15 years of going in circles

During a meeting today it was brought to my attention that the issues revolving around technology integration remain the same, nearly 15 years after a call for conversation.  In 1999, Ertmer et al. described the role of technology in learning environment and proposed two frameworks of barriers that needed to be addressed for successful technology integration.  The same can be said for the integration of technology into research methods and qualitative research project design.  Funny how authors despite trying to have a cohesive conversation across disciplines, remain at the same place, as though the conversations haven’t shifted with the times or technological updates.  It seems as though conversations and research agendas are moving in circles.  All this got me thinking once more about users’ fundamental understanding of tools and what that can mean.

Conole and Dyke (2004) break down the notion of affordances when using technological tools in conducting research.  This concept encompasses an ontological approach, that talks about possible uses, and epistemological approaches, that revolve around intended or actual utilizations.

Let’s take for example a hammer: A hammer can be used for several purposes…perhaps you are using it to nail pins into a wall to hold pictures…or perhaps you are using it to weigh down your door as so it won’t close.  There are ideal uses you think of when someone mentions a hammer, those ideals are constructed based on your personal familiarity with the tool…what often escape us are the list of things one can possibly do with a hammer.

Here’s another: Quick think of a bird…

Can it fly? Most people think about flying birds when asked; but how does your mental model change when the first bird you think of is a penguin, kiwi, or emu.

When researchers discuss expanding the frameworks about technological tools, some “rather than elaborating on how any one of these ‘affordances’ could be relevant to a learner or a practitioner, the authors tend to indulge in a certain amount of hopeful expectation that affordances and abilities will simply emerge” (Boyle & Cook, 2004, p. 297).  This doesn’t seem too much of a concern and there aren’t persistent calls for more research, so perhaps it has fizzled down a bit.

After reading discussions about technological affordances and best technology integrations practice, I think the response remains the same; “It depends”

References

Boyle, T. & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: a commentary on Conole and Dyke. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12(3), 295-299.

Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004a). What are the affordances or information and communication technologies? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12(2), 113-124.

Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining Teachers’ Beliefs about the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom. Journal of research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72.

Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”

A “history” of digital innovation for conveying knowledge (and research)

This week the theme of digital natives comes up a lot, like a lot. Let’s start by first defining digital natives and what that means to the research community. In 2001, Prensky first coined the term to mean individuals who have spent most of their lives “surrounded by and using computers and videogames, digital music players, videocams, cell phones and all other toys and tools of the digital age” (p. 1). These interactions have fundamentally changed the way users interact with platforms and critically think about leveraging technological tools for their motives. Students these days have an affinity for using technology as a crutch and display unique digital literacies.

There however exists a dichotomy between the perceived usefulness of digital tools to convey knowledge and what students area actually doing. Personally, I have noted these two, clear realms of experience in both my teaching pre-service instructors and my attempts to integrate snazzy tools and techniques into my research project designs.

Have you every met a teacher who can use their smart phone to play Words With Friends or Candy Crush, manage their daily lives with integrated calendars and reminder apps, check their emails and leverage social networks for professional development; but failed at using a presentation to effectively communicate ideals in an enhancing manner? There it is again…the idea that digital tools are useful (in our daily lives) but don’t translate into valuable uses for professional outlooks.

Paulus, Lester and Britt (2013) point out that if advisors, faculty, and teachers “are not using the tools in informed ways, it makes it less likely that the next generation will, either” (p. 649). So the baton passes to instructors to enlighten students as to how they can use technological tools creatively and critically. Several texts such as Joiner et al. (2013), Robert and Wilson (2002), and Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson, (1996) address the current value systems of using digital tools to convey and analyze information.

Even within my coursework I notice the perception that the human approach is best. The responsibility seems to therefore extend to current users to inform the community, and their students, about the ways in which you can use digital tools can be best leveraged. I think early adopters should be models for future users and demonstrate efficient practices.

References

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk /1/1/4.html

Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., … & Moon, A. (2013). Comparing First and Second Generation Digital Natives’ Internet Use, Internet Anxiety, and Internet Identification. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-13.

Roberts, K. A., & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/862/1872

What if everyone was special?

This is a review of three research papers (in progress) that looked at: (1) a case study focused on the teacher hiring and recruiting practices of a charter management organization in terms of technology knowledge and skills and online presence; (2) multiple case study on charter school teachers’ technology integration concerns and how their principals respond to them; and (3) a case study that focused on the role of a charter management organization (CMO) in technology integration. This is meant as a broad spectrum commentary on literature and research design of these three works.  It is important to note that all three works leveraged the same research instruments and concern the same charter school sites.

The allure with these papers seems to be the charter school environment, or factor. For those of that don’t know…Charter schools represent an alternative schooling environment where a facility receives public funding but operates independently; the levels of independence vary across districts (Chen, 2007; Knopp, 2008).  The charter schools are represented as a not quite public and not quite private entity.  The researchers hope to use this characteristic to add breadth to the field of technology integration, barriers, and support in k-12 schools.  In giving autonomy to the schools, principals and therefore teachers there can be more space for technology enhanced instruction and the professional development of teachers’ digital literacies.  There seems to be an undertone: Charter schools fodder innovation because of their unique context and design.

But, in the importance of considering the charter school context the resources one translates into support must also be aligned.  What do I mean by that? Well the resources discussed through literature tells a story…and if you are telling a story you must ensure that it is relevant and contextual.  One can generally make a case and find people who support it.  The statement, “schools are bad for a child’s development” stands true because in 1969 John Holt said it was so. Does that make it a valid support for today’s competitive and ever-changing school systems? Maybe. But it remains the author’s duty to tie up all the loose ends and present a persuasive case. I digress.

So what do I mean by a ‘need to consider the context of charter’ schools? Well, there are seminal works that take a look at how technology is integrated in k-12 classrooms across the US, and even internationally.  They look at what is the current state of knowledge, where gaps are, what the identified barriers are, and what the future recommendations are.  Well those things differ if you look across public schools, generally, to charter schools; just ask any teacher that has taught in both systems.

So, if researchers are citing such pieces as Hew and Brush (2007) without considering the context of charter schools in the larger realm of American k-12 education it becomes a problem.  So these guys looked at several studies in the past decade, or so, to inform a meta-analysis of the typical barriers faced by teachers at schools in the US, and a few other nations…and, the beauty of this paper is that it can be broadly applied because it can be generalized across public schools. But, it is not specific enough to consider the context of research at a charter school, because the studies that informed the Hew & Brush piece didn’t look at charter schools.  The subsequent studies did not consider the privatization of schooling nor did it consider the role of autonomy in technology integration.  In fact, only one cited paper discusses school autonomy, but only in the context of a teacher’s professional development (Granger et al., 2002 as cited in Hew & Brush, 2007).

So when looking at the development and support of space of innovative practices, one cannot cite seminal pieces when they are not directly related.  Part of this issue arises from first calling these research endeavors ‘case studies’ because case studies imply a consideration of context (Yin, 2011; Stake, 2006). In fact, Yin (2011) goes so far as to say that “context and other complex conditions…are integral to understanding the cases(s)” (p. 1990), Stake (2006) on the other hand refers to research findings being “context-bound.”

It seems as those these papers are writing themselves, rather than being guided by research. It seems as those the authors are first writing out their assertions and then finding any literature to support their claims (relevant or not); without providing commentary as to the related nature between the current prospectus of research and the established knowledge base.  These are slightly different processes, perhaps one more suited to quality than the other.  So by not grounding the research and supporting citation in the context of the research it becomes difficult for external readers to judge ‘how well aligned are the studies being leveraged to support the author?’ or ‘how related are the studies referenced in informing the research endeavors?’

So I think I know what happened…the authors did keyword searches and didn’t realize that there was a shift in charter school and educational policy research language, one that moved from technology integration, or educational technology to one where schools are driven by innovation and technology- focused/enhanced instruction (Bulkley & Wohlstetter, 2004,p. 84). Take for example the recent global UNESCO Innovative Teaching and Learning (ITL) Research project (UNESCO, 2012), take looks at ICT in education particularly in relation to teachers and teacher development.  So by being so constrained within their own paradigms, the researchers missed great resources such as a book published in 2004 by Bulkley and Wohlstetter that not only summarized charter school trends but also provided avenues for ongoing research.  This entire piece is about taking account of charter schools, hiring mechanics, teacher innovative practices, and current trends. But this work doesn’t explicitly talk about technology being leverages explicitly as a tool for development or instruction it relays the theme of technology. And while this body of work doesn’t talk about computers use specifically it discusses technology in the archetype of innovative education practices.

Much of the conversations through literature, in these papers, has been housed in the knowledge base of peer-reviewed research articles.  But in so focusing in the prestigious nature of using journal article to support one’s research, what is missed are the educational reports.  These reports are put out by schools, and school districts, often written with directors/principals, that talk about resources and approaches to teaching.  These accounts are primary sources that are grounded in the context of charter school education and often contain teacher voices.  In these cases it is important to consider moving beyond using journal based literature, because the district level reports can be just as valid in support knowledge claims.

One example of a great report, that isn’t traditional academic writing and peer reviewed, published through the district and regional research centers is by Lake (2008).  This report covers aspect of innovation contextualized particularly around the theme of technology and staff development approaches.  Other great resources are the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools that traditionally partners with research universities such as Stanford and Harvard (NAPCS, 2013) and the CREDO charter school studies/reports, and the Center on reinventing Public Education; both house several educational reports on charter schools.  So if the researchers are looking to leverage academic journal articles, this might be a happy medium merging private reporting and peer-review.  These secondary sources can allow the researchers to look at the context-bound research and narrow down the field of k-12 education at large.

Remember that one of the allures, the greatest attraction to doing research at charter schools was the difference, autonomic factor.  But by basing the literature, in comparing the learning environments, the teacher perceptions, and common barriers, in a broad spectrum review of k-12 education in the US and in other countries you lose the specialty of charter. In taking away the unique factor, you are saying that charter school can be supported by research done in other schooling contexts…because it is not special.

In saying that charter schools are ordinary and like the every-day historical public schools, the question then becomes why do research in carter schools if you can just extrapolate from existing public school research? One cannot say that something is special and support it with dissimilar research.  Remember if everyone is special than one really is special. By designing the literature reviews and research designs as such the researchers are negating the context of the school as important, when in-fact they are rationalizing the selection of charter schools because they are unique and autonomous learning environments.

There are a plethora of other studies, such as the 1998 McLaughlin and Henderson, or 2011 Drame papers that discuss the context of charter schools in specific regions.  While these papers do not add value to these researchers, as such they are not focusing on the special education nature of these papers, they can add value in the descriptive nature and context of charter schools at large, particularly in the technology theme.

Additionally, the concept of charter isn’t new nor is it local to America. While in America the charter school movement gained fervor in the late 1980s, charter school systems have been in place in regions of Latin America for decades.  The somewhat new aspect of charter education might result in somewhat limited literature search, as compared to broad k-12 Western education.  While considering the context is unique yet diverse I challenge the authors to look at the international research.  For example, the Academies Act of 2010 now encompasses over 800 institutes, a number which has grown in the past two years (“An act to”, 2010), which operate with the same premise as American charter schools.  And while not called charter schools the context and practices of these schools could be considered in the parameters of research.

References

Bulkley, K., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Chen, G. (2007, December 04). What is a charter school?. Retrieved from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/3

Drame, E. (2011). An analysis of the capacity of charter schools to address the needs of students with disabilities in Wisconsin. Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 55-63.

Granger, C., Morbey, M., Lotherington, H., Owston, R., & Wideman, H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480–488.

Holt, J. (1969, February 8). School is bad for children. Saturday Evening Post

Knopp, S. (2008). Charter schools and the attack on public education. International Socialist Review, (62).

Lake, R. J. (2008). In the Eye of the Beholder: Charter Schools and Innovation. Journal of School Choice, 2(2), 115-127.

McLaughlin, M., & Henderson, K. (1998). Charter schools in Colorado and their response to the education of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 99-107.

NAPCS (2013). Understanding charter school research. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

Parliament of the United Kingdom, Education, England and Wales. (2010). An act to make provision about academies (1937 C.102).

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

UNESCO Bangkok. (2012, October). Cases of innovative practices in ICT in teaching and learning to promote 21st century skills. Innovative ICT practices in teaching and learning: a regional seminar.

Yin, R. (2011). Applications of case study research. (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.