Action Research & Educational Ethnography in Blended Environments : 1 Action Research & Educational Ethnography in Blended Environments Don Hinkelman Sapporo Gakuin University MoodleMoot Virtual Conference 2012 9:00am EST, 17 August 2012
Abstract : 2 Abstract This presentation is a summary of qualitative approaches for researching blended learning environments. Blended learning is the principled mix of online and classroom-based activities in school and university programs. It involves the growing trends of classroom-based instruction adopting multi-modal learning and internet-based activities, and online programs recognizing the value of face-to-face interaction. Little theory, however, and sparse empirical study exist to guide the investigation of blended programs. To achieve this aim, I undertook a longitudinal study of blended EFL programs at two Japanese universities that used Moodle extensively as an LMS. Over five years, I employed three qualitative approaches for enquiry: institutional ethnography, action research and auto-ethnography. The results of the authoethnography show that technologies consist of not only electronic tools, but also a diverse multi-dimensional collection of groupings, timings, texts, spaces, and materials. The results of the action research, indicate that a mix of pedagogic metaphors influence the design of technologies, that the role of teachers is changing from consumers to authors of teaching materials, and that the failure of integration is related to immature and unsustainable selection of technologies. Finally, the results of the ethnography suggest that research teams are required to design, support, and reconfigure technology interventions in institutional environments. Personnel policies that enforce in-house, curriculum- focused team research were instrumental in this site. In addition, I propose a re-conceptualization of ‘technology’ that seeks to better combine generic face-to-face and online learning processes. Implications of the study suggest the concept of technology in education is overly tool-centric and dimensions of pedagogic action, varied groupings, synchronous/asynchronous timings, multi-modal texts and tool ecologies need consideration. Furthermore, programs need to adopt principles of collaborative, localized, variable, and accountable design to foster the blending of technologies in educational programs.
Sapporo Gakuin University Visiting Academic : 3 Sapporo Gakuin University Visiting Academic 1976-1992 Institute of Cultural Affairs: Micronesia, Philippines, Kenya, Belgium Communication Skills Instructor, Facilitator, Systems Analyst 1992-1998 Hokkaido University of Education: Northern Japan EFL Teacher Trainer, Oral/Written Communication Instructor 1998- Present Sapporo Gakuin University: Northern Japan Co-coordinator, Department of Foreign Languages 2100 students enrolled (4500 student body) - Chinese: 15 courses/ semester - Korean: 22 courses/semester - French: 8 courses/semester - German: 8 courses/semester - English: 139 courses/semester - [Ainu: 2 courses/semester--linguistics and cultural history] 3
University of Melbourne PhD Student : 4 University of Melbourne PhD Student 2004: Sabbatical--one year 2005: Confirmation: “ The Design of Blended Environments in Second Language Learning ” 2005-2009: Institutional fieldwork, two university sites in Japan 2006-2009: Three visits to Uni Melbourne 2009: Sabbatical --six months
Publications (aspects of this study have been published in the following papers) : 5 Publications (aspects of this study have been published in the following papers) Hinkelman, D. (2004). EML and implications for task design in blended L2 environments. Proceedings of Pacific Computer Assisted Language Learning Conference 2004 , pp. 962-973. Hinkelman, D., Bergen, A., Burgos, D., Hung, V. Hursch, T., Fontana, J. and Tielemans, G. (2005) Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS. Journal of Interactive Media in Education . Hinkelman, D. (2005). The Emergence of Blended Learning: An End to Laboratory-based CALL, JALT Hokkaido Journal . Vol. 9, December 2005. * Kay, W., Gemmell, P., Johnson, A. & Hinkelman, D. (2007). Blended language learning: Using wireless notebooks and a project-based approach. Journal of Faculty of Humanities , Sapporo Gakuin University, Vol. 82, pp. 45-79. * Hinkelman, D., Okuda, O., Johnson, A., Ishikawa, S., and Grose, T. (2008). Mobile Phone Technology Integration into Open Source LMS for University General Education Classes in Japan. Journal of Faculty of Humanities , Sapporo Gakuin University, Vol. 83, pp. 173-202. * Grose, T., Hinkelman, D., Rian, J., and McGarty, G. (2009). Assessment strategies in a university EFL oral communication curriculum. Journal of Faculty of Humanities , Sapporo Gakuin University, Vol. 85, pp. 68-92. Hinkelman, D. (2009). Revival of paper: Booklets and textbooks in blended language learning. In M. Thomas (Ed.), JALTCALL 2008 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 35-40). Nagoya: JALTCALL. Hinkelman, D. & Johnson, A. (2009). Project format repositories for teacher collaboration. In M. Thomas (Ed.), JALTCALL 2008 conference proceedings. (pp. 41-6). Nagoya: JALTCALL. * collaborative action research papers
Presentations (selected) (portions of this study have been presented at the following conferences) : 6 Presentations (selected) (portions of this study have been presented at the following conferences) Kay, W., Gemmell, P., Johnson, A. & Hinkelman, D. (2007). Using Wireless Notebooks in Project-based Classes. Presentation to 33 rd JALT International Conference, Tokyo, Japan. November 24, 2007. Hinkelman, D. (2007). Wireless notebooks in project-based learning. Presentation to Pacific CALL Conference, Hanoi University, Vietnam. November 3, 2007. Hinkelman, D. and Johnson, A. (2008). Project format repositories for teacher collaboration. Presentation to JALTCALL 2008 Conference. Nagoya University of Commerce, Nagoya, Japan. June 1, 2008. Hinkelman, D. (2008). Revival of Paper: Booklets and Textbooks in Collaborative Classroom Networks. Presentation to JALTCALL 2008 Conference. Nagoya University of Commerce, Nagoya, Japan. June 1, 2008. Hinkelman, D. and Johnson, A. (2008). Digital Repositories for Teaching Teams. Presentation at the Japan Association for Language Teaching 34 th International Conference, Tokyo, Japan. November 2008. Hinkelman, D., LeBeau, C. & Harrington, D. (2008). Challenging the Roles of Teacher, Text & Publisher. Presentation at the Japan Association for Language Teaching 34 th International Conference, Tokyo, Japan. November 2008. Johnson, A., Friesen, K., Murphy, M., Rian, J., & Grose, T., & Hinkelman, D.. (2008). Collaborative Teaching: A Blended Learning Program. Presentation at the Japan Association for Language Teaching 34 th International Conference, Tokyo, Japan. November 2008.
Outline : 7 Outline Problem and Overview Technologies, Pedagogies, Environment (including Moodle LMS) An Insider Auto-ethnography of a Teacher An Outsider Ethnography of an Institution An Insider Action Research Team Theory Building in Learning Ecologies Theory Building in Program Design
Definitions : 8 Definitions Blended language learning is the principled mix of technologies in face-to-face L2 courses. CALL is the use of computers and other electronic tools in laboratory classrooms or online sites for L2 learning. Blended language learning programs consist of systematic integrations of technologies in the L2 curriculum within institutional contexts.
Problem : 9 Problem Traditional CALL initiatives often waste resources, require specialized technicians, and promote separate spheres of research/practice ALx has a growing interest in new modalities and new literacies of communication BL under-theorized, little empirical investigation
A Definition of Blended Learning : 10 A Definition of Blended Learning Garrison & Vaughn (2008) “ The basic principle [of blended learning] is that face-to-face oral communication and the online written communication are optimally integrated such that the strengths of each are blended into a unique learning experience congruent with the context and intended educational purpose. ” (p.5)
Intended Contribution : 11 Intended Contribution Focus research on pedagogies. CALL is techno-centric. Combine face-to-face/online technologies. CALL is a dated metaphor. Move debate to the program level. CALL is primarily micro-level research.
Purpose : 12 Purpose To develop principles for designing blended foreign language programs by critically examining the CALL literature by conducting a longitudinal, multi-methodology, multi-site study
Computer-centric : 13 Computer-centric Relationship of L1 and L2 Egbert & Hanson-Smith (Eds.) (2007) -- SLA analysis of CALL classroom environments -- Computers > quality/frequency feedback Computers > connect to authentic L2 audience Computers > greater exposure/creative production Computers > allow time & assessment Computers > promote self-conscious strategies Computers > varied atmosphere, generate autonomy Skeptical perspective -- too computer-centric? 13
Why not Pairwork-centric? : 14 Why not Pairwork-centric? Egbert & Hanson-Smith (2007) -- SLA analysis of CALL classroom environments -- Pair work > quality/frequency feedback Pair work > connect to authentic L2 audience Pair work > greater exposure/creative production Pair work > allow time & assessment Pair work > promote self-conscious strategies Pair work > varied atmosphere, generate autonomy 14
Chapter 1: Introduction : 15 Chapter 1: Introduction Rationale for a Blended Perspective—Logos Thirty years of blended learning—Ethos CALL success and failure—Pathos 15
Technologies : 16 Technologies Levy (1996) computer tools Warschauer (2000) networks, internet Latour (1986, 2005) hybridity, actor-networks Laurillard (2002, 2007) Media formats >> Technologies as process (face-to-face/online) Narrative : Lectures, videos, podcasts, stories, blogs Interactive : Quizzes, hypermedia, information gaps Adaptive : Simulations, role plays, games, tutorials Communicative : Discussions, forums, conferencing Productive : Speeches, essays, microworlds, events
Levels of Inquiry : 17 Levels of Inquiry Micro: classroom practices Meso: curriculum designs Macro: institutional concerns
Pedagogies : 18 Pedagogies Second Language Acquisition Skehan (1999), individual differences; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain (2001)pedagogic tasks Long (1991) focus on form Second Language Socialisation Kramsch (2002) socialisation into language communities, acts, participation van Lier (2002, 2004) semiotics and ecologies of language learning
Environment : 19 Environment Egbert & Hanson-Smith (2007) Total system Not ‘ that which surrounds the language acquisition ’ , or ‘ the surrounding culture, climate, or context outside of a classroom ’ Larsen-Freeman & Cameron (2008) complexity theory, applied linguistics and language learning environments co-adaptation, self-organising principles 19
Environment : 20 Environment Levels of Inquiry Micro: classroom practices Meso: curriculum designs Macro: institutional concerns
Language Learning? : 21 Language Learning? Individual or Group? Practice: how the divide shows in teacher-speak “ He ’ s a tech person ” “ I ’ m just a regular teacher--not ‘ into ’ tech. ” Cognitive or Sociocultural? Theory: how the divide shows in research “ ” “ ” 21
Design : 22 Design Design as invention Rogers (1993, 2003) diffusion of innovation Markee (1997) diffusion of language learning curriculum innovations “ universal tools ” , “ encapsulated inventions ” Design as continuous process Robson (1991) continuous process improvement Latour (2005), Law (2001) material semiotics, actor-networks in constant re-organisation “ local practice ” , “ bricolage ” (on-the-fly configurations)
Normalization : 23 Normalization Chambers & Bax (2006) Concept of ‘ normalisation ’ . The point where computers in the classroom are forgotten, as normal a part of learning as a blackboard or a television.
Chapter 1: Positionality : 24 Chapter 1: Positionality Positionality: Thirty year career in teacher training, foreign language education, educational technology Focus on foreign language learners: monolingual classrooms Select sites where blended approaches are in active operation
Chapter 1: Aim & Scope : 25 Chapter 1: Aim & Scope Aim: Establish a principled framework for the development of blended L2 learning environments, based on interdisciplinary concepts and theories Describe hybrid human/technical networks Construct a cross-venue definition of task, technology and environment Describe design processes, not learner outcomes Ask how and why participants design blended environments Scope: Institutional language programs in universities Focus on foreign language learners: monolingual classrooms Select sites where blended approaches are in active operation
Scope : 26 Scope Institutional language programs in universities Focus on foreign language learners: monolingual classrooms Select sites where blended approaches are in active operation
Theoretical Concepts : 27 Theoretical Concepts Pedagogy Design Environment Blended
Pedagogy Table 1: History of Approaches and Foci in Second Language Pedagogy : 28 Pedagogy Table 1: History of Approaches and Foci in Second Language Pedagogy
Design : 29 Design facilitating an environment for second language learning the continuous process of co-creating and facilitating a community environment for second language learning by a strategic mix and configuration of hybrid human/technical networks
Blended Table 2: Terminology Used in Describing Blended and Non-blended Learning : 30 Blended Table 2: Terminology Used in Describing Blended and Non-blended Learning
Towards a Blended View : 31 Towards a Blended View
Issues of CALL Practice : 32 Issues of CALL Practice
Research Questions : 33 Research Questions 1. What framework is useful for designing a blended learning environment which includes Moodle? not one set of pre-framed questions but an overall purpose and view to guide the inquiry 2. What research methodologies are most useful in studying blended environments?
Research Methodologies : 34 Research Methodologies Three longitudinal, qualitative approaches for examining educational environments Autoethnography (individual, classroom practices) Ethnography (institutional concerns) Action Research (collaborative team innovations)
Research Design by conducting a longitudinal, multi-methodology, multi-site study : 35 Research Design by conducting a longitudinal, multi-methodology, multi-site study
Autoethnographic Approach History : 36 Autoethnographic Approach History Freeman (1998) reflective teaching, teacher research Pennycock (2001), Canagarah (2005) critical pedagogy Benson & Nunan (2005) autobiographical research Hall (2008) dairy studies Nunan & Bailey (2009) diary studies (p. 292) autobiographical research (p. 297)
Autoethnographic Approach Research Design : 37 Autoethnographic Approach Research Design Academic Review (1989-2005) Classroom Research Papers (26) Program Description Papers (2) Conference Presentations (23) Critical Incidents (1970-2010) Educational projects and interventions (21) Language learning ‘ innovations ’ (14)
Autoethnographic Approach Major findings : 38 Autoethnographic Approach Major findings
Autoethnographic Approach Evaluation : 39 Autoethnographic Approach Evaluation Usefulness Long-term trends, tendencies Systematic examination of researcher ’ s values Triangulation of methodologies Issues Single teacher experience Insider view (can be blind to other issues) Limited collaborative experience Other teachers did not follow the same initiatives 39
Ethnographic Approach History : 40 Ethnographic Approach History Holliday (1996) ALx ‘ expanding ethnography ’ in language education verbal data and non-verbal behavior curriculum, project design, management people, material, concepts elements: what actors say, what actors do, deep action Latour (2005) STS effects, relations, flow, not entities hybridity Warschauer (2000) CALL contextual inquiry Nunan & Bailey (2009) ALx (p. 186)
Ethnographic Approach Research Design : 41 Ethnographic Approach Research Design Site Selection Medium-sized university 3000 student body Central Tokyo area Short history (20+ years) 6:1 application ratio (2005) Strong reputation for FL curriculum Architectural award for Multi-media Centre and ‘ Blended Learning Spaces ’ Interviews: (12) 20% of ELI faculty Observations: (4) EFL classes, buildings, rooms
PowerPoint Presentation : 42 Standard Teaching Room
PowerPoint Presentation : 43 Computer Laboratory
PowerPoint Presentation : 44 Blended Learning Space
Administrator Interview : 45 Administrator Interview “ As an educator, I've been very much concerned in many parts of the world with the design and development of instructional materials, which seen as being at the heart of the educational process , and that if our discipline is to be taken seriously, these must be produced not by dilettantes like [famous textbook author]..., but rather in a systematic way and so, when I came here, one condition was that I would be responsible for the development of proficiency with a system of instructional materials design, which was based upon the collaboration of all members who were going to be teaching. “ [Int01, 03:28-05:36]
Site One Program Management : 46 Site One Program Management 11staff 9 staff 5 staff 7 staff 6 staff 5 staff 5 staff 7 staff
Ethnographic Approach Major findings : 47 Ethnographic Approach Major findings
Action Research Approach History : 48 Action Research Approach History Freeman (1998) reflective teaching, teacher research Pennycock (2001), Canagarah (2005) critical pedagogy Benson & Nunan (2005) autobiographical research Hall (2008) dairy studies Nunan & Bailey (2009) diary studies (p. 292) autobiographical research (p. 297)
Action Research Methodology : 49 Action Research Methodology
Action Research Approach Research Design : 50 Action Research Approach Research Design Focus on change in educational practice (especially integration of technologies) Cycle One (2006-2007) four participants Change: PPT Projects with Wireless Notebooks Conference Presentation & Research Paper Cycle Two (2007-2008) five participants Change: Project Booklets & Mobile Phone Quizzes Conference Presentation & Research Paper Cycle Three (2008-2009) seven participants Change: Blended Learning Rooms & Semester Aims Conference Presentation & Research Paper
Ethnographic Approach Major findings : 51 Ethnographic Approach Major findings
Research Design Quality, Validity : 52 Research Design Quality, Validity
Cross-Case Analysis Key Factors : 53 Cross-Case Analysis Key Factors Blended Environment Factors Blended Technology Factors Technology Normalisation Factors
Key Factors: Blended Environments : 54 Key Factors: Blended Environments Shea (2007) (p. 28) Tentative Findings Time: synchronous -- asynchronous Learning Metaphor: SLI -SLA -SLS Place: face-to-face -- online Pedagogic Content: forms, tasks, projects Pedagogy: cooperative -- competitive Pedagogic Technologies: narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative, productive Technologies: printed text -- multi-modal Technology Dimensions: timings, groupings, spaces, media, tools Format: cohort -- self-paced Format: cohort/self-paced, intensive/paced Courses: home institution -- outside Courses: closed course/cross-curriculum or cross-institution, credit/non-credit Participants: local -- distant Participants: novice, veteran, teacher
Key Factors: Blended Technologies : 55 Key Factors: Blended Technologies
Micro-level Findings: Blended Technologies : 56 Micro-level Findings: Blended Technologies Type: narrative Timings: synch Groupings: one-to-many Spaces: u-shape face-to-face Texts: verbal word, visual Tools: projector, screen, voice “ Projected slide lecture ”
Micro-level Findings: Technology Dimensions : 57 Micro-level Findings: Technology Dimensions Type: communic Timings: synch Groupings: one-to-many many-to-one Spaces: u-shape face-to-face Texts: paper word lists Tools: flipboard , “ Brainstorming Session ”
Micro-level Findings: Blended Technology : 58 Micro-level Findings: Blended Technology Type: interactive communicative Timings: asynch, synchronous Groupings: solitary, group Spaces: u-shape face-to-face Texts: webpage Tools: LMS, forum projector, screen “ Staged Discussion ”
Key Factors: Technology Normalisation : 59 Key Factors: Technology Normalisation Chambers & Bax (2006) Tentative Findings Logistics: Spaces, Movement, Prep time Micro: Classroom Technologies, Pedagogies, Roles Stakeholders: Abilities, Vision, Multi-factors Meso: Teachers/Syllabus Research teams, In-house authoring Syllabus: Syllabus integration, Authorable CALL Meso: Curriculum Aims/assessments, Communities Teachers: Training, Technical/Pedagogic Support Macro: Institution Leadership, Personnel, Infrastructure
What is normalizing? : 60 What is normalizing? The aim of CALL practitioners is to work towards a state where computers are fully integrated into pedagogy, a state of ‘ normalisation ’ . Chambers & Bax (2006, p. 465)
What is normalising? - at micro level : 61 What is normalising? - at micro level Not ‘ computers ’ Not ‘ CALL ’ at micro level Recognition of increased availability of several modalities of interaction, and mixing of recorded/live ‘ Blended ’ classroom practices/technologies
What is normalising? - at macro level : 62 What is normalising? - at macro level Not ‘ IT school ’ , not techno-centric focus Institutional practices of integration
Conceptual Shift : 63 Conceptual Shift
Concluding Question : 64 Concluding Question This study attempted: a critical examination of CALL techno-centrism an empirical inquiry into L2 classroom/institutional environments: longitudinal, multi-methodology, multi-site What principles are evolving for the design blended foreign language programs? from tool-centrism, to incremental configuration from universal panaceas, to appropriate integration from my-class-syndrome, to sustainable alignment
Selected References : 65 Selected References Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001) . Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London, England: Pearson Education. Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006) . Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34(4), 465-479. Chang, H. (2007) . Autoethnography as method. Left Coast Press, Inc. Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (2007) . CALL environments (2nd ed.). Alexandria, MD: TESOL. Garrison, R. & Vaughan, N. (2008) . Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005) . The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holliday, A. (1996) . Developing a sociological imagination: Expanding ethnography in international English language education. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 234. Kramsch, C. (Ed). (2002) . Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London, UK: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008) . Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Latour, B. (2005) . Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge. Levy, M. (1997) . Computer-Assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Long, M. (1991) . Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In D. deBot, R. Coste, & C. Ginsberg (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultual perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Markee, N. (1997) . Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ Press. Nunan, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle. Skehan, P. (1989) . Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Van Lier, L. (2002) . A tale of two computer classrooms: The ecology of project-based language learning. In Leather, J.H., & Van Dam, J. (Eds.), Ecology of Language Acquisition (49-63). Netherlands: Kluwer. Van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds). (2000) . Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press.
Micro-blends Micro Level concerns C : 66 Micro-blends Micro Level concerns C Micro-blends
Meso-blends Micro Level concerns C : 67 Meso-blends Micro Level concerns C Micro-blends
Macro Level concerns C : 68 Macro Level concerns C Micro-blends
Implications : 69 Implications Reduce techno-centric thinking in CALL Educational Modeling--IMS standards Institutional Research Appropriate technologies Incremental reform Sustainable practice Global Collaborative Course Development Communities Blended task design LMS selection & design Textbook authoring & reconfiguration Program evaluation Course assessment Research in L2 technologies
Implication 1: Educational Modeling : 70 Implication 1: Educational Modeling Educational Modeling Language : EML >> IMS Re-evaluate IMS-Common Cartridge Expand technology definition for L2: (groupings, timings, space, media) Expand task definition for L2: (goals/meaning/technologies/outcomes) Visual Modeling Software (LAMS) capturing after-the-fact multiple variations Global Database of L2 Technologies (blended)
Implication 2: Action Research Teams : 71 Implication 2: Action Research Teams Contractualized Research ( ) Team membership Required professional development Specified outcomes Course Syllabus Development ( ) Materials Development ( ) paper-based activities/texts online activities/texts
Directions for further research : 72 Directions for further research Relation of technology, task, activity
Action Research Positionality : 73 Action Research Positionality Table 10: Examples of Research Positionality in Educational Settings Positionality Type (Herr & Anderson, 2005) Example for Educational Settings 1. Insider studies self Researcher writes diary and analysis of her classroom-based teaching practices. 2. Insider in collaboration with insiders Researcher and two colleagues use same curriculum in their classes and compare experiences. 3. Insider in collaboration with outsiders Researcher invites co-researchers from other institutions to observe and analyze his situation. 4. Insider-outsider teams Researcher teams in two institutions analyze their own situations and compare experiences. 5. Outsider in collaboration with insider Researcher joins another researcher and studies her teaching setting. 6. Outsider studies insiders Researcher visits another school for observations and interviews.
Action Research Validity I: Triangulation : 74 Action Research Validity I: Triangulation Table 12: Processes for Increasing Internal Validity in Action Research Triangulation Type (Burns, 1999) Questions Raised for Validity 1. Multiple Stakeholder Triangulation Are all important stakeholders included in the study? Does the researcher collect data from students, teachers, administrators? 2. Multiple Method Triangulation Are multiple methods used to collect and analyse data? 3. Multiple Time Sampling Triangulation Are the environments studied in several iterations? 4. Multiple Space Triangulation Are sites chosen in different locations? How many sites are chosen? 5. Multiple Investigator Triangulation Are more than one investigator involved in the research? 6. Multiple Theory Triangulation Does the research use multiple theoretical frameworks to compare findings?
Action Research Validity II: External Checks : 75 Action Research Validity II: External Checks Table 11: Herr & Anderson ’ s Validity Questions for Action Research Validity Type Sample Validity Questions 1. Outcome Validity Does the resulting action resolve the problem that led to the study? Does the outcome force reframing the problem in a more complex way? 2. Process Validity To what extent are problems framed to permit ongoing research? To what extent are methods triangulated? 3. Democratic Validity To what extent is research conducted with all stakeholders involved? Are the results relevant and just to the local setting? 4. Catalytic Validity To what degree are participants ’ view of reality changed? Are both researchers and participants transformed? 5. Dialogic Validity To what extent is new knowledge generated? How well does the research engage in practitioner community dialogue? (based on Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp. 53-57)
Action Research Validity III: Internal Checks : 76 Action Research Validity III: Internal Checks Table 12: Processes for Increasing Internal Validity in Action Research (Burns, 1999) Type Questions Raised for Validity Respondent Checking Are summaries and reports checked and modified by the participants? Peer Examinations Are reports given to peers and critiques incorporated into new cycles? Rival Explanations and Negative Cases Are alternative explanations considered and documented? Are negative cases or cases that disagree with emerging themes discounted or included? Monitoring Researcher Bias How often and how well does the reseacher examine his own bias and refer to it in his writing?
Actor Network Theory : 77 Actor Network Theory Background Emergent from sociological fields, especially STS (Science, Technology and Society) Philosophical roots in general constructivism, not social constructivism Also called ‘ materialist semiotics ’ Unit of ontology: “ actor network ” any collection of human, non-human, hybrid actors participating in collective action
Actor Network Theory : 78 Actor Network Theory Example of L2 classroom network Human: teacher, local students, email correspondent students, visitors who speak target language Non-human: desks, chairs, classroom, blackboard, chime, photocopier, mobile phones, notebooks, computer lab Hybrid: textbooks, handouts, daily schedule, syllabus, curriculum requirements, grading requirements, target language, native language Example of L2 curriculum network Human: School president, Ministry of Education officials, Curriculum committee members, teachers, students, parents, Departmental committees, Teacher associations, Textbook writers Non-human: committee meeting room, internet, books Hybrid: School catalog, Accreditation rules, Curriculum conferences, Newspaper opinion articles, Student course choices,
Actor Network Theory : 79 Actor Network Theory Attributes Post-structural & non-categorical Relational & non-essentialistic Focuses on actions, not entities Looks at circulations, not territories Heterogenity & complexity Avoids simplicity, purification of notions Symmetry & agnosticism All actors treated neutrally, human or non-human No actor is given particular attention
Actor Network Theory : 80 Actor Network Theory Analytic Framework Actions Translations: the invisible work of maintaining a network Inscriptions: convincing/aligning actors using semiotic instruments Delegations: substitutions of human >> << non-human actors Flows Boundaries/Passage Points: contracts, memberships, rules Instruments: a device giving visual display to a text Scale Micro actor networks, macro actor networks Black boxes: stable networks considered a single thing Opened boxes: a thing entering instability, or needing change, that is ‘ opened ’ up and its internal actors analysed
Actor Network Theory : 81 Actor Network Theory Suitability (for this research) ‘ Blended ’ is hybrid, transitional, multifaceted ‘ Design ’ is action, continuous Pedagogical design is clearly translation, not invention (especially since photocopier) Translation is active changes by participants ‘ Environment ’ is network-like, both in physical and virtual venues. Fits with ecological metaphor. Unknown effects of non-human participants Cares not about essential properties of computer or internet, but their actions and effects on other actors
Actor Network Theory : 82 Actor Network Theory Suitability (over other methodologies, theories) Activity Theory: focuses more on roles, division of labor, rules of behavior. Relegates technology to artifact/mediator status. Diffusion Theory: a social-deterministic theory. Focuses on human actors, looks at design as invention, not continual translation Second Language Acquisition Theory: an essentialist theory focusing on competencies--endstates. Does not account well for sociological aspects of learning communities.
Actor Network Theory : 83 Actor Network Theory Past Research Large-scale socio-technical systems Transportation systems: Paris Aramis Illness treatment: hospital/doctor/patient Aircraft engine design Education Mulcahy (1997) Busch (1997) Tatnell (2000) Campbell (2004) CALL and Language learning None to date
Actor Network Theory : 84 Actor Network Theory Methods and Procedures No handbooks, blueprints available Perspectives emphasized over procedures Emphasis on holistic data collection, not data reduction Analysis based illustrative narrative, vignette reporting, self-conscious reflection
Actor Network Theory : 85 Actor Network Theory Weaknesses Ignores human volition Motivations, conciousness, meaning-making Tends to follow ‘ star ’ actors Silenced actors may be ignored Example: focus on teacher-as-designer or cutting edge internet tools, rather than student-as-designer or minor technologies Often non-critical May ignore power relations. Example: how are power patterns affected when low-cost photo copying is introduced. Publisher power down, teacher power up.
Autoethnography : 86 Autoethnography Purpose: debriefing experience, adding historical reflection, examine motivations of researcher, create identity Focus: my thirty years of ethnography, blended learning experiments, educational inquiry Aims: Acknowledge paradigmic change of author Technique for improving research quality Develops a minority discourse community
Autoethnography : 87 Autoethnography Data Collection: Selective, thematic writing Triggering tools: questions, snapshots, journey, artifacts Epiphanies: major, culmulative, problematic, reliving Data Interpretation: Published narratives, critical friend dialogue, cross-methodology comparison Problems: Lies on boundaries of qualitative research Danger of naricissism and self-indulgence No agreed upon verification criteria
Autoethnography : 88 Autoethnography Validity Criteria (Richardson, 2000) Substantive contribution: Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life? Aesthetic merit: Is the text artistic, captivating and avoids simplification? Reflexivity: Is it clear how author developed the text? Impactfulness: Does the text generate new questions or move the reader to action? Expresses a reality: Does the text express an embodied lived experience?
Research Design : 89 Research Design Methodology Selection Site Selection
Methodology Selection : 90 Methodology Selection action research to focus on the interventions of human actors actor network theory to discover material roles and power relationships from a realist perspective autoethnography to uncover past experiences relevant to confirm and illuminate the present studies.
Site Selection : 91 Site Selection Case study, not ‘ study ’ Location irrelevent, or less immaterial to framework being studied Sites chosen for convenience and relevance to theme Two universities in Japan My own courses, team courses at SGU A whole department, at KU 91
Research Design I : 92 Research Design I Units of Analysis: Themes of Interobjectivity Roles/actions of all actors Boundaries/responsibilities, negotiation spaces Size of actors Micro (self, teacher, task, course, classroom) and, Macro (curriculum, faculty, campus, environment) Units of Analysis: Themes of Intersubjectivity Community of practice Decisions and justifications of stakeholders Group aims and interests Conflicts, challenges, emergencies
Research Design II : 93 Research Design II Site Comparison—Cycles, Methodology, Participants, Data Collection, Data Analysis Site Cycles Methodology Participants Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Home/office 1970-2010 40 years continual Autoethnography Researcher diary, blog critical incidents innovations key issues SGU Cycle 1 2005-2006 2 semesters onsite Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod Research team Students Software engineers teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries SGU Cycle 2 2006-2007 2 semesters onsite Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod Research team Students Software engineers teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Same KU Cycle 1 2005-2006 1 week+ onsite Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers Research team Administrators Teachers, students observation interview materials/interface Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries KU Cycle 2 2006-2007 1 week+ onsite Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers Research team Administrators Teachers, students observation interview materials/interface Same
Research Design III: Positionality : 94 Research Design III: Positionality Site Participants Positionality Level * Positionality Description * Thirty-year career Lead Researcher 1 Insider alone SGU-Three cycles Teaching team, Co-administrators 2 Insider team KUIS-Three visits Administrators, Teachers 5 Outsider working with insiders * (Herr & Anderson, 2004)
Next Steps : 95 Next Steps Regional Conference Keynote--October 2005 KU Field Visit--November 2005 SGU Classes Arrangement--April, 2006 Retrospective Journal Writing Supervisor/Colleague Meetings National Conference/Publications 95
Action Research Theology : 96 Action Research Theology "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" Dante