Student Voice

Cairns4.jpgThe following post is the final assignment for my Master of Education (Knowledge Networks & Digital Innovation) taken through Charles Sturt University. This final piece of writing brings student voice into this journey via narrative analysis of students discussing their beliefs about knowledge and technology use.

Narrative Analysis of Student Personal Epistemologies and How Students Think These Beliefs Influence Their Technology Use in a Year 9 Science Classroom.

Abstract

Despite widespread integration of technology in education, and demands for students to be adept knowledge workers, actual “on the ground” uses of technology by students remain underexplored. Well-developed student epistemological beliefs are reported to underpin a number of positive learning outcomes. This qualitative phenomenological case study, explored the epistemological beliefs of a group of Year 9 students, selected via convenience sampling. Epistemological beliefs were explicated from narrative data, collected from a focus group. Results from coding this data and thematic analysis indicated a predominance of context specific, naive epistemologies. Further analysis suggested that the student participants had limited awareness of how their technological practices were influenced by these personal epistemologies. The implications are a need for students underdeveloped personal epistemologies to be strengthened by deliberate intervention. This is important in new cultures of learning where information technology is a participatory medium and students construct knowledge in social ways.

Context of the case study

Today’s society requires that people think critically about problems (Ulyshen, Koehler & Gao, 2015) perhaps driven by imperatives to prepare technology-oriented workers (Selwyn, 2016). Within Australian schools, these imperatives are reflected in a curriculum that asks students to pose questions, identify and clarify information as well as transfer this knowledge into new contexts (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.d.). Technologies should also be used to collect, authenticate and interpret data from a range of sources (ACARA, 2016). Yet the digital literacies (Bawden, 2008; Chase & Laufenberg, 2011) and information behaviours (Bawden, 2012) of students appear to be largely unknown. Without reliable knowledge of how students find and use information, the work of the digital teacher may be based only on guesswork and prejudice (Bawden, 2012). Consequently, there is an urgent need to explore the often compromised and constrained social realities of technology use in educational settings (Selwyn, 2010). This need for student-centred exploration is heightened by changed classroom contexts typified by comprehensive digital learning environments (Veletsianos, 2016) in which little is known about the effects of one-to-one computing initiatives on learning from online information (Kennedy, Rhoads & Leu, 2016).

Previous work by this author (Keily, 2017) explored teacher technological, pedagogical and epistemological beliefs which may impact on effective technology integration, resulting in a low prevalence of student centred technology uses (Ottenbreit, Glazewski, Newby & Ertmer, 2010). These observations regarding teacher practice, point to an urgent need to explore technology use from a student-centred perspective, to determine if student epistemic reasoning influences how they use technology in the classroom. The voice of the student remains silent in much research on contemporary classroom use of technology, including analysis of the multi-dimensional aspect of personal epistemologies in middle school students (Schommer-Aikins, Mau, Brookhart & Hutter, 2000).

With regard to student views about knowledge, a brief review of literature shows that student beliefs play a critical role in learning (Bendixen & Feucht, 2010; Brookhart & Hutter, 2000; Mason, Boscolo, Tornatora & Ronconi, 2011; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2000). These beliefs influence GPA (Schommer, 1993; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2000) and are enacted when students evaluate information, engage in inquiry and deal with ill-structured problems (Ulyshen et al., 2015). Therefore, there is a need to focus teaching not only on cultivating student content knowledge but also on their complex beliefs about knowledge and knowing (Mason et al., 2011). To inform such an approach, this paper explores student personal epistemologies and how they link these beliefs with technology use, in an attempt to make “better sense of why technologies are used (and not used) in the ways they are in education.” (Selwyn, 2016 Loc 3494).

In direct response to the above contexts and the brief theoretical perspectives presented in literature, the following research question was posed:

What are Year 9 students’ beliefs about knowledge and how do they think these beliefs influence their use of technology, when learning in a Year 9 science classroom?

This research question is the central mast to which the ensuing case study is anchored and connects questions, concepts and data (Punch & Oancea, 2014). It also reflects the main tenet of qualitative research of seeing through the eyes of others (Bryman, 2012).

Structured case study approach

I declare a personal bias towards research as a human construction and the postmodern view that reality can be accessed through narratives (Bryman, 2012). The following hermeneutical phenomenological case study was informed by the above biases and a constructivist paradigm. To avoid an objectivist conception of reality (Bryman, 2012) a quantitative approach did not inform this study as the focus was on understanding “the social world through examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants.” (Bryman, 2012, p. 380). This small-scale research was also informed through the interpretive lens of this researcher as both reflective practitioner and researcher (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016, p. 69). Informed deeply by teaching practice, it was deemed pertinent to explore the perspective of the Year 9 Student participants in detail, where knowledge is gained by understanding the direct experiences of others (McMillan & Wergin, 2010).

As illustrated in Figure 1, the research design followed an empirical approach as suggested by McMillan and Schumacher (2014) and modified for the purposes of this research.

 

The site of this study was a dedicated Year 9 campus of an all boys college, situated in inner city Melbourne. This secondary school has a well implemented 1:1 laptop policy supported by good infrastructure. Four Year 9 student participants were chosen from this researcher-practitioner’s science class via convenience sampling (Bryman, 2012). This selection poses issues of generalizability (Bryman, 2012) but the aim was to build an analysis that was credible, plausible and resonated with the context, including other research (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016, p. 155). The students’ identities were protected by the use of the pseudonyms Harry, Patrick, Stuart and Trevor.

These students participated in a focus group, as a technique to interview groups of interviewees (Bryman, 2012; O’Toole & Beckett, 2016; Punch & Oancea, 2014) while collecting narrative data on their knowledge beliefs and technology uses, released via group interactions (Bryman, 2012). This idiographic approach is at the cost of external validity (Bryman, 2012), however, this limitation is balanced by naturalistically collected data and insights that honours the agency of the participants (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016). The proposed methodology links into theories of learning that call upon, student-student, student-teacher, teacher-content and student-content interactions that may lead to deep and meaningful learning (Anderson, 2016).

Based on Schommer-Aikins’ epistemological belief system (Schommer-Aikins, 2004), the interview questions published in Appendix A were used to guide a semi-structured interview. This technique is effective in exploring participant’s “perceptions, meanings, definitions and constructions of reality” (Punch & Oancea, 2014, p181), which is vital whilst exploring belief systems as a complex network of attitudes and values (Ottenbreit, Glazewski, Newby & Ertmer, 2010).

The narrative data collected from focus group interactions was digitally recorded and then self-transcribed into a text document. This transcribed text data was then shared with the student participants for member checking (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016 p. 16); minimal changes were made.

With the aim of answering the research question, descriptive and inferential coding, as per Punch & Oancea (2014) was undertaken using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS), specifically NVivo software (Bryman, 2012). To build “intimate familiarity” (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016, p. 151) with the data, the original transcript was read through without taking notes or considering any interpretation. Upon further reading, reflective notes were taken and respondents key words annotated. Codes were then constructed using NVivo while reading the text and listening to the original digital recording. Categories were then built up out of groups of code (Saldana, 2009). Table B1 in Appendix B tabulates these core categories (Bryman, 2012) and the coding framework that emerged from this interaction with the narrative data. Finally, the categorised data was sifted manually for further emergent themes.

To validate investigations, researchers often use triangulation across data sources (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014). As this proposed research did not collect a number of data sets triangulation was not possible. For some types of analysis, a single incident is meaningful (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014).

The framework published in Appendix C guided an ethical approach to this research. Consent was gained from the school and all parent/guardians of the participants before interviewing. Relevant consent forms are documented in Appendix D and Appendix E. At the beginning of the focus group interview, each student also provided verbal consent after a brief explanation on the purpose of the recording was provided.

Critical analysis, evaluation and recommendation

Recorded narrative data exposed a tangle of beliefs about knowledge, technology and learning. The following analysis links voiced student beliefs to the research question before moving towards recommendations for classroom practice.

The research findings expressed below, are linked to the research question via three emergent themes identified by the teacher-facilitator. These themes were: Being Knowledgeable, Trusted Networks and Unknown Beliefs.

Being Knowledgeable

The students found difficulty in explaining what they thought knowledge is and therefore expressed their views in terms of being knowledgeable, that is, something that people have and can be passed onto someone else. As Patrick stated, “you should be able to teach it and… share it with everybody else.” Patrick believed that knowledge was gained by “digging deep” and that knowledgeable people know “how to teach it and really…how to communicate what [they] are thinking about… with other people.” This view resonated with Stuart’s description of knowledge in terms of the “ability to understand and share ideas you have learnt in a way where you are confident with what you are saying and know what you are saying.” This focus on the learning process and being knowledgeable appears to avoid defining knowledge per se. This conclusion is supported by the emergent coding (Appendix B) that shows a tendency to discuss learning in place of knowledge. Of interest, when Trevor was asked “What is knowledge?” he responded only after listening to other opinions by stating that knowledge is located “In your brain”. Harry also expressed his belief of knowledge in terms of being “really knowledgeable” and being able to “communicate what you are thinking about that with other people.” In these instances, the students are grappling with the nature of knowledge, which is what epistemologies are all about. These responses suggest that the participants view knowledge as a separate entity that can be passed between people and as we will see below, technology.

The students connected the above views to their technology use by saying that technology can assist with learning, as declared by Steven, “You use… technology to enhance the learning we are doing in the class and act as an online teacher.” Similarly, Patrick stated this idea in terms of “So, if a teacher can be a source, but a teacher isn’t always, you know, at your fingertips. Technology is.” In summary, as described by Trevor, when asked how technology can make you more knowledgeable, he replied “It’s got everything in there.”

In this context, the Year 9 students’ somewhat naive beliefs about knowledge were focussed on being or becoming knowledgeable and technology was used as a source to become knowledgeable, as a substitute for the teacher.  Their reflections indicate that they enact these knowledge beliefs by using technology to “get more knowledgeable” (Harry) or as described by Stuart the “laptop itself enables you to use Google, wiki or like web sites and everything”. The ideas that the students are expressing and their uses of technology suggest an absolutist or simple view of knowledge where authorities have knowledge and pass it onto others (Ulyshen, Koehler & Gao, 2015). In such a scenario knowledge is the property of experts who pass it onto others (Sandoval, Greene & Braten, 2016).

By asking questions, including “digital questions”, the students seem to be verifying the knowledge that they are accessing. In the classroom context, they are placing most trust in the teacher, a necessary strategy given the proliferation of knowledge claims in the modern world (Sandoval, et al., 2016).

Trusted Networks

The students tapped into trusted networks to source knowledge. The key node in this network was the classroom teacher, expressed very clearly by Harry: “Well, the teacher in like a classroom, the teacher always like knows what they are talking about, whereas, like somewhere else, you don’t really have that teacher.” However, there seemed to be an understanding that the digital nature of knowledge “enables knowledge to change place”. Therefore, the students expressed a belief that knowledge could not only reside in people but as already stated above, could be pulled in from web pages and wikis via Google. In this context laptops were seen as places to “store your work really easily” (Patrick). The group also understood that they could “learn off people that have got that knowledge” (Patrick).

The general view of gaining knowledge to become knowledgeable was voiced succinctly by Patrick: “If we weren’t in a science classroom, I think our main source of, just like say we were outside you know just in the city, our main source of knowledge, if we were to find out something would be technology. But seeing that we are in a classroom, then our main source of knowledge will be the teacher.”

The student participants held tightly to the belief that the teacher was the main source of knowledge.  However, this reflective judgment of knowledge (Schommer-Aikins, Brookhart & Hutter, 2000) indicates that they are grappling with multiple sources of knowledge (Ho & Liang, 2015) and indirectly voicing the perception that knowledge can be sourced from various locations. The above conversation indicates that their epistemic cognition is context specific, an idea that is reported in literature (Osterholm, 2009; Sandoval, et al., 2016).

The key idea of teacher as source of knowledge kept arising, as summarised by Harry: “The main source of knowledge in this classroom and probably any classroom is always going to be the teacher. The person who is trying to get you to understand the knowledge.” (Harry). However, he also offered a caveat to this comment by saying, “We are going to become more and more reliant on technology and I think that eventually that’s going to be our source of knowledge.” This is an intriguing comment suggests that students are exploring ideas about the source of knowledge but reflection suggests that they have subordinated their learning to the teacher and perhaps technology. This again results in them using technology to source knowledge.

What is largely absent from the student dialogue is a view of self as a source of knowledge. On only one occasion were external sources challenged when Trevor asked very hesitantly, “Would you be, you would sort of be your own source of knowledge, wouldn’t you?” This suggests the group is exploring a belief continuum that at one end views knowledge as from authority and at the other where knowledge is constructed from reasoning (Ulyshen et al., 2015).

Unknown Beliefs

The students found difficulty in discussing the stability and structure of knowledge. When exploring these dimensions Patrick asked: “What is the structure of it [knowledge]? I don’t know if I have thought about knowledge having structure and thinking about like knowledge. There is one thing to have it but not to think about it.” Group interaction did lead to Patrick stating “It’s like what we did sort of in Chemistry. We sort of had our little bits and pieces and then now our end result is this presentation that we are making with the entire… all that chemistry.”  These responses again suggest simple views of knowledge (Schommer et al., 2000) supported by later comments from Patrick where he pondered if knowledge in Chemistry was made up of “little bits and pieces”. In general, this discussion was confusing to the students and further questioning did not dwell on these ideas.

In a similar manner, the groups found difficulty in discussing the speed of learning and ability to learn. In general, the students tended to view speed of learning and ability to learn in terms of working efficiently and using their laptops to administer information. These views were coded as “Learning as Work” in Appendix B. In the context of this discussion Patrick did state “It [the ability to learn] can vary by subjects. Like I know it happens to all of us, but the motivation for you to want to learn changes by the subject and by your interests but the ability to learn, I think that probably stays the same… it’s just whether… people actually take their chances to motivate themselves to do it.”

Although this case study is not focussing on motivation theory, it should be noted that comments about motivation may be linked to tacit knowledge beliefs. For example, students who believe that learning is quick do not invest efforts to delve deep into understanding presented material and believe learning is about memorising facts (Ho & Liang, 2015). These ideas regarding low motivation may suggest simple views of knowledge in the context of this case study.

In this case study, the students were able to talk about speed of learning and the ability to learn in a naive way. They may have also not quite understood the questions as posed or are confusing concepts of information with concepts of knowledge.  This is not surprising as schools engage students in discussions on learning but the same is not true about knowledge beliefs (Schommer-Aikins, et al., 2000).

Conclusion and Recommendations

This case study aimed to determine Year 9 students’ beliefs about knowledge and how they think these beliefs influence their use of technology. The collected data indicates that the participants viewed knowledge as something external to themselves. Led by this explicit belief they articulated the strategy of using technology to source knowledge from various locations.

These students found difficulty in expressing views about the structure and certainty of knowledge. It is possible that they do have an understanding of these epistemologies but they were not explicated in the context of the focus group. Additionally, to understand the role of knowledge beliefs on learning is to study actual learning processes, such as how students approach problems or how they select and integrate information (Ulyshen et al., 2015).  The methodology used in this case study may not have activated these more tacit understandings.

This case study has provided important insights into how the student participants view knowledge and therefore make use of their technologies to learn. The students demonstrated lack of experience in discussing their epistemic reasoning. Therefore, they should be provided with growth pathways to develop their epistemic reasoning via active discussion and exploration in the classroom setting. Scholarly works suggests that if individuals are aware of their epistemic beliefs, their influence on learning may be magnified (Ulyshen, et al., 2015).

It is important to acknowledge that epistemological research, as an area concerned with the nature and justification of human knowledge, is not a single, coherent field. As an area of expansion, research is shifting away from viewing thinking and knowing as an individual activity to viewing them as fundamentally social activities (Sandoval, et al., 2016). Indeed, the ontological separation of teachers, learners and knowledge is giving way and challenging dominant pedagogies grounded in the model of tabula rasa – that subordinates learning to teaching (Atkinson, 2015). Future research should aim to build students understanding of knowledge that is subject to social discussion, validation and application (Anderson, 2016). Furthermore, networked pedagogies must be developed to reflect the zeitgeist of the 21st century, where digitally connected and social learning consists of the ability to traverse open and digital networks (Downes, 2012) while making meaning of the world.

References

Atkinson, D. (2015). The adventure of pedagogy, learning and the not-known. Subjectivity8(1), 43-56.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). The Australian Curriculum: Critical and Creative Thinking. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016, December 16). Digital Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download/

Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy. In Digital literacies: Concepts, policies & practices (pp. 17–32). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Bawden, D. & Robinson, L. (2012). Information behaviour. In Introduction to Information Science. (pp. 187 – 210). London. Facet.

Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. C. (Eds.). (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: OUP.

Chase, Z., & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Digital literacies: Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535–537.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/58207

Ho, H. N. J., & Liang, J. C. (2015). The relationships among scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and motivation of learning science: a study of Taiwan high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2688-2707.

Hofer, B.K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378 – 405.

Ruffus, A. M. (2010). Educating for the knowledge age: A collective case study of teachers’ beliefs in a problem based learning environment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/748763646?accountid=10344

Keily, S.G. (2015). From research question to research design. A proposed experiment on design thinking in education [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/austeach/paper-2/

Keily, S.G. (2017). Qualitative Research Paper – Narrative analysis of epistemological beliefs [Blog Post]. Retrieved from: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/austeach/paper-4/

Kennedy, C., Rhoads, C., & Leu, D. J. (2016). Online research and learning in science: A one-to-one laptop comparison in two states using performance based assessments. Computers & Education, 100, 141-161.

Knight, S & Mercer, N. (2017). Collaborative epistemic discourse in classroom-information seeking tasks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 33 – 50.

Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2016). Issues in research, design, and development of personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

Mason, L., Boscolo, P., Tornatorao, M. C. & Ronconi, L. (2013). Besides knowledge. a cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instructional Science, 41(1), 49-79.

McMillan, J, H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from http://ww.amazon.com.au

McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2010). Understanding and evaluating educational research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill.

Ottenbreit, A.T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T.J. & Ertmer, P.A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321-1335.

O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2013). Educational research: Creative thinking and doing (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Punch, K.F., & Oancea, A.E. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education (Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com.au

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/mrsnazlan/johnny-daldaa-the-coding-manual-for-qualitative-researchers-2009

Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origins, issues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education40(1), 457-496.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of educational psychology85(3), 406.

Schommer-Aikins. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19-29.

Schommer-Aikins, M., Mau, W-C., Brookhart, S. & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding Middle Student’s Beliefs about knowledge and learning using a multi-dimensional paradigm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 120 – 127.

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates [Kindle version]. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com.au

Ulyshen, T. Z., Koehler, M. J., & Gao, F. (2015). Understanding the connection between epistemic beliefs and Internet searching. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(3), 345-383.

Veletsianos, G. (2016). The defining characteristics of emerging technologies and emerging practices in digital education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

 

Appendices

Appendix A

Interview Guide

  • Within the context of our science classrooms what is knowledge?
  • Within the context of our science classrooms how do students gain or build knowledge?
  • How stable is this knowledge?
  • What is the structure of this knowledge?
  • What do you believe about the speed of learning in science?
  • What do you believe about the ability to learn?
  • What does it mean in current contexts of education that knowledge is digitised?

 

Within the context of each question ask, “How do you think this belief or view influences your use of technology when learning in this Science classroom?”

Appendix B

Emergent Coding

Table B1

Emergent coding from narrative analysis using NVivo software.
Code Description and key words Number of nodes
Technology Core code 51
Technology Beliefs ­Discussion on technology and how it assists with learning. 27
Technology Uses  Actual uses of technology such as Googling. 24
Epistemologies Core code 8
Location of Knowledge  Mentions of where knowledge resides. 2
Source of knowledge Mentions of how students gain knowledge.  6
Beliefs about knowledge  Other general opinions about knowledge 32
Learning Core code 21
Barriers to Learning  Perceived barriers 6
Learning as work  Descriptions of how learning is administered 15

 

Appendix C

Ethical Concerns and Recommendations: Narrative Research taken from Keily (2015).

Table C1

Ethical concerns and recommendations

Ethical concern Recommendations
Harm to participants:

Physical harm, harm to participants’ development, loss of self-esteem, stress and inducing participants to perform reprehensible acts.

 

Harm should be avoided.

Non-maleficence must be a guiding principle.

Minimise disturbances both to subjects themselves and to the subject’s relationships with their environment.

Develop strategies to keep records anonymous and report findings. Use pseudonyms to participants cannot be identified.

Work to ensure field notes do not disclose participants’ identities.

Ensure participants have a voice when dialoguing with researcher.

The safety and confidentiality of the researcher should also be considered.

Put in place data protection procedures.

Seek informed consent.

Carry out worthwhile and potentially beneficial work (beneficence).

Stage the interview so that the participant, not the researcher, gains as a result of the research.

Lack of informed consent:

Participants not fully aware of study and cannot make an informed decision about inclusion in the study or not.

Supply student participants and their guardians as much information as possible (See Bryman 2014, p. 153) so that they can make an informed decision regarding participation in the study.

Make use of a study information sheet and consent form. For example, as offered by Bryman (2014, p. 141) so as to obtain explicit consent to collect narrative information.

Participant to actively sign and return a consent form.

Deception:

Researchers represent their work as something other than what it is.  This is ethically questionable and can also bring social studies into social disrepute.

Avoid deception or covert approaches as these violate principals of informed consent.

Do not permit researchers or collaborators to pursue methods of inquiry that are likely to infringe human values and sensibilities. (Bryman, 2014, p. 143).

Participation must be voluntary and fully informed.

 

Invasion of privacy:

Information that is public enters the public domain

 

All participants have a right to privacy.

Negotiate permission to return to the field, if necessary, to seek additional data and validate emerging patterns from the narrative data.

Structure the research to ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

Use pseudonyms in place of actual participant names.

Take steps to ensure that location of research site is not identified.

All records to be kept confidential by storing and archiving raw data on a local computer with password protection.

Appendix D

Student consent form

(Knowledge Beliefs)

 

Chief Investigator

Simon Keily

I agree to participate in the above research project and give my consent freely.

I understand that the project will be conducted as described in the Information Statement, a copy of which I have retained.

I understand I can withdraw from the project at any time and do not have to give any reason for withdrawing.

I consent to:

  • Participate in a short focus group along with three other students ☐

I understand that my personal information will remain confidential to the researchers.

I have had the opportunity to have questions answered to my satisfaction.

Print Participant Name: – ___________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________

Date: _________________________

Appendix E

Guardian and student information sheet

INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS AND GUARDIANS

 

You are invited to participate in a research project called Student Knowledge Beliefs that is being undertaken by SIMON KEILY as a part of his Master of Education degree at Charles Sturt University.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of this research is to gather data via semi-structured interview that will help the researcher to develop an understanding of student epistemological beliefs. The results of this case study will help the researcher to develop an understanding of how middle years students view knowledge.

How teachers make use of technology in classrooms is effected by their beliefs about pedagogy, technology and knowledge beliefs. The voice of the student is often missing in studies that explore how these beliefs impact technology integration into the classroom.  Therefore, this short case study aims to gather information regarding student beliefs, with a specific focus on how they view knowledge and how they think these epistemological beliefs effect how they use technology in the classroom.

YOUR INVOLVEMENT

Your involvement in this study is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, I will ask you to take part in an interview that will take no longer than one hour at a mutually convenient place and time. During the interview, you will be asked questions about how you view knowledge and how these effect your use of technology.  The specific context will be the science classroom. With your permission, the interview will be audio-taped and you will be sent a transcript of the interview for verification.

POSSIBLE RISKS, INCONVENIENCES AND DISCOMFORTS

All information collected in this research will be treated with the strictest confidence and will be destroyed when I have completed my studies in this subject. You will be not be identified by name, and no details that may identify you will be used. Pseudonyms will be used in the research report, which will be submitted to my lecturer at university as an assignment. The results may be published on an online forum, for example as a blog post, but in a form that participants cannot be identified.

You are under no obligation to agree to participate in this research. If you do agree to take part, however, you are free to withdraw at any time and without providing your reasons. In the event that you decide to withdraw your participation, any data collected from you will not be used and will be discarded.

Your signature below indicates that you have read this consent form, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation in this research and voluntarily consent to participate. You will receive a copy of this form for your records.

Name of Participant (please print):______________________________

Signature: ______________________________

Name of guardian (please print): _______________________

Signature: ______________________________

Date: ______________________________

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share

Peering into Digital Futures.


Let’s start at the end: #INF537 Digital Future Colloquium. The final mountain to climb in this four-year journey into Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation.


Digital Scholarship
Exploring concepts of Digital Scholarship was hard going and at the start seemed a fuzzy concept relevant only to higher education. However, I became intrigued by ideas presented by Martin Weller and his suggestion that “…in a digital, networked, open world people become less defined by the institution to which they belong and more by the network and online identity they establish” (Weller, 2011). This quite liberating idea, relevant to all connected educators, buoyed me to explore further and eventually had me bumping into the very engaging work of George Veletsianos and his concept of Networked Participatory Scholarship (Veletsianos, 2011). Intrigued even more, especially by Veletsianos’ writings in “Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning” I moved forward to eventually author an Interpretative Essay on Digital Scholarship. This was tough going but immensely rewarding.

On the surface, the interpretative discussion that emerged seems very esoteric but I have embedded into my writing some very nuanced ways that all teachers can find a voice in education. It points the way for bringing digital, networked and open practices into secondary education, to transform social practices that surround education and yes, transform learning. Very importantly, this view of digital scholarship hands evidence-based practice back to teachers in a context where “experts” spend a lot of time talking about teachers and their work, yet, often exclude the voice of teachers themselves and their lived experiences in classrooms (Ryan et al., 2017). It also points to a digital, networked and open pedagogy which I also argue provides a path forward for secondary education. Of course, these ideas must be negotiated at a local level but they are empowering ideas to explore.

And as always the collaborative and reflective approach:

Case Study


From the above theoretical exploration of digital futures, I dove into designing a case study where I pulled together a focus group of Year 9 students so that we could explore together, their views of knowledge and how they think these beliefs affect how they use technology to learn.

This case study idea stemmed from a dive into EER500 Introduction to Educational Research and then EER501 Qualitative Research Methods that culminated in my first attempt at qualitative research where I explored the epistemological beliefs of teachers. In this site of exploration, I discovered the magic of qualitative research and the power in discussing and analysing everyday teaching practice. In my most recent case study, I found joy and professional reward in discussing knowledge beliefs and technology uses with my students. Student voice in much research and wider sectors of education is largely silent. My journey into research methods has been a blessing and informed my practice greatly. I have learned that schools are very focused on treating knowledge from very positivistic points of view. My research journey provided me with powerful insights into new ways of viewing knowledge, students and learning; both my own learning and that of my students.

At this point, albeit very briefly, I would like to declare a bias towards viewing students through a constructivist lens. I therefore see significant value in (re)viewing their learning through a qualitative paradigm and how a predominantly quantitative analysis of their learning creates a distance between us and them. This is a conversation for another post. 🤔

Of course, I have not journeyed alone, as is evidenced by the following Flipgrid and Voicethread media as rich sites of questioning, critical discussion and reflexivity. The 14 comments added at the end of my blog post “Digital Scholarship – A Conversation” also provide examples of the highly collaborative nature of this learning journey and the deep critical questioning and discussion that it entailed.

These collaborative endeavours have been hugely liberating for me. I am a product of an education system that was grounded in the model of tabula rasa – a model that subordinates learning to teaching (Atkinson, 2015). I have now gained deep, deep experience in learning in digital learning environments where learning is a very social and collaborative activity.  I have lived networked participatory scholarship and learning.

Flipgrid: Collaborative Feedback

Voicethread: Reflective Comments

The wider picture
“Power and knowledge are reflexive, they work together to change how people see each other” (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016).

How I see myself  as a learner, how I view my students and how I view the education system has shifted immensely. In a system that still isolates students in their learning, we must show them how to network in their endeavours to learn. We should not subordinate their learning to our teaching. Such attitudes and practices are very liberating for many students. I know, I have seen it in practice as I shift my teaching in very subtle ways. This reflective and reflexive approach also points to the future of education.

For one, we should not approach technology from a deterministic point of view in a hope of transforming education. There is much I could say here suffice to quote Neil Selwyn “…the history of eduction has been characterised by attempts to use the ‘power’ of technology in order to solve problems that are non-technical in nature” (Selwyn, 2016).  Furthermore, I have learnt that educational transformation comes from within, as we learn to see each other and our students in new ways. Of course that shift must include new practices –  it is time that teachers were given agency to shift education. Much #edtech talk robs teachers of this agency. Indeed, simply embedding tech into classrooms can be very ineffective, mundane even. It is teachers leveraging these technologies to build unique ways of doing that is important…the tech has no special power, but teachers working together do. And teachers working with students.

Which takes me back to some inspirational words that I came across at the start of this masters journey. John Seely Brown asks in the following video clip “How do we take these technologies and invent new types of institutional forms, new types of social practices and in fact new types of skills to be able to leverage the capabilities of the technologies?” If education is to shift towards new social practices, to discover new ways of doing then these are the questions to start with…. they propelled me on a four year journey. Watch the following video for inspiration and be prepared to dig deep.

The way forward isn’t that hard to see, you just need to be willing to question, learn and connect.

Please gift me with your thoughts.

References:
Atkinson, D. (2015). The adventure of pedagogy, learning and the not-known. Subjectivity, 8(1), 43-56.

O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2016). Educational research: Creative thinking and doing (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, M., Taylor, M., Barone, A., Della Pesca, L., Durgana, S., Ostrowski, K., Piccirillo, T., & Pikaard, K. (2017). Teacher as researcher, teacher as scholar and teacher as leader. The New Educator, 13(2), 102-116.

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates [Kindle version]. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com.au

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766-774.

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. A&C Black.

Bookmark and Share

Digital Scholarship: An Interpretive Essay

Digital Scholarship as Constructivist Leadership

Embed from Getty Images
Introduction
If teachers want reform in education, they will need to be directly involved in this journey, rather than simply be objects of study (Lierberman, 1992). This paper, therefore, positions digital scholarship in the secondary school setting as an emerging practice that has the potential to transform education, learning and teaching. The wider context is one where “experts” spend a lot of time talking about teachers and their work, yet, often exclude the voice of teachers themselves and their lived experiences in classrooms (Ryan, et al., 2017). With the intent of liberating scholarly practice from “the academy” (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016, p. 15), an inclusive view of “teacher as scholar” (Ryan, et al.) is presented. This inclusive view is supported by a perception that “in a digital, networked, open world people become less defined by the institution to which they belong and more by the network and online identity they establish” (Weller, 2011, p. 12). Emerging technologies and practices are those “not defined by [their] newness, [are] coming into being, not-yetness: and [have] unfulfilled but promising potential” (Veletsianos, 2016 p. 7). Furthermore, digital scholarship in the context of secondary education is also interpreted as “constructivist leadership” (Lowery, 2016).

Networked Participatory Scholarship
Tensions exist in literature as to how to describe and define scholarly activity that builds a reputation via social media tools typified by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Voicethread and blogs, thereby building a “nimbus of social” around scholarly impetus (Educause, 2014). Exploration of this scholarly Web 2.0 enabled activity drives us towards concepts of digital scholarship whilst encountering terms such as “social”, “conversational”, “open” as well as “Networked Participatory Scholarship” (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012 p. 778). Furthermore, depending on the context of discussions, we discover that individuals who employ digital tools in their scholarship are described as social scholars, open scholars or digital scholars (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Digital scholarship includes a range of scholarly and emerging practices, such as digital, networked and open (Weller, 2011). However, Veletsianos and Kimmons’ (2012) description of the emergent practice of Networked Participatory Scholarship is intriguing as it goes “beyond digital scholarship in both scope and value” (p. 768). This discussion takes ownership of this term as it encompasses the scholar’s “use of participatory technologies and online social networks to share, reflect upon, critique, improve, validate, and further their scholarship” (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012, p. 768). This critical approach appears to explicitly support an approach to digital scholarship as a way of academically informing practice.

Teacher as Scholar
The concept of teacher as scholar is not without precedent (Parsegian, 1976; Worrell, 1965) but a rekindling of an older view of teacher as scholar and researcher (Chall, 1986) that rests on the assumption that teachers can transform the scholarship of teaching (Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes, 2009). There are many different interpretations of what constitutes scholarship and how to describe it (Weller, 2011, p. 50) and therefore, the ensuing exploration is anchored in the Boyer model of scholarship (Boyer, 1990). This model, often perceived as institution-centric, is known for its clarity in identifying four separate but overlapping scholarly functions, namely Discovery, Integration, Application and Teaching, also described as the DIAT structure (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2011). This dynamic and capacious view of scholarship as offered by Boyer acknowledges that “knowledge is generated and acquired not just through research but through teaching as well” (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012, p. 767). This is an essential idea to hold onto while exploring digital scholarship in the secondary education setting. The following discussion journeys through Boyer’s framework, as shown in Figure 1 below, so as to provide a lens to provide clarity to digital scholarship in secondary schools.

Figure 1 Boyer’s Scholarly Framework

Scholarship of Discovery
The scholarship of discovery is about research and commitment to freedom of inquiry in a disciplined fashion. It is about thinking freely and seeing propositions of every kind in ever changing light (Boyer, 1990). How might digital scholarship be interpreted in this context of discovery, to liberate lived experiences of education?

Educational research has been democratised so that research is not just the prerogative of the university. By participating in descriptive, interpretive and change-oriented research (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016) the teacher is able to participate in “scholarly responsible [work]… [to discover new] “ways of seeing”…[and to] “test and/or seek verification of established knowledge” (p. 5). This is potentially liberating work in a school setting where teachers are often called to adopt evidence based and data driven practice (Punch & Oancea, 2014; McMillan & Schumacher, 2014) whilst also not having access to scholarly work that is held in journals hidden behind paywalls. In this realm of knowledge discovery, we can interpret Networked Participatory Scholarship as a potential framework to support the burgeoning tradition in education for critical and democratic analysis (Selwyn, 2010). Teachers-scholars in this context should support context-rich research of the often compromised and constrained social realities of technology use “on the ground” in educational settings (Selwyn, 2010).

The context of educational research is one where “today’s technologies are most significant in terms of the ways in which they alter people’s relationships with information and knowledge” (Selwyn, 2016, Loc 1867). Furthermore, in this context the ontological separation of teachers, learners and knowledge is giving way to postmodern views and net-aware theories of learning such as connectivism (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Siemens, 2004; Wheeler, 2012). This renegotiation has significant implications for how knowledge from research in the school setting is encountered. The digital scholar can once again provide transformational leadership by encouraging descriptive and interpretive research (O’Toole & Beckett, 2016). However, as a constructivist leader (Lowery, 2016) they also promote reflective and reflexive practice by exploring ideas that “knowledge is inexorably socially bound” (Lowery, 2016, p. 49).

In schools now typified by comprehensive digital learning environments (Veletsianos, 2016), which themselves are an emerging technology (Martindale & Dowdy, 2016), knowledge constructed from classroom based research, can be disseminated via social networking tools and distributed into networks of practice (Brown & Duguid, 2000). Findings can be quickly published on teacher personal web pages, blogs or open access journals and “join the emergent practice of scholars’ use of participatory technologies and online social networks to share, reflect upon, critique, improve, validate and further their scholarship” (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). The digital scholar, as constructivist leader and researcher, in this instance contributes to the collective knowledge (Downes, 2012) of digital networks.

According to theories of social constructivism (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Anderson, 2016) new ways of seeing may also emerge from such social online interaction. Therefore, in the school system, the digital scholar is a leader who is aware that learning can take place through interaction, in both physical and digital spaces, and where learning is dialogic; with an emphasis on co-creation of knowledge with others (Selwyn, 2016, Loc 1920). These are emerging but potentially significant changes in how a learning community might generate new knowledge, call upon contemporary accounts of technology, knowledge, learning and pedagogy. In this context, digital scholarship can be interpreted as a community endeavour.

Scholarship of Integration
“By integration we mean making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non-specialists, too” (Boyer, 1990, p. 18).

The University of Adelaide describes the scholarship of integration as “what you know + what I know can = new paths to new knowledge” (University of Adelaide, n.d). This is about enabling knowledge to be opened out by networked effects and used in an inter-disciplinary manner (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2017). This interdisciplinary practice is driven by a desire and ability to share (Weller, 2011) and with attitudes of openness can result in production and publishing of open education resources (Weller, 2011). These digital artefacts can be published with permissions to be reused, redistributed, revised, remixed and freely shared across digital networks. This ethos of openness is about sharing and being generous (Tedx Talks, 2010). It is interesting to note that these digital strategies mirror Boyer’s call to “move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, communicate with colleagues in other fields, and discover patterns that connect” (Boyer, 1990, p. 20). Once again, the networked and participatory scholar does this by making use of digital networks, and enacting relevant open education literacies (Kimmons, 2014). As a co-creation activity classroom students would also be called into this creative process by making use of these OER resources or publishing remixed versions; and thereby practicing visible scholarship.

Within the context of Scholarship of Integration, the digital scholar therefore pushes interdisciplinary approaches to learning to the centre of teaching practice. In this context Digital Scholarship takes place in “overlapping [academic] neighbourhoods” (Boyer, 1990, p. 19).

Scholarship of Application
Also known as scholarship of engagement, this third element asks “How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems?” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). This form of scholarship is not just about citizenship nor is it about knowledge “first ‘discovered’ and then ‘applied’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 23). It is about reflective practice and making knowledge useful, moving from theory to practice, and from practice back to theory. (Boyer, 1990; Boyer, 1996). Boyer talks about building bridges and building better lives. For the digital scholar, this can be seen as a metaphor for building digital bridges and again manipulating digital networks as a democratic process to serve the interests of the larger community (Boyer, 1996).

This is a call for action to the Networked Participatory Scholar to activate digital skills and pedagogical knowledge to improve global communities. Such an approach is exemplified by a number of collaborative projects. For instance, The Flat Classroom Project (Lindsay & Davis, 2010) brings middle and senior high school students together in a global collaborative effort. As a clear example of the application of knowledge of digital literacies and networked practices, this project aims to transform learning through global collaboration. A second example is the ‘Code the Future’ global community that brings together educators and technology developers to assist with students with coding (Code The Future, n.d.). In this application of knowledge, the Networked Participatory Scholar again acts as a constructivist leader by embracing “new spaces for democratic dialogue and acts of social justice” (Lowery, 2016) and that theory leads to practice and practice also leads to theory (Boyer, 1990).

Scholarship of Teaching
“[I]nspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive.” (Boyer 1990, p. 24).

 This is a site of an “uncertain pedagogical adventure characterised by novel modes of subjective engagement” (Atkinson, 2015, p. 43) and where the networked participatory scholar may push past dominant conceptions of pedagogy. We began within a context of teaching practitioner as researcher that broke down the false dichotomy between practice and research, that still influences our education system (O’Toole & Beckett, 2010). So, it is too at this site of teaching where pedagogy can promote “subjects/entities [to] emerge from the relationship that do not exist prior to it” (Atkinson). Thus, in this context digital scholarship promotes teaching as a “reflective dialogic practice promoting learning” (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2011, p. 15) while “participating in the perpetual Beta of knowledge creation through the co-creation of learning” (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2011, p. 15). Atkinson calls this “pedagogies of the not known” (p. 46) and “pedagogical practices as creative encounters” (p. 52). In this context, the networked and participatory scholar advances learning theory through contextual research and practice, brokers new learning experiences and develops open students (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2011).

The assumption here is that the practice of digital scholarship will make use of participatory technologies and online social networks to share, critique and improve the scholarship of teaching. The classrooms become the beginning of a journey towards social learning where understanding is socially constructed by participation in “open participatory learning ecosystems” (Brown & Adler, 2008) and learning consists of the ability to traverse these open, digital networks (Downes, 2012).

 Conclusion
“We acknowledge that these four categories, and of teaching – divide intellectual functions that are tied inseparably to each other.” (Boyer, 1990)

In the school setting networked and participatory scholars give voice to reform. Working in the space where digital, networked and open approaches to teaching and learning converge they act as constructivist leaders and actively encourage community practice. The digital scholarship that they promulgate bridges theory with practice and pays homage to Boyer’s viewpoint that knowledge is not developed in a linear fashion and teaching shapes both research and practice. The digital practitioner-scholar embodies agile leadership in new cultures of digital learning whilst venturing into the realm of knowledge networks and digital innovation.

References

Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning12(3), 80-97.

Atkinson, D. (2015). The adventure of pedagogy, learning and the not-known. Subjectivity8(1), 43-56.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for The Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from: https://depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf

Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11-20

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-20.

Brown, J, S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Retrieved from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/knowledgeorganization.html

Code The Future. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.codefuture.org/about

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/58207

Educause. (2014). Bryan Alexander: A digital scholarship scenario [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Xo4KBJnW-zs

Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. (2011). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 5-17.

Kimmons, R. M. (2014). Developing open education literacies with practicing K-12 teachers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning15(6). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1964/3133

Lieberman, A. (1992). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational researcher, 21(6), 5-12.

Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2010). Navigate the digital rapids. Learning & Leading with Technology37(6), 12-15.

Lowery, C. L. (2016). The scholar–practitioner ideal. Journal of School Leadership. 26, 34-60.

Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2016). Issues in research, design, and development of personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

McMillan, J, H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from http://ww.amazon.com.au

O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2013). Educational research: Creative thinking and doing (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Parsegian, V. P. (1976). The teacher as scholar. Journal of Teacher Education. 27(4), 301.

Punch, K.F., & Oancea, A.E. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education (Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com.au

Ryan, M., Taylor, M., Barone, A., Della Pesca, L., Durgana, S., Ostrowski, K., Piccirillo, T., & Pikaard, K. (2017). Teacher as researcher, teacher as scholar and teacher as leader. The New Educator, 13(2), 102-116.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism. A learning theory for the digital age [Blog Post]. Retrieved from: http://www.elearnspace.org/articles/connectivism.htm

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates [Kindle version]. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com.au

TeDx Talks. (2010). TEDxNYED – David Wiley – 03/06/10. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/Rb0syrgsH6M

University of Adelaide. (n.d.) Boyer scholarship reconsidered. Retrieved from: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/professions/pedagogical-possibilities/scholarship/boyer/#

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766-774.

Veletsianos, G. (2016). The defining characteristics of emerging technologies and emerging practices in digital education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120258

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice [Kindle version]. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/

Wheeler, S. (2012). Theories for the digital age: Connectivism [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://www.steve-wheeler.co.uk/2012/10/theories-for-digital-age-connectivism.html.

Worrell, F. (1965). Teachers as scholars. Science, 147 (3656), 358-358.

Bookmark and Share

Case Study Proposal for #INF537

Embed from Getty Images

As part of this capstone subject to the Master of Education program that I am in the process of completing, I need to complete a Case Study.  My proposal is presented below:

Area of Interest: Student Personal Epistemologies and Technology Practices

The Proposal: 

Topic: Student beliefs about knowledge and how these beliefs affect their uses of mobile technology for learning.

Draft Research Question: What are Year 9 students’ beliefs about knowledge and how do they think these beliefs influence their use of technology when learning in a Year 9 science classroom.

Description of project including information, learning, social or organisational needs, problems or concerns to be addressed.

Education is short of classrooms that permit students to engage with technology in ways that prepare them to use technology in the real world (Ertmer et al, 2012). Teachers beliefs about knowledge influence how they integrate technology into the classroom (Ertmer & Ottenberg-Leftwich, 2010).

What students think knowledge is, is a critical component of student learning (Hofer, 2001) but there seems a paucity of research on how student knowledge beliefs influence technology use when learning.

Seeing through others’ eyes is one of the main tenets of qualitative research (Bryman, 2014). Therefore, this case study will explore students’ knowledge beliefs and how these students think their personal epistemologies affect their use of technology, in the science classroom.

Expected outcomes: –

Qualitative narrative data will be collected and coded using NVivo, a computer assisted data analysis tool (Bryman, 2012). Narrative data will be collected via a focus group to allow a viewpoint to be built up out of group interaction (Bryman, 2014). Emergent themes will be explored (Saldana, 2009). The outcome will be the researcher-practitioner critically reflecting on his own theory and practice. Starting from where the student is (O’Tools & Beckett, 2016 p.9) the goal is to “understand” (Bryman, 2014 p. 29) student relationships with knowledge and associated technology behaviors, thereby informing teaching practice in the science classroom.Case study plan

 

Table 1: Case Study Plan
CSU STUDY Week Date Research Activities
5 7th August Submit draft proposal (This document).

Post proposal to interact to gain peer feedback/comments.

Seek permission from Principal (Already done)

6 14th August Consult and review literature to seek further direction and provide solid theoretical foundation.

Begin to write interview questions for focus group.

Select student participants (4) and seek parental permission via CareMonkey & hardcopy.

Communicate to parents’ ethical framework to protect participant privacy.

7 21st August Continue brief literature review and refine research question

Design questions for semi-structured interview.

8 28th August Submit to School Principal proposed research question and questions for semi-structured interview.

Obtain final permission to proceed from school Principal.

(Assessment item 2 is due Monday 28th August)

9 4th September Away on Year 9 School Camp.
10 11th September Complete group interview on Year 9 Campus.

Record focus group discussion digitally (video) for future transcription. (Focus group, 1hr)

Begin transcription of interview data.

11 18th September Input data in NVivo Software and begin thematic coding

Follow up with focussed interview if required (and time permitting)

(School term break 23rd Sept – 8th October)

12 25th September Continue coding/report writing.
13 2nd October Continue with coding data/final writing.
14 9th October Submit case study Wednesday 11th October/ END.

 

References:

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: OUP

Ertmer, P.A., Ottenberg-Leftwich, A.T. (2010) Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education59(2), 423-435.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review13(4), 353-383.

O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2013). Educational research: Creative thinking and doing (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sellar, S. & Cormack, P. (2006, November). (Re)conceptualising Middle Years Pedagogy. Paper presented at the Symposium “Pedagogical Reform in the Middle Years” at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide.

Bookmark and Share

Communities of Practice

eomemonpractice
ˈpraktɪs/
noun
  1. the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories relating to it.
    “the principles and practice of teaching”

I have been asked to respond to the following two questions:

What are your thoughts and experiences with ‘Communities of practice’ – theory and real life observations?

How important is it to belong to and learn with a community (#such as INF537). Given a choice would you prefer to work/learn alone? Why?

Communities of practice are groups of people who share concerns or a passion for something they do – and very importantly learn how to do it better via regular interaction (Wenger, 2011). The following few Twitter interactions, taken from one of many from my previous week of online interactions,  demonstrate this idea very succinctly.

Earlier this week I reached out with a simple question:

I very quickly obtained a response that presented to me an ocean of ideas and possibilities that collided with mine, providing a rich learning experience.

My discussion also led to me bumping into the following tweet that provided an interesting viewpoint on digital pedagogies, which I have been exploring actively over the last few years.

Each of these chance interactions hints at a limitless exchange of ideas that can lead to very meaningful professional discovery.

Over the last six plus years of very active online participation, I have experienced first hand the networked contexts and encounters that I am currently exploring while being mindful of the digital futures of education and pedagogy. It is within these communities of practice where theories of digital learning become a reality. For example, it is where concepts such as connectivism (the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections), paragogy (Corneli & Danoff, 2011) and peeragogy (Rheingold, 2012) become part of my everyday practice and scholarship.

With the digital futures of education in mind, it is here that we need to take our peers and students to allow them to learn that good learning is social.

Reference:

Corneli, J., & Danoff, C. J. (2011) Paragogy. In: Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/Paragogy-talk-PDF.pdf

Rheingold, H. (2012). Toward peeragogy. DML Central, 23 [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://dmlcentral.net/blog/howard-rheingold/toward-peeragogy

Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736

 

Bookmark and Share

Digital Scholarship – A Conversation

What are your thoughts on Digital Scholarship?
I am exploring ideas of #digped as part of a Master of Education programme (Knowledge Networks & Digital Innovation) and the relevance of Digital Scholarship to the secondary sector.
In describing Digital Scholarship Martin Weller says people always get bogged down by definitions and so describes digital scholarship as shorthand for the following three things intersecting:
Digital content, distributed by networks, with open and associated practices and technologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The intersection of these three approaches provides fertile ground for the transformation of practice ( Weller, 2011) -which I am thinking also applies to teaching practice in the secondary sector.

Via a comment below, you are invited to leave your thoughts on the following questions.

What do YOU think digital scholarship is?

Is digital scholarship a useful and practical term?

Is it relevant to your sector? How?

Will this model of Digital Scholarship lead to traditional pedagogies being challenged?

Or else, post a question if you are not sure of the meaning of the above ideas.

If you came here via twitter please retweet my tweet.

Weller’s blog is here, if you are curious: http://blog.edtechie.net/

References:

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. A&C Black.

Bookmark and Share

Innovation without change? (Again)

I recently participated in an online group colloquia led by Bruce Dixon from Modern Learners, who are doing great things in the education space. Amongst other things, we discussed whether we thought that the schools that we taught in were catering for the modern learners that inhabit our classrooms. The resounding opinion was that they were not. This is no surprise as emerging scholarly analysis shows this loud and clear. In fact, much effort is now directed towards building explanations of why teaching practice is not shifting in response to the changing contexts of teaching. See here my own small amount of research that provides a brief background on this work, with a focus on teacher beliefs about knowledge. In summary, the dominant pedagogies that we all rely on have not changed in any significant way. We embrace the ubiquity of technology and then return to the didactic pedagogy of transmission of knowledge (Wright & Parchoma, 2011).

To prompt discussion, Bruce provided the following idea to reflect on, as first advocated by Seymour Papert. Perhaps we have forgotten that students in our care come to school to learn how to learn.  What are your thoughts here?  What does it mean to learn?

Looking Back.

Why the lack of significant pedagogical change in our education system? I have written elsewhere on this blog about the paradox of innovation without change, which to be brutally honest, means there has been little innovation in teaching practice. It is time to be honest.

Within this context, it is worth giving time to the following ideas.

“Schools and schooling have a long history and practices that persist over time even after the origins of the practice are long forgotten” (Bigum, 2012). Drawing on Actor Network Theory, Bigum argues that past ways of doing things, play a role in not only what can be done but also on what can be imagined is significant. An online version of this paper is available below.

What tracks laid down long ago do you think continue to frame and shape present day pedagogies, so that predominantly transmissionist pedagogies persist in our classrooms?

Please gift me with your thoughts.

References:

Bigum, C. (2012). Edges, exponentials & education: disenthralling the digital. In L. Rowan (Ed.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: Future Proofing Education (pp. 29-43). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://chrisbigum.com/downloads/disenthralling.pdf

Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2011). Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of ‘affordances’ in research on mobile learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 247-258.

Bookmark and Share

Digital Futures – The Threat of Technology

And so here I am, nearly at the end of a Charles Sturt University, Master of Education – specialising in Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation.  To finish this learning journey, we (myself and study peers) have been asked to navigate a unit on Digital Futures, designed to open debate and scholarship.

Is technology a threat to education?  This provocation has been offered to us within an educational context where learning scholars acknowledge that technology is an integral element of contemporary education. And yet, while much of the education sector is now dripping in technology, there is little evidence to show that learning outcomes, as we currently measure them, have been improved by this technology.

What do you think the digital future of education entails?

Keep in mind that the rhetoric that surrounds educational technology does not match the messy reality – where many argue, little transformation of teaching and learning has taken place.

You might enjoy the following simple prompt:

I look forward to you joining in on this debate by posting here.

Simon

Bookmark and Share

Characteristics of the Innovator’s Mindset

Image from Chapter 3 “The Innovator’s Mindset” (Couros, 2015)

 

My response to Chapter 3: The innovator’s mindset: Empowering learning, unleash talent and lead a culture of creativity (Couros, 2015).

OK, so I haven’t blogged in many months, mostly because of the demands of teaching and study which I must admit is testing my resilience: – )   But alas, soonish (by years end) the M.Ed study will be done.

Resilience and innovation.

So, what do I make of Chapter Three of The Innovator’s mindset?  This chapter has overtones of Design Thinking whilst describing innovators as needing to be: empathetic, problem finders/solvers, risk takers, networked, observant, creative, resilient and reflective.  This description of innovation as a mindset is illustrated in the image that heads this blog post. The beauty of such a perspective is that innovation is viewed as a mindset rather than something external to us (teachers & students) such as a series of steps to follow. This is a vital idea to ponder as too often we try to externalize ideas such as innovation (or even the scientific method) as a recipe to follow, whereas the above view of innovation as a mindset encourages a very human-centered approach to innovation. Alleluia to handing a sense of agency to teachers/educators and ultimately students; Couros quotes “What we model is what we get – Jimmy Casas”

An aspect of innovation that I very doggedly focus on in my classrooms is encouraging students to be problem finders/solvers.  Rather than handing recipe like questions to my students, via the use of active note taking strategies, I very persistently have them design their own questions about the material we might be covering.  I have found that driving lessons via teacher led questions encourages students to passively focus only on answering those questions. They might be able to find information to answer the recipe like questions but in reality learn little by doing so.  In our digital age finding information to answer questions is easy….designing questions is harder. Surprisingly, a more learner-centred approach that regularly demands students to formulate their own question is at the outset damn hard work. Such such an active approach requires a significant shift in our student’s thinking as they are not overly confident about making their own questions visible – remember the context of my teaching is at present all Yr 9 boys. Such a shift though is vital in building student centred pedagogies that recognise the 21st Century context we all live and learn in.

In previous posts, I have answered the chapter questions as posed by Couros but here I am going to pose my own:

  • Does innovation come from within or should we apportion it to …umm, technology or our use of technology?
  • Is education currently too focused on a deterministic view of technology that apportions innovation elsewhere; innovation in machines?
  • As a head of eLearning in an educational setting, should I focus on bringing tools into this setting or encouraging innovative mindsets? 🙂

Please gift me with your comments.

Reference:

Couros, G. (2015). The innovator’s mindset. Empowering learning, unleash talent, and lead a culture of creativity. Available from https://www.amazon.com.au/Innovator%E2%80%99s-Mindset-Empower-Learning-Creativity-ebook/dp/B016YTBZKO

 

Bookmark and Share