Sunday, February 16, 2014
Musings on Video Conferencing
I really appreciated Horan's (2011) piece on utilizing the digital tools we have with us to their maximum potential. Little things like using reminders to end a meeting and geotagging pictures are good ideas that I'll keep in my back pocket. This article, combined with the presentations in class, have really gotten me thinking about how I can harness the power of the tools I already have, and what other tools I might need in my arsenal. I hadn't thought to use my smartphone to do research, or use a tablet for anything other than reading and notes. But with transcription software and programs like Zotero, endnote, and Dropbox, my toolbox can be small, portable, and powerful.
I'm still putting together in my head how to use all of these technologies in harmony, but as I write these blogs, I am thinking through the ways in which these different tools can work together, and I'm getting very excited about my upcoming research. All of this coincides nicely with my writing of my early inquiry project and my preparations to extend that project this summer.
One tool that I found particularly useful this summer was Google Hangouts for video conferencing. Gratton and O'Donnell (2011) present the pros and cons of video conferencing, and I found myself nodding along with both the advantages and shortcomings of using this tool. While you do miss something not having everyone in the same room and reading their full body language, you can read a lot in a video conference. And after the first 30 minutes - and certainly after the first couple of meetings, the people meeting become a community, and they develop a rhythm, which helps address the issue they raise about turn taking.
Videoconferencing made the professional development work I did this summer possible. I didn't know it when I started the project, but the Hangouts held a major part in making these theoretically and geographically diverse group of teachers a community. Initially, I had planned to meet with the teachers three times during the first week of the intensive 6 week workshop, and once a week after that. But at the end of the first week, the teachers requested that we continue to meet frequently to check in on their designs and talk things out in a way they felt they could not or did not want to do in the discussion forums.
None of these teachers have ever met each other, but in addition to sharing lesson plans and feedback, they shared teaching stories, personal information, and they all participated in supporting one teacher whose son suddenly became paralyzed toward the end of the six weeks. In this latter incident, each member of the community offered to take up the work of the one so she could be with her son as the doctors figured out what caused the paralysis. They had a true community, and they worked and grew and breathed together.
At the end of the six weeks, one of the teachers shared that she was pregnant and that she would not be teaching in the upcoming semester. I had a vague notion that the teachers had been communicating outside of our meetings and discussion forums, but when these two teachers revealed these personal stories, it became clear that the community of teachers had become friends who communicated outside the scope of the professional development. They reported updates about each other, and began sharing workloads when one got overwhelmed.
Now we are into the second semester of the courses the teachers designed over the summer. Since the end of last semester, we have taken a hiatus from the video conferences. The teachers have requested that we start those again. They feel distanced from the other teachers and isolated, which is something my research actively tries to combat.
A great thing about using Google Hanout or Skype is that I can do it from anywhere. Over teh summer I was working from California and went on many outings with my family. In addition to allowing the teachers to connect from different geographical locations, I could be anywhere - in California, at the zoo, on my way to see a student's new film - and check in with them. They even started conferencing with each other, unbeknownst to me.
My subjects meeting without my knowing is somewhat of a concern because I can't track their thinking and development when they do that, but I can see the results in both their growth and the strength of the community, so I decided the benefits were better than the downsides.
So the point of my musings this week is that I've already been thinking about how to use the tools I have to enhance my research process, but the presentations and these articles have helped me think of ways to use them that had not crossed my mind. I'm starting with looking into the features Horan and Drs Lubke and Varga mentioned. I'm going to bring up Mendely in our lab meeting tomorrow and see what everyone thinks (it helps when we all use the same system. Right now we're using Zotero.). Once I get my feet wet with these tools, I'll explore what else my smartphone and tablet can do.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Thoughts on Digital References
As I was finishing up the reading for this week, I was really put off by Kern's (2011) opening comment that today's researchers do not care about reference style, and are not intimately familiar with their citation handbook. Kern asserted that much of this was due to the wealth of information and articles available on the Internet that are easily searchable and found. This opening remark tainted the rest of the article and I had difficulty giving weight to the statements because this framing so blatantly casts of researchers who utilize the tools around them.
I'd argue that because I have a reference manager and can engage in a wider, more diverse search of the literature, I know my citation style more intimately than I would if I was only searching within the limits of the Learning Sciences. Because I have ready access to articles and information for the varying specialized fields in education and to education and learning-related materials in other fields, I am becoming familiar with many different citation styles, and learning the nuances of the one I use.
This statement, placed right in the beginning of the article, reminded me of people who start conversations with statements like "Kids these days don't understand ..." or "The youth today have it so easy..." I often think it is the people who make these statements that don't have a clear understanding of the kind of work that is being done with the advanced tools they are referencing.
This was of particular note as it stood in contrast with the two presenters' discussions in class on Tuesday. Both Dr, Lubke and Dr. Varga discussed ways in which one can leverage particular technological tools to deepen their research process and put together a richer literature review. By utilizing the many features of Zotero or Mendeley, a researcher can have an abundant list of references that are easily searched, annotated, saved, shared, and inserted into the written document. Specific quotes and ideas can be accessed instantaneously, enabling the researcher to support their claims with more and more-specific evidence. Collaboration is made easy; references and drafts of passages can be shared in (almost) real time, de-isolating (if I can make up that word) the research process and taking the researcher out of their dark office into a collaborative space.
When writing anything, I generally try to avoid absolutes and sweeping statements because, while I may feel passionately about a particular topic or opinion, there is likely someone who disagrees with me, and who has evidence to support their counter-claim. If instead Kern took an air of trepidation in their opening paragraphs and cautioned researchers to be careful not to become lackadaisical in their referencing, I may not have reacted so strongly. It is all about framing; making forward arguments is important, but slighting a whole group with a few statements does not help to make that argument. It seems to detract from it.
I'd argue that because I have a reference manager and can engage in a wider, more diverse search of the literature, I know my citation style more intimately than I would if I was only searching within the limits of the Learning Sciences. Because I have ready access to articles and information for the varying specialized fields in education and to education and learning-related materials in other fields, I am becoming familiar with many different citation styles, and learning the nuances of the one I use.
This statement, placed right in the beginning of the article, reminded me of people who start conversations with statements like "Kids these days don't understand ..." or "The youth today have it so easy..." I often think it is the people who make these statements that don't have a clear understanding of the kind of work that is being done with the advanced tools they are referencing.
This was of particular note as it stood in contrast with the two presenters' discussions in class on Tuesday. Both Dr, Lubke and Dr. Varga discussed ways in which one can leverage particular technological tools to deepen their research process and put together a richer literature review. By utilizing the many features of Zotero or Mendeley, a researcher can have an abundant list of references that are easily searched, annotated, saved, shared, and inserted into the written document. Specific quotes and ideas can be accessed instantaneously, enabling the researcher to support their claims with more and more-specific evidence. Collaboration is made easy; references and drafts of passages can be shared in (almost) real time, de-isolating (if I can make up that word) the research process and taking the researcher out of their dark office into a collaborative space.
When writing anything, I generally try to avoid absolutes and sweeping statements because, while I may feel passionately about a particular topic or opinion, there is likely someone who disagrees with me, and who has evidence to support their counter-claim. If instead Kern took an air of trepidation in their opening paragraphs and cautioned researchers to be careful not to become lackadaisical in their referencing, I may not have reacted so strongly. It is all about framing; making forward arguments is important, but slighting a whole group with a few statements does not help to make that argument. It seems to detract from it.
Monday, February 10, 2014
RE: Constraints and Affordances
I am rereading an article right now that might add to our discussion on affordances. I posited in class and in my blog that we should consider affordances and constraints in our conversation. Here is how Greeno (1998) defines them:
- In situation theory (Barwise, 1993; Barwise & Perry, 1983; Devlin, 1991), constraints are represented formally as if-then relations between types of situations. We use the term constraints to include if-then regularities of social practices and of interactions with material and informational systems that enable a person to anticipate outcomes and to participate in trajectories of interaction. Affordances (E. J. Gibson, 1988; J. J . Gibson, 1979/1986; Reed. 1996) are qualities of systems that can support interactions and therefore present possible interactions for an individual to participate in. Affordances can be represented, using situation-theory notation, as if-then relations between types of situations, in which the antecedent involves resources in the environment and enabling characteristics of a person or group and the consequent is a type of activity that is possible whenever those environmental and personal properties are present. Regular patterns of an individual's participation can be conceptualized as that person's attunements to constraints (Barwise & Perry, 1983) and to affordances. Attunements include well-coordinated panerns of participating in social practices. including the conversational and other interactional conventions of communities (Greeno, et al., p. 9).
Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Relavant Literature reviews
First, a summary:
It seemed from the readings this week that the way in which a literature review is defined depends on the purpose of the review, and that purpose can differ between the purpose of the review and the audience who will read it. Boote and Beile (2005) and Maxwell (2006) disagree fundamentally on the purpose of a dissertation, and therefore disagree on the purpose the literature review serves. For Boote and Beile, the purpose of the dissertation is to demonstrate one's knowledge of their field in order to show their expertise. Maxwell discusses the dissertation as another important research paper, and therefore the literature reviewed must be relevant to advance a specific argument in a specific part of the field. The difference between these two types of literature reviews highlight a movement within many doctoral programs, but the guidelines each present are useful in their own right.
As Anderson and Kanuka (2003) discuss how the Internet has impacted the researcher and research process, they discuss both the wealth of knowledge a researcher has access to and the importance of narrowing one's search to the relevant literature. They go so far as to state that a researcher can focus on the literature from their field, effectively ignoring research in other fields (p. 45). While this may be helpful in the initial search for relevant literature, but the researcher would do well to recognize the places outside their field where relevant literature may also reside.
The problems and techniques posed by these authors bring forth the need for a researcher to use some kind of reference management system both to collect resources and sort, tag, and annotate resources for easier access and synthesis.
And now, a reflection:
While Boote and Beile's guidelines and rubric are helpful for guiding the process of writing a broad literature review, it seems that in many fields using relevant literature to advance an argument may be more appropriate for the kinds of dissertations being required in many fields. Working from anecdotal evidence, it seems that many programs are moving toward dissertations that are comprised of a certain number of published/publishable articles around a theme, which would seem to necessitate a literature review more along the lines of what Maxwell proposes.
Personally, I have found Maxwell's suggestions to be quite productive, giving me focus in the broad task of reviewing the literature. I have written several focused literature reviews, using Zotero to organize and annotate appropriate articles. Now that I am writing up my early inquiry project, I am drawing from the text of those reviews and my notes in Zotero to synthesize what I know about the field of teacher professional development, and advance the argument that a situative perspective may elicit more meaningful, relevant, and productive teacher conversations and curricular designs.
I have been playing around with Pintrest since our class on Tuesday, and I have been using this focused approach to write small reflections on the writing I am doing. The phrasing of these reflections are finding their way into the literature review section of my early inquiry project, and because my articles are organized in Zotero, I can match up my musings and the claims within them to evidence-based arguments, giving more substance to my overall argument.
As a final comment, I'll note that some of the things I don't particularly like about Boote and Beile's rubric are (a) the inconsistencies in the ratings (see Methodology and the accompanying footnote that does not, in my opinion, sufficiently explain why the other categories are not rated on a four point scale), and (b) the weight implied in the ordering of the requirements. This last point is particularly bothersome, as even the phrasing of the different rating requirements indicate that Coverage, for example, holds more weight than Rhetoric. I'm not sure I agree with their ordering, and feel it might become problematic if a student-researcher were to follow this rubric to the T. However, I should qualify this paragraph with the note that I often find rubrics too constraining in that they encourage the learner to focus on small aspects asking "Is this what you want?" rather than focusing on the task of analysis and argument in the big picture. They are also very difficult to write, and language like "Well developed, coherent" or "Critiqued research methods" is subjective and vague, and encourages learners to interpret language and then be upset when they don't get all of their points. I know that this rubric is not meant to be used to actually "grade" a literature review, but it presents the information as if it could be (which can be problematic) and encourages people to do so (which can be even more problematic). A better and more productive focus for a reviewer would be to assess whether the researcher has sufficiently discussed and synthesized the relevant literature necessary to identify a gap, support claims, and advance an argument.
It seemed from the readings this week that the way in which a literature review is defined depends on the purpose of the review, and that purpose can differ between the purpose of the review and the audience who will read it. Boote and Beile (2005) and Maxwell (2006) disagree fundamentally on the purpose of a dissertation, and therefore disagree on the purpose the literature review serves. For Boote and Beile, the purpose of the dissertation is to demonstrate one's knowledge of their field in order to show their expertise. Maxwell discusses the dissertation as another important research paper, and therefore the literature reviewed must be relevant to advance a specific argument in a specific part of the field. The difference between these two types of literature reviews highlight a movement within many doctoral programs, but the guidelines each present are useful in their own right.
As Anderson and Kanuka (2003) discuss how the Internet has impacted the researcher and research process, they discuss both the wealth of knowledge a researcher has access to and the importance of narrowing one's search to the relevant literature. They go so far as to state that a researcher can focus on the literature from their field, effectively ignoring research in other fields (p. 45). While this may be helpful in the initial search for relevant literature, but the researcher would do well to recognize the places outside their field where relevant literature may also reside.
The problems and techniques posed by these authors bring forth the need for a researcher to use some kind of reference management system both to collect resources and sort, tag, and annotate resources for easier access and synthesis.
And now, a reflection:
While Boote and Beile's guidelines and rubric are helpful for guiding the process of writing a broad literature review, it seems that in many fields using relevant literature to advance an argument may be more appropriate for the kinds of dissertations being required in many fields. Working from anecdotal evidence, it seems that many programs are moving toward dissertations that are comprised of a certain number of published/publishable articles around a theme, which would seem to necessitate a literature review more along the lines of what Maxwell proposes.
Personally, I have found Maxwell's suggestions to be quite productive, giving me focus in the broad task of reviewing the literature. I have written several focused literature reviews, using Zotero to organize and annotate appropriate articles. Now that I am writing up my early inquiry project, I am drawing from the text of those reviews and my notes in Zotero to synthesize what I know about the field of teacher professional development, and advance the argument that a situative perspective may elicit more meaningful, relevant, and productive teacher conversations and curricular designs.
I have been playing around with Pintrest since our class on Tuesday, and I have been using this focused approach to write small reflections on the writing I am doing. The phrasing of these reflections are finding their way into the literature review section of my early inquiry project, and because my articles are organized in Zotero, I can match up my musings and the claims within them to evidence-based arguments, giving more substance to my overall argument.
As a final comment, I'll note that some of the things I don't particularly like about Boote and Beile's rubric are (a) the inconsistencies in the ratings (see Methodology and the accompanying footnote that does not, in my opinion, sufficiently explain why the other categories are not rated on a four point scale), and (b) the weight implied in the ordering of the requirements. This last point is particularly bothersome, as even the phrasing of the different rating requirements indicate that Coverage, for example, holds more weight than Rhetoric. I'm not sure I agree with their ordering, and feel it might become problematic if a student-researcher were to follow this rubric to the T. However, I should qualify this paragraph with the note that I often find rubrics too constraining in that they encourage the learner to focus on small aspects asking "Is this what you want?" rather than focusing on the task of analysis and argument in the big picture. They are also very difficult to write, and language like "Well developed, coherent" or "Critiqued research methods" is subjective and vague, and encourages learners to interpret language and then be upset when they don't get all of their points. I know that this rubric is not meant to be used to actually "grade" a literature review, but it presents the information as if it could be (which can be problematic) and encourages people to do so (which can be even more problematic). A better and more productive focus for a reviewer would be to assess whether the researcher has sufficiently discussed and synthesized the relevant literature necessary to identify a gap, support claims, and advance an argument.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Reflexive Pins
I've tried to use Pintrest many times. My friends use it and post wonderful things, and I wanted to be a part of that, so I made an account. And while I'm usually good at picking up new things, for whatever reason I couldn't use Pintrest. I would click on a picture of some lovely-looking cookie and get a picture, not a link. I would find something interesting to pin to my dance board and not be able to figure out how to get the Pin It button on my toolbar, even though I thought I loaded it. And so I decided that I didn't need to use Pintrest. I'm not usually so visual (I prefer to write than draw, for instance), and this was one social network in which I didn't need to participate.
So I was skeptical last week when Jessica presented her reflexive Pintrest board.
I thought about it over the weekend and opened up my Pintrest account for the first time in a very long time and tried to think how this could possibly be useful for reflection. I came up with nothing and closed the window.
So when we were asked in class to just search for something to pin, I really didn't know what I was looking for, and I had no idea what I would write. Then, as I scrolled down, down, searching for something...anything to write about, I came across this book cover:
... and my brain started racing!I have no idea what this book is. I didn't look it up. I didn't have to. The cover flooded me with thoughts I've been trying to put into papers for a long time. It conveys so much about how people think about (a) professional development, (b) online learning, and (c) learning with technology.
The Title: The title alone - PD in your PJs... - gives the impression that one's professional development can and should be easy. No sweat! Don't even shower. You don't have to invest a lot of energy into your own growth as a professional. Get it done with minimal effort at home, at your leisure. I do understand why people might want PD to be this effortless; so much professional development for teachers involves day-long or half-day sessions (Corcoran, 1995) listening to someone drone on about test scores or inspirational technology your school can't afford, making few connections to a real classroom context. And it is so hard to sit through. But that's just the problem. It shouldn't be hard to sit through. One shouldn't passively sit through their own development process.
There have actually been many calls to reform professional development, and many have offered new approaches based on contemporary social learning theories and what we know about how teachers learn. But much of this research never gets past the small implementations (Borko, 2004), so the majority of classroom teachers never see it. These teachers are excited about getting their students interested in their own learning, and I believe many of them want to grow themselves, but they need professional development opportunities that are meaningful in their own classroom practice. This is what my research aims to do, and we are in the process of making it happen.
The Photo: This photo is not just an example of how a person can complete the professional development. Being on the floor, barefoot, in pajamas projects the notion that a teacher can whiz through an online course over their morning coffee or evening tea, and get it out of the way. It indicates that professional development is something one has to do, not something they strive to do regularly. More broadly, this photo conveys that online courses should be quick and easy - no pressure, no challenge.
I am aware that it is unlikely that I will change the way the world thinks about online learning with one dissertation, but the work I am doing now is the beginning of my goal to participate in the movement to show people that online learning can be interactive, meaningful, challenging, and relevant. My focus is on teacher learning, but I write carefully to show that new, meaningful teacher learning environments pave the way for teachers to change learning environments for their students, whether they teach online, face-to-face, or in a hybrid setting.
The pin only let me use 500 characters, so I couldn't say all of this there, but it got me thinking and, most importantly, it got me to put those thoughts in writing. A big part of the battle for getting this work out there has been finding the phrasing and the references to support my claims. This little pin and the inner dialogue that flooded from it made me realize just how much I have to say and why I am so passionate about teacher learning. It also made me realize that I've read other authors' reports on teachers' feelings about professional development and that I have more than anecdotal evidence with which I can frame my argument.
And of course, all of these thoughts were coupled with our readings and discussion around the ethics of using online tools. I see another pin in the near future exploring the ethics of online professional development.
This little pin brought up so many thoughts. I'm looking forward to conducting more searches and getting all of these reflective ideas down in writing, even if it is not finessed. The process of putting these reflections into typed words and phrases helps me clarify my thoughts and aims both as a teacher and a researcher. I'm looking forward to using Pintrest in a reflexive way.
So I was skeptical last week when Jessica presented her reflexive Pintrest board.
I thought about it over the weekend and opened up my Pintrest account for the first time in a very long time and tried to think how this could possibly be useful for reflection. I came up with nothing and closed the window.
So when we were asked in class to just search for something to pin, I really didn't know what I was looking for, and I had no idea what I would write. Then, as I scrolled down, down, searching for something...anything to write about, I came across this book cover:
... and my brain started racing!I have no idea what this book is. I didn't look it up. I didn't have to. The cover flooded me with thoughts I've been trying to put into papers for a long time. It conveys so much about how people think about (a) professional development, (b) online learning, and (c) learning with technology.
The Title: The title alone - PD in your PJs... - gives the impression that one's professional development can and should be easy. No sweat! Don't even shower. You don't have to invest a lot of energy into your own growth as a professional. Get it done with minimal effort at home, at your leisure. I do understand why people might want PD to be this effortless; so much professional development for teachers involves day-long or half-day sessions (Corcoran, 1995) listening to someone drone on about test scores or inspirational technology your school can't afford, making few connections to a real classroom context. And it is so hard to sit through. But that's just the problem. It shouldn't be hard to sit through. One shouldn't passively sit through their own development process.
There have actually been many calls to reform professional development, and many have offered new approaches based on contemporary social learning theories and what we know about how teachers learn. But much of this research never gets past the small implementations (Borko, 2004), so the majority of classroom teachers never see it. These teachers are excited about getting their students interested in their own learning, and I believe many of them want to grow themselves, but they need professional development opportunities that are meaningful in their own classroom practice. This is what my research aims to do, and we are in the process of making it happen.
The Photo: This photo is not just an example of how a person can complete the professional development. Being on the floor, barefoot, in pajamas projects the notion that a teacher can whiz through an online course over their morning coffee or evening tea, and get it out of the way. It indicates that professional development is something one has to do, not something they strive to do regularly. More broadly, this photo conveys that online courses should be quick and easy - no pressure, no challenge.
I am aware that it is unlikely that I will change the way the world thinks about online learning with one dissertation, but the work I am doing now is the beginning of my goal to participate in the movement to show people that online learning can be interactive, meaningful, challenging, and relevant. My focus is on teacher learning, but I write carefully to show that new, meaningful teacher learning environments pave the way for teachers to change learning environments for their students, whether they teach online, face-to-face, or in a hybrid setting.
The pin only let me use 500 characters, so I couldn't say all of this there, but it got me thinking and, most importantly, it got me to put those thoughts in writing. A big part of the battle for getting this work out there has been finding the phrasing and the references to support my claims. This little pin and the inner dialogue that flooded from it made me realize just how much I have to say and why I am so passionate about teacher learning. It also made me realize that I've read other authors' reports on teachers' feelings about professional development and that I have more than anecdotal evidence with which I can frame my argument.
And of course, all of these thoughts were coupled with our readings and discussion around the ethics of using online tools. I see another pin in the near future exploring the ethics of online professional development.
This little pin brought up so many thoughts. I'm looking forward to conducting more searches and getting all of these reflective ideas down in writing, even if it is not finessed. The process of putting these reflections into typed words and phrases helps me clarify my thoughts and aims both as a teacher and a researcher. I'm looking forward to using Pintrest in a reflexive way.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Issues Around Transparency ...
The combination of our "ubiquitous connectivity" (Hardey, 2011) and a
move toward more open research techniques including blogging throughout
different stages of research (Wakeford and Cohen, 2008) made me think
hard about my own research process as I read this week. Generally, we
seem to be moving toward an era of transparency; users want open
resources that are editable by the community, and as a public we seem to
want to know what is behind the curtain in many different facets of
life. As we move toward more open and transparent techniques in
research, it seems we walk a fine line between opening up for new
insights and critique, and risking the protection of our research and
research subjects (and all of the data we gather from our experiences with and observations of them).
On the one hand, if we become co-participants (Hardey, 2011) in our research, we gain new insights and perspective on our observations and analysis, which can lead to a richer and more productive research process and product. Certainly in design-based implementation research (Penuel, et al., 2011) the focus is on working in teams with the stakeholders to iterate theory and implement designs. And I can say from experience that giving the research participants a powerful voice in the research process can be extremely informative, productive, and even inspiring. I am working with a teacher who, in the beginning, was highly skeptical of our approach to curricular design (based on situative theories of learning and cognition). She pushed back at every step and made me rethink how I present new theories, and how to approach the design process. As she implemented her designs, she began to understand why we used particular methods, and expressed her surprise at how much productive engagement they elicited. The finding here was not that the method worked, but that she was able to articulate what did not work for her in her design process, and her suggestions for the next iteration have been invaluable. We are continuing to collaborate, and are making plans for her to be an integral part of the next iteration of this work. Our openness has helped to foster this productive relationship, and the research (and the researcher) are better for it.
On the other hand, as I was reading I kept thinking about another teacher I am working with who was also resistant, but in a less productive way. This teacher stated plainly that these methods were antithetical to what he had been taught, and was less willing to try a new method. The reviews for that course reflected this resistance; the students felt that the course did not flow well, that their teacher was not present, and that they had to "learn everything on my own." I like the idea of being transparent in my research process, and the notion of using a semi-formal space like a blog to write up initial thoughts and get feedback and engage in discussion with a community is very appealing. However, even writing this I am hesitant because if either of these teachers see this post, they will see how I have characterized them in opposition to one another, and they will be able to identify themselves. I have pulled out information and am forming a broader narrative about teacher learning, using the teachers' experiences as examples of different types of learners, but I risk making them uncomfortable and construing characterizations as negative when they are meant only to be representative of the different experiences we have seen in the many teachers with whom we have worked.
(And I know they might look. One teacher did an extensive (an kind of intrusive) Google search of me when we started working together. This teacher dug far past my teaching career into my college activities and performance hobbies. All of this information is public knowledge, and in pieces it doesn't seem odd, but given the context of our work together it just seemed to overstep something.)
This leads to a host of privacy and ethical issues that both Hardey (2011) and Wakeford and Cohen (2008) discussed, but in my opinion did not address deeply enough. I don't want researchers to be frightened of the technology, as I have mentioned in other posts, but at the same time we need to understand the gravity of the potential consequences of being so open. When my advisor first wanted to write a blog post about our research to post to the community for feedback, I felt uncomfortable and exposed. I didn't want to show them our unfinished work. But the feedback and questions that emerged were so helpful, and I realized how important opening up can be. So as I read Wakeford and Cohen in particular, I found myself wanting to try fleshing out my observations in a public forum. I have been keeping a research diary, in which I write entries after a discussion or email or meeting, but I haven't taken the time to flesh those out. As I enter into the writing phase and am designing the next iteration, the idea that I could present initial thoughts to a community and to my research participants is appealing. But in addition to worrying about how my research participants would feel about my characterizations and analysis, I am concerned that these public and unrefined characterizations and analyses could actually put my participants at risk. What if their principals saw this? How would they react to these teachers' behavior?
So I guess I'm saying I'm kind of stuck. I want to be more open. I want the feedback from the community, including the participants. But are the risks too big? Should we only be "sort-of open," only sharing more mature-but-not-quite-finished analyses? I don't know.
On the one hand, if we become co-participants (Hardey, 2011) in our research, we gain new insights and perspective on our observations and analysis, which can lead to a richer and more productive research process and product. Certainly in design-based implementation research (Penuel, et al., 2011) the focus is on working in teams with the stakeholders to iterate theory and implement designs. And I can say from experience that giving the research participants a powerful voice in the research process can be extremely informative, productive, and even inspiring. I am working with a teacher who, in the beginning, was highly skeptical of our approach to curricular design (based on situative theories of learning and cognition). She pushed back at every step and made me rethink how I present new theories, and how to approach the design process. As she implemented her designs, she began to understand why we used particular methods, and expressed her surprise at how much productive engagement they elicited. The finding here was not that the method worked, but that she was able to articulate what did not work for her in her design process, and her suggestions for the next iteration have been invaluable. We are continuing to collaborate, and are making plans for her to be an integral part of the next iteration of this work. Our openness has helped to foster this productive relationship, and the research (and the researcher) are better for it.
On the other hand, as I was reading I kept thinking about another teacher I am working with who was also resistant, but in a less productive way. This teacher stated plainly that these methods were antithetical to what he had been taught, and was less willing to try a new method. The reviews for that course reflected this resistance; the students felt that the course did not flow well, that their teacher was not present, and that they had to "learn everything on my own." I like the idea of being transparent in my research process, and the notion of using a semi-formal space like a blog to write up initial thoughts and get feedback and engage in discussion with a community is very appealing. However, even writing this I am hesitant because if either of these teachers see this post, they will see how I have characterized them in opposition to one another, and they will be able to identify themselves. I have pulled out information and am forming a broader narrative about teacher learning, using the teachers' experiences as examples of different types of learners, but I risk making them uncomfortable and construing characterizations as negative when they are meant only to be representative of the different experiences we have seen in the many teachers with whom we have worked.
(And I know they might look. One teacher did an extensive (an kind of intrusive) Google search of me when we started working together. This teacher dug far past my teaching career into my college activities and performance hobbies. All of this information is public knowledge, and in pieces it doesn't seem odd, but given the context of our work together it just seemed to overstep something.)
This leads to a host of privacy and ethical issues that both Hardey (2011) and Wakeford and Cohen (2008) discussed, but in my opinion did not address deeply enough. I don't want researchers to be frightened of the technology, as I have mentioned in other posts, but at the same time we need to understand the gravity of the potential consequences of being so open. When my advisor first wanted to write a blog post about our research to post to the community for feedback, I felt uncomfortable and exposed. I didn't want to show them our unfinished work. But the feedback and questions that emerged were so helpful, and I realized how important opening up can be. So as I read Wakeford and Cohen in particular, I found myself wanting to try fleshing out my observations in a public forum. I have been keeping a research diary, in which I write entries after a discussion or email or meeting, but I haven't taken the time to flesh those out. As I enter into the writing phase and am designing the next iteration, the idea that I could present initial thoughts to a community and to my research participants is appealing. But in addition to worrying about how my research participants would feel about my characterizations and analysis, I am concerned that these public and unrefined characterizations and analyses could actually put my participants at risk. What if their principals saw this? How would they react to these teachers' behavior?
So I guess I'm saying I'm kind of stuck. I want to be more open. I want the feedback from the community, including the participants. But are the risks too big? Should we only be "sort-of open," only sharing more mature-but-not-quite-finished analyses? I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)