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).
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