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.
Najia's Reflexivity Archive (Status: Hiatus) 