The Open University has been using a VLE for some time and it has many applications.
I had some training today in using the Managed Learning Environment (MLE) which the school at which I am a Deputy Head teacher is about to launch. I think that this should be added to the education technology timeline since it can encompass many aspects of social networking, collaborative learning and communication.
I particularly liked the idea that students can hand in assignments via the MLE and will get a countdown to the deadline. (So will staff as regards their deadlines!)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Table 3.1
For this post I am just looking at the second and third columns of table 3.1 and the first three readings.
Does anyone know a good way of adding atable - this didn't come out very well.
Does anyone know a good way of adding atable - this didn't come out very well.
Reading Three Laurillard How can learning technologies improve learning?
As Laurillard points out, it is impossible to prove that any one method 'improves learning' because learning is always context dependent.
If computer based learning is to improve learning, several points are made by the author:-
If computer based learning is to improve learning, several points are made by the author:-
- SLG support is needed
- accreditation leads to a higher value being placed on the system by the users
- expected/desired learning outcomes should be specified (wiki/online/blended courses)
- assessment must be made clear (cf chartered London teacher status)
- interactive tasks with immediate feedback are better
I have 'discovered' the first four of the above whilst developing my staff wiki.
The last one of the above bullet points is of interest to me in terms of my project for H809 since it might imply that a set period of time should be set aside for certain activities on the wiki. This is certainly what I do with the OU course which I tutor and the discussion activities which I post there.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
positivism and evidence based practice
One of my fellow students posed the question: what is Evidence Based Practice and is it the same as positivism?
I have been wrestling with this thought for a couple of days now.
Positivists take the view that knowledge is developed by applying methods from the natural sciences – that is, that it is based on behaviour that is observable rather than on values or reasons. This means that it is based on experimental evidence or (at least) on quantitative analysis.
E891 Educational Enquiry: Study Guide prepared by Martyn Hammersley, pages 18-21:-
EBP movement began in medicine (EBM), using, for example randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which are intended to be easily replicated in other circumstances. However, even in medicine, the EBM approach may well be tempered with experiential evidence. This might also involve observation and interviewing.
So it might be appropriate to say that EBM/EBP may use evidence from a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative data but it must be valid and reliable. For EBP to affect practice, it is likely that generalisability will also be sought, although some (Schofield, 2007, Dellinger and Leech, 2007, Ely et al., 1999) might view this as being less of a necessity, provided that thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) are used so that the reader can determine the degree of fit with her/his own context.
So I do not think that postivism and EBP equate totally, since there is an opportunity for EBP to draw on qualitative methods.
Dellinger, A. B. and leech, N. L. (2007) ‘Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research’ in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, 309-332
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. and Anzul, M. (1999) ‘On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words’. London: Falmer Press
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basicflooks
Hammersley, M. (2007) E891 Study Guide for Open University
Schofield, J. (2007) ‘Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research’ in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Educational research and evidence-based practice. London: Sage
I have been wrestling with this thought for a couple of days now.
Positivists take the view that knowledge is developed by applying methods from the natural sciences – that is, that it is based on behaviour that is observable rather than on values or reasons. This means that it is based on experimental evidence or (at least) on quantitative analysis.
E891 Educational Enquiry: Study Guide prepared by Martyn Hammersley, pages 18-21:-
EBP movement began in medicine (EBM), using, for example randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which are intended to be easily replicated in other circumstances. However, even in medicine, the EBM approach may well be tempered with experiential evidence. This might also involve observation and interviewing.
So it might be appropriate to say that EBM/EBP may use evidence from a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative data but it must be valid and reliable. For EBP to affect practice, it is likely that generalisability will also be sought, although some (Schofield, 2007, Dellinger and Leech, 2007, Ely et al., 1999) might view this as being less of a necessity, provided that thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) are used so that the reader can determine the degree of fit with her/his own context.
So I do not think that postivism and EBP equate totally, since there is an opportunity for EBP to draw on qualitative methods.
Dellinger, A. B. and leech, N. L. (2007) ‘Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research’ in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, 309-332
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. and Anzul, M. (1999) ‘On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words’. London: Falmer Press
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basicflooks
Hammersley, M. (2007) E891 Study Guide for Open University
Schofield, J. (2007) ‘Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research’ in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Educational research and evidence-based practice. London: Sage
Monday, February 16, 2009
reflections on the technology timeline in education
I started off by looking at the Virtually Scholastic blog – link on the right – and dipping into the webcast from the Open University, UK by Dr. Ian Rowlands of the Centre for Publishing at University College London. The ‘blurb’ that accompanies the video states:
“A new study overturns the common assumption that the 'Google Generation' youngsters born or brought up in the Internet age is the most web-literate. The first ever virtual longitudinal study carried out by the CIBER research team at University College London claims that, although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. The report also shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger user’s impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs are now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors. Commissioned by the British Library and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), the study calls for libraries to respond urgently to the changing needs of researchers and other users.”
This reminded me of some other reading and viewing that I have done recently. In 2007, Michael Wesch of Kansas University presented a video which highlights the way that university students use e-technology far more readily than paper and pen note taking or book study methods. Rheingold takes this into the realm of much younger learners when he considers how he explained to his ten year old daughter the care over authority which must be taken when using web based ‘knowledge’. As he goes on to suggest (2007:2), if we are not careful, schools will not be the place where true education takes place but will become little more than a seed bed for growing the required citizens of the future. In his view, real learning: “the kind of questioning, collaborative, active, lateral rather than hierarchical pedagogy that participatory media both forces and enables” will take place outside the school confines and, perhaps, despite the school teacher. This is related to what Weatherhead (2008: 20) alludes to when she describes the development of a ‘reflective community’ for classroom practitioners.[i]
Then I went on to listen to the H809 week 3 podcast. This was a discussion between three OU people: James Aczel, Chair of H809, Dr Peter Twining, Head of The Department of Education and Gráinne Conole, Professor of E-Learning. I picked up on quite a few things here (not least, a mention of constructivism – see my last post). Bearing in mind what I have written above and the discussion about a timeline of technologies and education, my first thought was that back when I was in primary school we regularly listened to radio broadcasts as part of a lesson. I found myself concentrating very hard for the podcast and wondered if this is almost an ‘antidote’ to the ‘impatience’ mentioned in the Ian Rowland lecture.
Then I also picked up on this comment from Peter Twining:
“ And that’s a key driver because you then find in schools sort of disenfranchisement of young people, who feel that school isn’t relevant to them, it’s not addressing the things that they’re interested in. It’s not using the techniques and tools that they’re used to using in their day-to-day lives, and they get switched off to them.”
As a secondary teacher and also an OU tutor on a course predominantly taken by school teachers (most of whom are significantly younger than me – not sure if that is significant or not), this resonates very strongly with my experience. Interactive whiteboards are a good example – so much of the time I see these used just as a giant screen – and I fall into that trap myself at times – rather than using them interactively with students able to pull together images, words and – thus – crystallize their ideas.
The podcast continued with this theme with James Aczel asking:
“But there is this view, isn’t there, that 20 years ago we were preoccupied with desktop computers and individual’s learning and now it’s much more about network learning and social interactions. Isn’t that the case?”
He gets the following exchange which I think is really illuminating:
“PT: That is the case, but the issues about embedding, the issues about the management of change that needs to go alongside introducing any new innovation are very similar. And in a lot of these discussions we get hung up on the technology, and we focus on the technology, and we forget that actually what we need to focus on is the educational vision. What is it we’re trying to achieve? What is the learning we want? And, therefore, what is the appropriate tool to bring in? And the management of change, because it takes us back to the complexity of education, you know, it’s not just about sticking in a machine, or building a network, or whatever. It’s about actually rethinking all aspects of how we manage our time, who’s involved, what the roles and relationships.
GC: How we design.
PT: How we design – the assessment thing is absolutely critical – on all of those – so you’re not … you’re into a very complex change process. And as soon as you’re into that, all the basic stuff we know about management of educational change applies.
GC: To say something slightly non-trendy. Yes, we have moved over to the social, and, yes, the social is very important, and clearly people are really excited about social software and the way in which social networking can support new ways of communication and dialogue and collaboration. But learning is learning and learning is also individual and it always has been. So I don’t think we should forget the individual in this as well. So, I think, again, people just get beguiled by whatever is the current thing and forget the whole and we need to remember that individual. So, yes, we’ve moved away from the computer-aided learning or CAL package, the interactive package, on a boring PC where you’ve got the person interacting, to more exciting things.
PT: You see, I don’t think we … we talk as if we have. You look at what’s actually happening in schools though. You put a VLE into schools and what’s the first thing the school does? They disable the email. Make it do what they want to do and they fit the technology to what they’re comfortable with. So all of these things …
GC: To their current practices, that’s the problem.
PT: To their current practices. So all these things we talk about, that the technology will allow us to do and, you know, all these cutting-edge people doing research are looking at all this exciting stuff, and the practitioners on the ground are adapting the technology to their current practice, by and large.”
So what is my reflection on all of these discussions?
I was left at the end of all this listening and reading with a comment that I often make when people ask me how it is that I have a high degree of education but I cannot programme the video recorder – I point out (only slightly tongue in cheek) that I just knew that BBC i-player would come along one day and that I would therefore not need to waste the energy required for that bit of learning.
I think that we can make great use of new technology as a learning tool but I believe that a bigger change is needed – what we need to do is to think about the way different people learn and fit our pedagogy to that. That is not exactly a revelation in itself. I am suggesting that the important issue is to ensure that technology is used to encourage Rheingold’s “the kind of questioning, collaborative, active, lateral rather than hierarchical pedagogy that participatory media both forces and enables”.
References
Rheingold, H. (2007) “Vision of the Future”, a presentation for education.au
Weatherhead, S. (2008) Hold on tight, we’re in for a bumpy ride, in Escalate News, Issue 12, pp220-22, York, Higher Education Academy
[i] This paragraph is from a paper which I am currently working on:- ‘wiki work’.
“A new study overturns the common assumption that the 'Google Generation' youngsters born or brought up in the Internet age is the most web-literate. The first ever virtual longitudinal study carried out by the CIBER research team at University College London claims that, although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. The report also shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger user’s impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs are now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors. Commissioned by the British Library and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), the study calls for libraries to respond urgently to the changing needs of researchers and other users.”
This reminded me of some other reading and viewing that I have done recently. In 2007, Michael Wesch of Kansas University presented a video which highlights the way that university students use e-technology far more readily than paper and pen note taking or book study methods. Rheingold takes this into the realm of much younger learners when he considers how he explained to his ten year old daughter the care over authority which must be taken when using web based ‘knowledge’. As he goes on to suggest (2007:2), if we are not careful, schools will not be the place where true education takes place but will become little more than a seed bed for growing the required citizens of the future. In his view, real learning: “the kind of questioning, collaborative, active, lateral rather than hierarchical pedagogy that participatory media both forces and enables” will take place outside the school confines and, perhaps, despite the school teacher. This is related to what Weatherhead (2008: 20) alludes to when she describes the development of a ‘reflective community’ for classroom practitioners.[i]
Then I went on to listen to the H809 week 3 podcast. This was a discussion between three OU people: James Aczel, Chair of H809, Dr Peter Twining, Head of The Department of Education and Gráinne Conole, Professor of E-Learning. I picked up on quite a few things here (not least, a mention of constructivism – see my last post). Bearing in mind what I have written above and the discussion about a timeline of technologies and education, my first thought was that back when I was in primary school we regularly listened to radio broadcasts as part of a lesson. I found myself concentrating very hard for the podcast and wondered if this is almost an ‘antidote’ to the ‘impatience’ mentioned in the Ian Rowland lecture.
Then I also picked up on this comment from Peter Twining:
“ And that’s a key driver because you then find in schools sort of disenfranchisement of young people, who feel that school isn’t relevant to them, it’s not addressing the things that they’re interested in. It’s not using the techniques and tools that they’re used to using in their day-to-day lives, and they get switched off to them.”
As a secondary teacher and also an OU tutor on a course predominantly taken by school teachers (most of whom are significantly younger than me – not sure if that is significant or not), this resonates very strongly with my experience. Interactive whiteboards are a good example – so much of the time I see these used just as a giant screen – and I fall into that trap myself at times – rather than using them interactively with students able to pull together images, words and – thus – crystallize their ideas.
The podcast continued with this theme with James Aczel asking:
“But there is this view, isn’t there, that 20 years ago we were preoccupied with desktop computers and individual’s learning and now it’s much more about network learning and social interactions. Isn’t that the case?”
He gets the following exchange which I think is really illuminating:
“PT: That is the case, but the issues about embedding, the issues about the management of change that needs to go alongside introducing any new innovation are very similar. And in a lot of these discussions we get hung up on the technology, and we focus on the technology, and we forget that actually what we need to focus on is the educational vision. What is it we’re trying to achieve? What is the learning we want? And, therefore, what is the appropriate tool to bring in? And the management of change, because it takes us back to the complexity of education, you know, it’s not just about sticking in a machine, or building a network, or whatever. It’s about actually rethinking all aspects of how we manage our time, who’s involved, what the roles and relationships.
GC: How we design.
PT: How we design – the assessment thing is absolutely critical – on all of those – so you’re not … you’re into a very complex change process. And as soon as you’re into that, all the basic stuff we know about management of educational change applies.
GC: To say something slightly non-trendy. Yes, we have moved over to the social, and, yes, the social is very important, and clearly people are really excited about social software and the way in which social networking can support new ways of communication and dialogue and collaboration. But learning is learning and learning is also individual and it always has been. So I don’t think we should forget the individual in this as well. So, I think, again, people just get beguiled by whatever is the current thing and forget the whole and we need to remember that individual. So, yes, we’ve moved away from the computer-aided learning or CAL package, the interactive package, on a boring PC where you’ve got the person interacting, to more exciting things.
PT: You see, I don’t think we … we talk as if we have. You look at what’s actually happening in schools though. You put a VLE into schools and what’s the first thing the school does? They disable the email. Make it do what they want to do and they fit the technology to what they’re comfortable with. So all of these things …
GC: To their current practices, that’s the problem.
PT: To their current practices. So all these things we talk about, that the technology will allow us to do and, you know, all these cutting-edge people doing research are looking at all this exciting stuff, and the practitioners on the ground are adapting the technology to their current practice, by and large.”
So what is my reflection on all of these discussions?
I was left at the end of all this listening and reading with a comment that I often make when people ask me how it is that I have a high degree of education but I cannot programme the video recorder – I point out (only slightly tongue in cheek) that I just knew that BBC i-player would come along one day and that I would therefore not need to waste the energy required for that bit of learning.
I think that we can make great use of new technology as a learning tool but I believe that a bigger change is needed – what we need to do is to think about the way different people learn and fit our pedagogy to that. That is not exactly a revelation in itself. I am suggesting that the important issue is to ensure that technology is used to encourage Rheingold’s “the kind of questioning, collaborative, active, lateral rather than hierarchical pedagogy that participatory media both forces and enables”.
References
Rheingold, H. (2007) “Vision of the Future”, a presentation for education.au
Weatherhead, S. (2008) Hold on tight, we’re in for a bumpy ride, in Escalate News, Issue 12, pp220-22, York, Higher Education Academy
[i] This paragraph is from a paper which I am currently working on:- ‘wiki work’.
glossary and podcasts
I hosted a seminar for the course on which I tutor on saturday and was observed by my staff tutor. Quite a few MA students struggle with concepts like constructivism and positivism (to name just 2) and my staff tutor and I were discussing how great it would be if there was an online glossary with a podcast of someone discussing these kinds of concepts. Someone out there must be clever enough to do this ... not me though ...
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
activity 2.1
Going back in time a little bit here. As new posts are now appearing from other students on my course, I am able to start comparing my ideas with theirs and also to make note of the different ways that people tackle critical reading. I found the questions posed in the study guide very useful, some others have tended to do more 'free' writing but have tackled the same headings.
I was especially interested in the views on ethics within this kind of research. Given that blogs can be found on search engines and that some wikis are public (some are not), this does raise important issues - especially if minors were to be involved. Although this is not an issue for reading one on this course, it is a good point regarding further research.
I also thought it was interesting how many people picked up collaborative learning as being one of the most interesting features of this paper.
The issue of how quantitative data is collected and analysed in order to support or challenge the initial research questions seems to be one that we could usefully discuss in more detail - perhaps by comparing with the next reading?
I was especially interested in the views on ethics within this kind of research. Given that blogs can be found on search engines and that some wikis are public (some are not), this does raise important issues - especially if minors were to be involved. Although this is not an issue for reading one on this course, it is a good point regarding further research.
I also thought it was interesting how many people picked up collaborative learning as being one of the most interesting features of this paper.
The issue of how quantitative data is collected and analysed in order to support or challenge the initial research questions seems to be one that we could usefully discuss in more detail - perhaps by comparing with the next reading?
Monday, February 9, 2009
links and resources
This evening I decided to try out the ISI Web of Knowledge site - it's best to access it through your institution's library rather than Athens possibly, that's what I found anyway.
Anyway, a very helpful searchable database of articles, found some on andragogy, collaborative CPD and eLearning amongst other things. Not all have full text but you can always use the references to search for them through another channel that you are registered with.
So an evening well spent in terms of the literature review.
Anyway, a very helpful searchable database of articles, found some on andragogy, collaborative CPD and eLearning amongst other things. Not all have full text but you can always use the references to search for them through another channel that you are registered with.
So an evening well spent in terms of the literature review.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
changing my mind
I started to think about the final project and the first assignment last evening (they are linked). Originally I thought that I would base my studies on a GCSE Maths project but I think now that I might do some work on the collaborative Continuing Professional Development (CPD) wiki that I have set up for my school staff. I am thinking that this might also allow me to test my new found interest in mixed methods research.
So I made a start on the literature review last evening. It is quite surprising how much already exists about web 2.0 technology. There is, of course, quite a lot on collaborative learning for adults.
The Journal of Mixed methods Research is proving very useful. And Nigel Gibson of the OU has put me on to Parker and Chao and Rheingold for starters.
I may just have pleasant reading evening again now ....
So I made a start on the literature review last evening. It is quite surprising how much already exists about web 2.0 technology. There is, of course, quite a lot on collaborative learning for adults.
The Journal of Mixed methods Research is proving very useful. And Nigel Gibson of the OU has put me on to Parker and Chao and Rheingold for starters.
I may just have pleasant reading evening again now ....
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
back to work
Back to work today but not a great journey. Some good natured snowballing - well, at least I didn't get hit!
I've added an RSS feed which I hope wll help others to follow this blog if they wish to. I've also added an RSS feed to another blog with some great referencing ideas and other interesting articles.
Hope I'm doing all this stuff correctly! I'm certainly learning a lot already about blogging. I was looking at the gadgets and I note there is a poll facility - might be handy for data collection but ethical considerations would need some careful thought ...
I've added an RSS feed which I hope wll help others to follow this blog if they wish to. I've also added an RSS feed to another blog with some great referencing ideas and other interesting articles.
Hope I'm doing all this stuff correctly! I'm certainly learning a lot already about blogging. I was looking at the gadgets and I note there is a poll facility - might be handy for data collection but ethical considerations would need some careful thought ...
Monday, February 2, 2009
nothing to do with h809!
Snowed in! Never missed a day at work due to snow before but actually couldn't get out and school was closed anyway. My son and his girlfriend had come for a high tea yesterday and had to abandon their car on the way home and walk!
So I decided today was the day to try to finish off most of the other distance learning course I am doing - royal horticultural society level 2 - so as to clear the decks a bit more for h809. Don't know if I'll do the rhs exam or not yet - lots of latin and botany ...
Meanwhile my poor polytunnel looks sad under the weight of the snow but the rest of the garden looks very pretty. About 15 inches deep now and still falling. This is a lot for the South of England - sorry friends in Yorkshire and Canada know you will think I am a softie.
I am trying to attach a photo too. This will test my techie skills....
So I decided today was the day to try to finish off most of the other distance learning course I am doing - royal horticultural society level 2 - so as to clear the decks a bit more for h809. Don't know if I'll do the rhs exam or not yet - lots of latin and botany ...
Meanwhile my poor polytunnel looks sad under the weight of the snow but the rest of the garden looks very pretty. About 15 inches deep now and still falling. This is a lot for the South of England - sorry friends in Yorkshire and Canada know you will think I am a softie.
I am trying to attach a photo too. This will test my techie skills....
Sunday, February 1, 2009
activity 2.4
The rest of the activities in section 1 require some interaction with other students and the tutor. Meanwhile, I have just made a start on activity 2.4 --- it will need more thought and I think that when I have attempted activity 2.5, and re-read the paper for this section, I'll probably re-do activity 2,4 a bit.
So here goes for now
Activities 2.4 looking at reading two
Questions: What research questions are being addressed?
This is an interesting point for this paper because the authors are really attempting to evaluate the use of a particular piece of software to enhance the validity of discourse analysis, and they illustrate their discussion of this by using this package to analyse some primary classroom pupils’ discussion of a problem solving activity. There is no stated hypothesis or research question for the children’s talk, rather the question is, “can computer based text analysis tools provide a more convincing interpretation of discourse analysis than either coding (quantitative) methods or interpretive analysis (qualitative) based on short excerpts of transcripts?”
Setting: What is the sector and setting? (e.g. school, higher education, training, informal learning)
Primary schools but there is no reason to suppose that this could not be extended to any situation (educational or other) which involves talk.
Concepts: What theories, concepts and key terms are being used?
The main issue is a consideration of a dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methods of analysing transcripts of talk. A discussion of coding schemes and interpretive analysis forms the initial part of the paper – considering strengths and weaknesses of each – especially related to the sensitive and developmental nature of conversation and language in general, and concerns over difficulties in replication and comparison if only short excerpts of larger bodies of text are used.
Methods: What methods of data collection and analysis are used? (e.g. the number of participants; the type of technologies; the use of interviews, surveys, observation, etc.)
Eight lessons (how long?) with a class in two neighbouring primary schools (age?). There was a target class and a control class. Pre- and post-intervention reasoning tests were applied and the scores analysed. Discussion between the children was video recorded and the computer based analysis tool used to find out the key words used by the children.
Findings: What did this research find out?
The target group improved more than the control group (nothing to do with the computer based analysis). There was also a difference in the type of talk that was used by the children. The study also concluded that the computer package enabled a more detailed and convincing analysis to take place.
Limitations: What are the limitations of the methods used?
Any video recording is likely to leave out some important interactions – unless multiple cameras/angles are used. The subsequent transfer to audio recording will leave out non-verbal communication, which, it could be argued, is even more significant as part of the discourse of young children than the spoken word. Finally, the transcript, however, full is a further reduction in accuracy. In any educational setting, even if exactly the same students and teacher are involved, it is virtually impossible to make an exact replication of events and interactions so the comparisons between the two groups must be limited.
Ethics: Are there any ethical issues associated with the research?
Those involving children, as usual.
Implications: What are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further research?
P277 “Any qualitative analysis is not represented only by the illustrative interpretation of a very few selected events but is supported by a more systematic analysis of the data as a whole, and possibly also by a demonstration of statistical relationships between features of linguistic events and other kinds of measures of collaborative activity....” The study may well lead on to a more convincing validation of discourse analysis. It was not really intended as an attempt to influence practice or policy in primary schools.
So here goes for now
Activities 2.4 looking at reading two
Questions: What research questions are being addressed?
This is an interesting point for this paper because the authors are really attempting to evaluate the use of a particular piece of software to enhance the validity of discourse analysis, and they illustrate their discussion of this by using this package to analyse some primary classroom pupils’ discussion of a problem solving activity. There is no stated hypothesis or research question for the children’s talk, rather the question is, “can computer based text analysis tools provide a more convincing interpretation of discourse analysis than either coding (quantitative) methods or interpretive analysis (qualitative) based on short excerpts of transcripts?”
Setting: What is the sector and setting? (e.g. school, higher education, training, informal learning)
Primary schools but there is no reason to suppose that this could not be extended to any situation (educational or other) which involves talk.
Concepts: What theories, concepts and key terms are being used?
The main issue is a consideration of a dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methods of analysing transcripts of talk. A discussion of coding schemes and interpretive analysis forms the initial part of the paper – considering strengths and weaknesses of each – especially related to the sensitive and developmental nature of conversation and language in general, and concerns over difficulties in replication and comparison if only short excerpts of larger bodies of text are used.
Methods: What methods of data collection and analysis are used? (e.g. the number of participants; the type of technologies; the use of interviews, surveys, observation, etc.)
Eight lessons (how long?) with a class in two neighbouring primary schools (age?). There was a target class and a control class. Pre- and post-intervention reasoning tests were applied and the scores analysed. Discussion between the children was video recorded and the computer based analysis tool used to find out the key words used by the children.
Findings: What did this research find out?
The target group improved more than the control group (nothing to do with the computer based analysis). There was also a difference in the type of talk that was used by the children. The study also concluded that the computer package enabled a more detailed and convincing analysis to take place.
Limitations: What are the limitations of the methods used?
Any video recording is likely to leave out some important interactions – unless multiple cameras/angles are used. The subsequent transfer to audio recording will leave out non-verbal communication, which, it could be argued, is even more significant as part of the discourse of young children than the spoken word. Finally, the transcript, however, full is a further reduction in accuracy. In any educational setting, even if exactly the same students and teacher are involved, it is virtually impossible to make an exact replication of events and interactions so the comparisons between the two groups must be limited.
Ethics: Are there any ethical issues associated with the research?
Those involving children, as usual.
Implications: What are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further research?
P277 “Any qualitative analysis is not represented only by the illustrative interpretation of a very few selected events but is supported by a more systematic analysis of the data as a whole, and possibly also by a demonstration of statistical relationships between features of linguistic events and other kinds of measures of collaborative activity....” The study may well lead on to a more convincing validation of discourse analysis. It was not really intended as an attempt to influence practice or policy in primary schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)