.

Three of the affordances stood out to me as ones to discuss further. The affordance of accessibility is really important, and I appreciate their statement that a consequence of increased accessibility is the need to build "learning information and analysing skills," but I think they need to expand on this. First of all, their assumption that one could teach something so broad and abstract as "learning skills" reveals their constructivist theoretical underpinning; I'd like to know how one goes about teaching such skills They begin to discuss the important subject of the shift from learning pieces of information to learning how to ask questions (Collins and Hanverson, 2010), but they leave it at one sentence, which is insufficient and minimizes the point they are trying to make.

When discussing the communication and collaboration affordance, the authors state that increased communication and collaboration, they state that this could lead to "individuals being 'spead too thinly'" and "lack of identity and peripheral engagement" (p. 117), with only a citation to a metaphor to explain why they think that might happen. On the contrary, much of the work I've read (e.g. Jenkins, 2009; Ito et al 2013) states that networked engagement brings opportunities to form identities, learn from others, and contribute meaningfully to a group when a person feels ready (but relieves the pressure of feeling like one must contribute if they do not want to). This paired with my own experience teaching, learning, and interacting in networked communities makes me want them to explain their claim.

Finally, their claim that technologies can afford opportunities for reflection is an important one, and I agree with much of what they stated. But they again provide few citations for claims that it supports reflection, and then go into ways it may halt reflection. The way they treat the affordances of technology - and that they refer to technology broadly - makes me think they are in the second or third phase of the continuum I posted on Wednesday. They are not as accepting - and may not be as knowledgeable - about new technologies as they are positioning themselves to be. There is a heavy air of caution, and "affordances" is used broadly, whereas literature in the Learning Sciences clarifies points by using "affordances and constraints" (Greeno, 1998).


As a side note, all of these papers had a lot of typos, and the typos became progressively worse in each paper. I'm not sure if this is an issue with the editor, but this kind of sloppiness in published work makes it difficult for me to focus on the arguments, and gives a sense that they were not careful in their work. I guess it is the English teacher in me (my sister complains about these effects often), but I expect published work by experts to be error-free.

Reflections on the HIstory of Qualitative Research with Technology

This week's class helped me synthesize the readings, and really brought forth two points that I want to elaborate on here and will take with me throughout the course. 

The first point is an obvious one, but one worth repeating. In qualitative research, we are not seeking a single truth, and while we may have goals in mind, we will discover things about our work and ourselves on the research journey. This has become a very salient point for me, due to a recent discussion with a friend in cognitive science. He very simply does not understand how any study without randomized controlled trials can be called science. The first time he accused me of "not doing science," I was extremely offended and didn't know how to respond. Then I spoke with my advisor and I realized that my friend just didn't have the grounding to understand a different kind of research and study. I know I won't convince him, but this fundamental difference of not looking for a single truth is what divides us. As friends we'll get over it, but as researchers we likely won't collaborate.



The second thought I want to extend is the images of history exercise we did. When we were asked to think of images of the history of technolgy in qualitative research, I immediately thought of my mother-in-law, who is quite cautious with technology. While she has the capability to use computers and use them well, she is often concerned that she will break the computer, and uses language like "the computer did X." This lead me to think of other images of people interacting with and talking about technology. I like the way I characterized the four phases of technology use in class, so I will expand them here and see where they go.

fear - of being replaced, of being out of control The first image - could I venture to say phase? - is of being afraid of what the technology will do to the research or to the researcher. There is an unknown in this phase, and perhaps a lack of understanding of the technology's inner workings. It seemed from the readings that researchers were afraid of being replaced - many statements were made to ensure the reader understood that technology CANNOT or cannot (emphasized either way) analyze data for the researcher. This statement was often positioned as a caution against thinking that the technology will automate a process that can be arduous, but I think it revealed an underlying fear that the technology perhaps could someday do that, or at least that the technology has the potential to shape research in ways that can go undetected by a not-so-cautious researcher. There was also discussion of underlying epistemologies, and whether they aligned with the theory behind the tools. Again, I think this reveals a fear of something alien or unknown. The language surrounding these statements were about what the technology does, as though it were alive.

cautious embrace - Next there are those who see the value in some uses of a technology, but still caution against allowing the technology to shape the research or understand the ways in which using even minimal digital technologies shape research and the research process. These statements seemed to acknowledge the burdens that can be lifted by using word processors and audio recordings, but cautioned using digital filing as it may take data out of context and make the full data difficult to access. Of course, this is all set up by the user, so if one wanted to make sure they had access to all data in context and pieces as well, they could arrange that, but these statements didn't acknowledge that. Again, the language was about what the computer does.
 
full embrace - Then there were a couple statements that embraced new technologies as capable of moving research and the field as a whole forward. These accounts made sure to state the importance of recognizing how (especially) digital tools shape research, but the tone was that this could be a good and useful thing.

manipulate and shape tool use - We didn't see too much of this, but I think it is the next step. Once a person is comfortable working with new technologies and understands the basics of how they work, they can begin to as what the tool can do for them and what they can do to and with the tool. The language changes here. The researcher is in control, and the technology is a tool, just as a hammer is a tool, and different tools can be used in different ways to perform many functions.

As I'm sure is clear by now, I stand in this last phase. I inherently look at a new technology and think, "now what can I do with that? How can I manipulate it to get the result I need?" I know that convincing someone in the first stance is really difficult, but I try anyway. People in the middle are more open to at least trying the new technology to see what happens. Of course there are timing and cost issues to consider with the adoption of any technology, but that aside, these phases may characterize the way in which people approach technology in research, particularly in qualitative research.

Understanding Tensions in Integrating Digital Tools Into Research

I grew up with computers and technology in my life, though I dislike the terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" because they imply that natives are somehow inherently better at using the technology than immigrants, which is not always the case. Whatever terms we use, I recognize that I am not only comfortable using and trying new and old technological tools, I expect them to be part of everything I do, and I expect them to enhance and streamline my work, including my research. I hadn't really thought about the fact that some people may feel that technology could get in the way of doing sound and ethical research, so this week's readings really helped me explore this tension and think about how I use digital tools and the role I want those tools to play in my research.

Paulus, Lester, and Dempster (2014) present a reflexive prompt and three questions that helped frame my thinking around these readings. When I consider whether I am an "early adopter" or not, I think about the way I choose to use digital tools, and I realize that, while I am open to trying new tools, I want to know about their affordances and constraints before I put them to use. of course there is always something to be learned by just "playing around" with a tool, but I do like to know how it will enhance and streamline my work and process before I determine if I will use it. Part of the reason I like to learn a lot about the tool before I use it is I really feel that there is a reciprocal relationship when it comes to tool use specifically and research in general; our work is shaped by the tools we use, but in working with them, we also shape the actual use of the tool as well. In that sense, it is important to have a general understanding of the consequences of picking up a particular tool. 

With that framing, I really appreciated the textual analysis conducted by Paulus, Lester, and Britt (2013). In this paper, the authors analyze 11 qualitative inquiry textbooks and the way they present the presence and use of technology in qualitative inquiry. I found it interesting that for each topic analyzed, there were essentially two camps: one that approached technology with caution and a fear of how it would change research, and one that embraced the technology and the shifts it brings. This latter camp, the more progressive camp, appeals to me partially for the reasons that the authors surmise (that technology is integrated in my daily life, and I therefore want to use it in my research), but also because I strongly believe that researchers must - albeit with care and thought - look forward to how they can use the most current and available resources to both impact their field and be impacted by it. As we conduct research, we grow and change, and (hopefully) move the field forward. It makes sense, then, to use all of the tools available to make both the research experience and the study itself richer and more well-rounded. Those tools can be a mix of traditional and new technologies and methods.

Coffey, Holbrook, and Atkinson (1996) take a bold - especially for the time in which this paper was written - and interesting stance on the integration of technology into research, falling resolutely in the embrace-technology-beacuse-it-is-changing-the-way-we-conduct-and-present-research camp. The authors begin by outlining the divide between science and rhetoric, and proceed to explain that as times have changed, research has evolved, and such a distinction can no longer be made appropriately. By removing these distinctions, we see that  "scientific accounts and texts have rhetorical qualities" (Coffey 3.1), and can conduct research that is richer in experience and substance for both the researcher and the subjects. This opening point leads into an important discussion of giving voice to the muted populations, and that researchers can foster this kind of empowerment by fundamentally changing the way they present their research. Rather than write in a linear fashion, present subjects, data, and conclusions in a more interactive way using hypertext and links that allow the reader to make sense of the information and draw their own conclusions.

With so many ways to present information in at least an interactive and possibly non-linear fashion via the Internet and its accompanying technologies, it is possible to empower voices and uplift stories in exciting and invigorating ways. This, of course, does not come without cost; we still value journal articles and linear papers to build esteem and achieve tenure, but the presence of new forms of data representation such as academic blogging, infographics, and Popplets provide researchers with an alternative to the traditional publishing route. This is more labor-intensive on the parts of both the researcher and the reader, but it may be well worth the effort. Coffey et al. drive this point home in their final sentence, projecting that the traditional way to present data "could well seem like a dreadful anachronism" (9.3). This is a particularly bold statement given the year that this was written, but if things progress as they have been, they may be right. Already we are moving toward more open-access journals, academic blogging, professional social networking, and visual representations of data through video, infographics, and the like. Certainly in my own doctoral journey I have had to learn to do all of these things, and it seems that the emerging generation of researchers will value the more interactive reports with links to data and multiple representations of information, giving the reader more power to make sense of the information contained in the study for themselves.


These readings particularly helped me think through the tensions that are inherent in integrating technology into research. I still think it is important to use the digital tools we have to enhance, extend, and streamline our work, but I have a better grasp of how those tools might also constrain research, and I glad to be more aware of this as I move forward in my own research.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to my blog!

While this blog was catalyzed by a course, I have been engaging in academic blogging with my advisor on his blog, and have been wanting to start my own, with my own musings, thoughts, and theories. This is a good opportunity to start that process, and to get into the habit of writing out my reflections on my work and studies.

On this blog I will voice my thoughts on readings and tools, and hopefully synthesize what I am learning and connect it to the work and research I do and read. I hope you'll engage in a discussion around these thoughts with me.

Rebecca