Thursday, October 10, 2013

notes from a day school

OU EdD Year 2 day school 5.10.13 Notes
The usual health warning: this is just my take on the discussions and presentations I observed and participated in. I was grateful to the students for allowing me to sit in on their presentations and hope that these notes will be acceptable to them as well as useful for my students who were unable to be there. Also, I am not referencing as I go along but have listed some reading suggestions at the end. I have sent these notes to the relevant people before posting on my blog.

Firstly, it was interesting to note that many students are now using power point or video etc. to make their presentations; in the past this has been less the case but the technology is now available but I recommend a portable storage device of some sort if you opt for this yourself in the future.

I sat in on the group looking at the use of educational technology (there was no group looking at leadership and management on this occasion). One discussion centred on the use of video in teaching and learning and how this has changed over time from largely delivering content towards being used as a) an aid to reflective practice and b) a tool for learners to work collaboratively. The point was made that MOOCs may still be largely content based (since I don’t know much about those, I cannot comment).

Ethical and safeguarding issues had been carefully considered in this project. The observations were being analysed alongside Grainne Conole’s learning design model, interviews and questionnaires to develop a full description of the context. I would mention Hayley Allan’s blog in terms of reflective practice and the repertory grid approach (see Kelly in the reading list below).

A blended learning approach was then discussed and the factors which impact on participation online. Central themes were: technological issues (teaching) pedagogical (learning), organisational (culture of the specific organisation and the specific project), and personal (life stories). We were introduced to the notion of Problem-Centred Interviews which result in a biographical summary of what each person is saying/not saying both about themselves and their context. We also discussed pros and cons of e-mail interviewing.

Reflecting on these ideas afterwards, I am thinking about the need to specify the outcomes being investigated and also to consider the reflective abilities of the participants related to their participation levels.

A third area for discussion was the issue of whether or not curricula (online or otherwise) meet individual learners’ needs – once again related to their specific context: in other words perhaps – personalisation.

We were treated to a presentation by Felicity Fletcher-Campbell on the process and product of interviewing as a research technique. She accepts that interviewing is complicated (looking for answers) but with her very considerable experience has moved towards a view of it as complex (living with uncertainty). When designing an interview guide, think about the various possible outcomes but be prepared to discuss the unexpected. As she puts it, we are not necessarily just looking at structured, semi-structured and unstructured formats when designing our interview schedules or guides.  She pointed out that we produce data rather than collecting it and I would agree with this (much along the lines that Glaser points about bias as data as well). But Felicity also warned us of the dangers of how we word our questions and counselled (where possible) to be neutral and not present our own views in the interview itself. The possible power issues were discussed with the audience. I would also stress the importance of thinking time for the interviewee.
A point made which I wholeheartedly applaud was the idea of writing up soon after the interview so that you can annotate with why decisions were made (for example, to follow a particular direction in the discussion, or what might have happened to the interviewee recently, any local language or tacit understanding and so on). Felicity described the whole research process as serial decision making and I really liked that. It ties in with what I always ask my own students to do which is to keep a timeline of specific events (reading, interviews, questionnaires, conferences attended and so on) and how this might have changed the direction of the research refines the research questions/themes, or helped to develop the conceptual framework.

Comparing with the advice in Trafford and Leshem’s book (Stepping Stones to achieving your doctorate), I would also want to highlight one of felicity’s points about thesis writing which I think might also come up in viva: evaluate your interview schedule, describe what you said as well as what the interviewee said, explain decisions made within interviews and any changes made to the schedule as a result. For me, this is a vital aspect of writing up and demonstrates that you have really immersed yourself in the data.
In the afternoon, we turned out attention more to methods and methodology in a wide range of research situations. I liked the concept of ‘health literacy’ in one project and wondered if there is such a thing as ‘pastoral literacy’ in schools ... and indeed where else this concept might take me if I start to consider it more fully. We returned also to discuss interviews and the matter of developing trust.

Some reading, not properly referenced and in no particular order:-
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality. The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York (Chapt. 1-3 of Kelly 1955).
Glaser, B. G. (2002, September). ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory?’  Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 3, 3 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm  (accessed 20.02.2004 and 05.03.2004) 24 paragraphs
Amy B. Dellinger and Nancy L. Leech Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research2007; 1; 309 Journal of Mixed Methods Research DOI: 10.1177/1558689807306147
David Plowright: Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research
Witzel and Reiter The problem-centred Interview

Aristi Born: Capturing Identity: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods 

 

Argyris, C. (1991) ‘Teaching Smart People How to Learn’, Harvard Business Review, May/June: 99-109
Bottery, M. (2003) The Management and Mismanagement of Trust. Hull: University of Hull
Schofield, J. (2007). ‘Increasing the Generalisability of Qualitative Research’ in Hammersley, M (2007) ‘Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practice’ The Open University, Sage Publications.
Trafford and Leshem: Stepping Stones to Achieving your Doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start





No comments:

Post a Comment