Showing posts with label activitytheory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activitytheory. Show all posts
Friday, 5 October 2012
Improving the Student ICT Access and Use Project’s Coding Indices with Second Generation, Activity theory activity system components
Written for ICT researchers developing titles for coding indices.
Introduction
Using the components of an ‘activity system’ from the second-generation of Activity theory (Engeström, 2005) proved useful for creating more descriptive category titles in four coding indices that were developed during Laura Czerniewicz and Cheryl Brown’s research project Student ICT Access and Use (2004 -2012) project’s fourth phase (2011). This phase explored the first year university students’ formal and informal uses of Information Communication Technology (ICT). As the project gathered data from the ‘digital habitus’ of 26 students, it uncovered how they participated in many different activity systems. This long blog post explains how components of these activity systems were used to make more accurate and descriptive coding titles for each index.
Background
Phase four of the research project aimed to better understand how first year students from diverse social backgrounds were using ICT technologies, both formally and informally, at four South African universities in 2011. It sought to explore the ‘habitus’ (Bourdieau, 1986) of twenty six student subjects by analysing interviews, questionnaire feedback and day experience media (DEM) collected by a different researcher at each university for up to seven subjects.
To support efficient analysis across different media file types (video, audio and documents), these files were imported into qualitative research software. To code these media, four coding indices were developed after viewing students’ first and second interviews. The four indices could be used to code each subject’s: ‘past-’ (1), ‘present-’ (2) and ‘intended- ICT use’ (3), as well as common aspects of their feedback concerning ‘recent social media use’ (4). After publishing these indexes as Google documents, with supplementary posts on their development, I was asked to see whether Activity theory could serve a lens to improve the indexes’ category titles.
The Components of a Second Generation, Activity Theory ‘Activity System’
Activity theory (Engeström, 1987, 2001, 2005) has been used in many countries, including South Africa (Hardman, 2005, 2007), in order to understand the use of ICT in education (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006). Activity theory is a conceptual framework that is well suited to explain students’ use of online software in the complex social environment of university.
In Activity theory, the basic unit of analysis is an activity system, which in the first generation comprises a ‘subject’ who works with a ‘tool’ on a problem space, or ‘object’, to achieve an outcome that supports ‘objectives’ (Leontiev, 1974, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1985). Second-generation Activity theory expands the activity system’s framework’s components to include ‘community’, ‘rules’ and ‘division of labour’ (Engeström, 1987).
An example of an activity system components in use is a student subject using a learning management system software tool as part of a common assignment (or problem space) to download an exercise. She does this with the the conscious objective of starting her assignment timeously. As a student, she is expected to observe rules; principles of control affording or constraining behaviour. If she does not submit her work on time, she will be penalised by losing marks. A division of labour that comprises a horizontal division amongst community members and a vertical division between the power- and status-holders also shapes the community’s actions. For example, the lecturer assigns an exercise to the class, which they must do individually. If he assigned a group project that would mark a change in the division of labour typically expected in class.
As this project’s indices reveal, its researchers explored many student activity systems; whether in the formal university environment or outside. The explanatory power of their components was then applied to all four indices, to see if they could better define category titles.
Updating coding index one, ‘Students' Past ICT Access and Use’.
The first index defined students’ exposure to ICT prior to university. This aligns with the Activity theory principle of development, which emphasises the importance understanding the origin and history of tool-appropriation by subjects. In this instance the index’s original titles did not reflect the learners’ secondary school context versus university: The index was divided into five categories, originally titled: ‘Demographics 0’, ‘Education 1.1’, ‘First ICT use 1.2’, ‘ Family history 1.3’ and ‘Access 1.4’. To clearly distinguish between these two contexts, the title ‘Education 1.1’ became ‘ICT education at secondary school 1.1’. By contrast, ‘Demographics 0’ became ‘Student's demographic details 0’ to highlight that the demographic details captured were for the students in 2011, not learners. It was also important to distinguish between the learners’ initial uses of ICT before university, so ‘First ICT uses 1.2’ became ‘Pre-varsity use of ICT tools 1.2’.
The tiles ‘Family 1.3’ and ‘Access 1.4’ were changed to be more descriptive, the former became ‘Use of tools in the family 1.3’, the latter ‘Site of access to ICT tools 1.4’.
For each index, the activity system components that each category featured were also highlighted under category headings. As an example, ‘Subject - Community - Rules - Division of Labour’ were added under the category ‘ICT education at secondary school 1.1’. This reflected the category’s focus on the learner subject whose formal exposure to ICT at school largely depended on the schooling community that they were part of, and its rules (or policies) influencing its learners’ access. By contrast, ‘Pre-varsity use of ICT tools 1.2’ focussed on each learner subject’s use of ICT tools, so only ‘Subject’ and ‘Tool’ were listed.
Changing coding index two, ‘Students’ Current ICT Use 2’
The second index was developed to code the students ownership of, as well as formal and informal access to, ICT tools and their academic or informal uses. Most students had access to a diverse range of tools which were provided through a community including their; University, parents or sponsors, peers or acquired through their own work. Although this was reflected through the sub-categories under the original ‘ICT ownership 2.1’ category title, this was not highlighted in the title itself, which was changed to ‘Student’s personal ICT ownership and/or access 2.1’ to better reflect different avenues of tool access. The other two category titles were changed to be more descriptive; from ‘ICT use 2.2’ and ‘Academic use 2.3’ to ‘Student’s personal ICT use 2.2’ and ‘Student's academic ICT access and use 2.3’, respectively.
A sub-category title was also changed to be more descriptive of community; ‘ICT help 2.34’ changed to ‘University, family and peer assistance with ICT 2.34’ thereby emphasising the varied members who provided assistance.
Revising coding index three, ‘Students’ Intended ICT Use 3’
The third index was used in coding transcriptions of students describing; the types of ICT tools and resources they desired, their future aims with ICT, how they plan to use social networks in the future and their current and future social work contributions. The original category titles were ‘ICT tools and resources wanted 3.1’, ‘Future ICT aims 3.2’, ‘Future social network use 3.3’ and ‘Subject's social work 3.4’. These were revised to highlight the role of the learner subject, becoming; ‘ICT tools and resources wanted by the student 3.1’, ‘The student's future ICT aims 3.2’, ‘The student's future social network desired use 3.3’ and ‘Student's social work 3.4’, respectively.
Modifying coding index four, ‘Students' Social Media Use 4’
The fourth index focussed on coding student feedback regarding their social media use for self-representation, friendship and achieving specific tasks (through its affordances), as well as rules they employed in using social media and their feelings about it. The original titles were; ‘Representations of self 4.1’, ‘Friendships and social media 4.2’, ‘Social media affordances 4.3’, ‘Personal social media rules 4.4’ and ‘Student feelings in relation to social media 4.5’. These were also modified to reflect the subject’s importance; ‘Student's representations of self 4.1’, ‘Student's friendships and social media 4.2’, ‘Student's perceptions of social media affordances 4.3’, ‘Student's personal social media rules 4.4’ and ‘Student's feelings in relation to social media 4.5’
In conclusion
Using the components of a second-generation Activity theory activity system proved useful as a lens to create more accurate and descriptive titles for the Student ICT Access and Use project’s coding indexes. Following a similar process may prove useful for ICT researchers creating or reviewing index titles.
References
Introduction
Using the components of an ‘activity system’ from the second-generation of Activity theory (Engeström, 2005) proved useful for creating more descriptive category titles in four coding indices that were developed during Laura Czerniewicz and Cheryl Brown’s research project Student ICT Access and Use (2004 -2012) project’s fourth phase (2011). This phase explored the first year university students’ formal and informal uses of Information Communication Technology (ICT). As the project gathered data from the ‘digital habitus’ of 26 students, it uncovered how they participated in many different activity systems. This long blog post explains how components of these activity systems were used to make more accurate and descriptive coding titles for each index.
Background
Phase four of the research project aimed to better understand how first year students from diverse social backgrounds were using ICT technologies, both formally and informally, at four South African universities in 2011. It sought to explore the ‘habitus’ (Bourdieau, 1986) of twenty six student subjects by analysing interviews, questionnaire feedback and day experience media (DEM) collected by a different researcher at each university for up to seven subjects.
To support efficient analysis across different media file types (video, audio and documents), these files were imported into qualitative research software. To code these media, four coding indices were developed after viewing students’ first and second interviews. The four indices could be used to code each subject’s: ‘past-’ (1), ‘present-’ (2) and ‘intended- ICT use’ (3), as well as common aspects of their feedback concerning ‘recent social media use’ (4). After publishing these indexes as Google documents, with supplementary posts on their development, I was asked to see whether Activity theory could serve a lens to improve the indexes’ category titles.
The Components of a Second Generation, Activity Theory ‘Activity System’
Activity theory (Engeström, 1987, 2001, 2005) has been used in many countries, including South Africa (Hardman, 2005, 2007), in order to understand the use of ICT in education (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006). Activity theory is a conceptual framework that is well suited to explain students’ use of online software in the complex social environment of university.
In Activity theory, the basic unit of analysis is an activity system, which in the first generation comprises a ‘subject’ who works with a ‘tool’ on a problem space, or ‘object’, to achieve an outcome that supports ‘objectives’ (Leontiev, 1974, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1985). Second-generation Activity theory expands the activity system’s framework’s components to include ‘community’, ‘rules’ and ‘division of labour’ (Engeström, 1987).
An example of an activity system components in use is a student subject using a learning management system software tool as part of a common assignment (or problem space) to download an exercise. She does this with the the conscious objective of starting her assignment timeously. As a student, she is expected to observe rules; principles of control affording or constraining behaviour. If she does not submit her work on time, she will be penalised by losing marks. A division of labour that comprises a horizontal division amongst community members and a vertical division between the power- and status-holders also shapes the community’s actions. For example, the lecturer assigns an exercise to the class, which they must do individually. If he assigned a group project that would mark a change in the division of labour typically expected in class.
As this project’s indices reveal, its researchers explored many student activity systems; whether in the formal university environment or outside. The explanatory power of their components was then applied to all four indices, to see if they could better define category titles.
Updating coding index one, ‘Students' Past ICT Access and Use’.
The first index defined students’ exposure to ICT prior to university. This aligns with the Activity theory principle of development, which emphasises the importance understanding the origin and history of tool-appropriation by subjects. In this instance the index’s original titles did not reflect the learners’ secondary school context versus university: The index was divided into five categories, originally titled: ‘Demographics 0’, ‘Education 1.1’, ‘First ICT use 1.2’, ‘ Family history 1.3’ and ‘Access 1.4’. To clearly distinguish between these two contexts, the title ‘Education 1.1’ became ‘ICT education at secondary school 1.1’. By contrast, ‘Demographics 0’ became ‘Student's demographic details 0’ to highlight that the demographic details captured were for the students in 2011, not learners. It was also important to distinguish between the learners’ initial uses of ICT before university, so ‘First ICT uses 1.2’ became ‘Pre-varsity use of ICT tools 1.2’.
The tiles ‘Family 1.3’ and ‘Access 1.4’ were changed to be more descriptive, the former became ‘Use of tools in the family 1.3’, the latter ‘Site of access to ICT tools 1.4’.
For each index, the activity system components that each category featured were also highlighted under category headings. As an example, ‘Subject - Community - Rules - Division of Labour’ were added under the category ‘ICT education at secondary school 1.1’. This reflected the category’s focus on the learner subject whose formal exposure to ICT at school largely depended on the schooling community that they were part of, and its rules (or policies) influencing its learners’ access. By contrast, ‘Pre-varsity use of ICT tools 1.2’ focussed on each learner subject’s use of ICT tools, so only ‘Subject’ and ‘Tool’ were listed.
Changing coding index two, ‘Students’ Current ICT Use 2’
The second index was developed to code the students ownership of, as well as formal and informal access to, ICT tools and their academic or informal uses. Most students had access to a diverse range of tools which were provided through a community including their; University, parents or sponsors, peers or acquired through their own work. Although this was reflected through the sub-categories under the original ‘ICT ownership 2.1’ category title, this was not highlighted in the title itself, which was changed to ‘Student’s personal ICT ownership and/or access 2.1’ to better reflect different avenues of tool access. The other two category titles were changed to be more descriptive; from ‘ICT use 2.2’ and ‘Academic use 2.3’ to ‘Student’s personal ICT use 2.2’ and ‘Student's academic ICT access and use 2.3’, respectively.
A sub-category title was also changed to be more descriptive of community; ‘ICT help 2.34’ changed to ‘University, family and peer assistance with ICT 2.34’ thereby emphasising the varied members who provided assistance.
Revising coding index three, ‘Students’ Intended ICT Use 3’
The third index was used in coding transcriptions of students describing; the types of ICT tools and resources they desired, their future aims with ICT, how they plan to use social networks in the future and their current and future social work contributions. The original category titles were ‘ICT tools and resources wanted 3.1’, ‘Future ICT aims 3.2’, ‘Future social network use 3.3’ and ‘Subject's social work 3.4’. These were revised to highlight the role of the learner subject, becoming; ‘ICT tools and resources wanted by the student 3.1’, ‘The student's future ICT aims 3.2’, ‘The student's future social network desired use 3.3’ and ‘Student's social work 3.4’, respectively.
Modifying coding index four, ‘Students' Social Media Use 4’
The fourth index focussed on coding student feedback regarding their social media use for self-representation, friendship and achieving specific tasks (through its affordances), as well as rules they employed in using social media and their feelings about it. The original titles were; ‘Representations of self 4.1’, ‘Friendships and social media 4.2’, ‘Social media affordances 4.3’, ‘Personal social media rules 4.4’ and ‘Student feelings in relation to social media 4.5’. These were also modified to reflect the subject’s importance; ‘Student's representations of self 4.1’, ‘Student's friendships and social media 4.2’, ‘Student's perceptions of social media affordances 4.3’, ‘Student's personal social media rules 4.4’ and ‘Student's feelings in relation to social media 4.5’
In conclusion
Using the components of a second-generation Activity theory activity system proved useful as a lens to create more accurate and descriptive titles for the Student ICT Access and Use project’s coding indexes. Following a similar process may prove useful for ICT researchers creating or reviewing index titles.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Engeström, Y. 1987, Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki, Finland.
Engeström, Y. 2001, Expansive Learning at Work. Towards an Activity-Theoretical Reconceptualisation. University of London, London, England, UK.
Engeström, Y. 2005, Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice, Lehmanns Media, Berlin, Germany.
Hardman, J. 2007, "Making sense of the meaning maker: tracking the object of activity in a computer-based mathematics lesson using activity theory", International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol. 3, no. 4.
Hardman, J. 2005, "Activity Theory as a framework for understanding teachers' perceptions of computer usage at a primary school level in South Africa", South African Journal of Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 258-265.
Leontiev, A. 1981, Problems of the Development of Mind, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Leontiev, A. 1974, "The Problem of Activity in Psychology", Soviet Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 4-33.
Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. 2006, Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Vygotsky, L. 1978, Mind in Society; The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Vygotsky, L. 1987, The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Plenum Press, New York, USA.
Wertsch, J. 1985, Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Labels:
academic
,
activitytheory
,
coding
,
education
,
qualitative
,
research
,
university
Location: Cape Town, Western Cape Province, RSA
Cape Town, South Africa
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
My PhD in Media Studies' research problem statement
1 What problem does my research address?
There is a research gap regarding the multimodal choices that online portfolios afford, the choices that secondary school students make and the resonances of their choices. There is also a gap in describing how students negotiate with educators regarding choices the latter view as 'problematic'.
1.1 Who supports the presence of a problem?
David Buckingham (2003, 2007) argues that exposing students to media production in new school curricula can be a very effective form of media education. The new Visual Arts curricula that this Action Research project contributed to launching; “Create your own online portfolio” and “Improve your online portfolio” were intended to serve this aim.
In following these curricula, students made many multimodal choices in creating their online portfolios. Multimodal Theory, developed by Gunthar Kress (1996, 2010) and Carey Jewitt (2006, 2010), is highly appropriate for describing individual choices and their relationships; to each other, the page they help construct and other portfolio pages.
Jewitt (2006) has used Yrjo Engstrom’s (1987, 2001, 2005) Activity theory to explain the complex schooling context in which multimodal choices are made. Second generation Activity theory will be used to explain how the contradictions and tensions that result from a change to the traditional Visual Arts' classroom's 'tools', 'rules', 'division of labour' and 'community' in the new online portfolio activity system contributed to students negotiations with educators concerning 'problematic' choices.
2 How, where and when does the problem impact?
Although Buckingham’s body of research on media education (1990, 2007) suggests that teaching students media production is beneficial, there are few examples in the literature of these interventions by Visual Arts educators. There is also a research gap in students’ choices with online portfolio software.
By supporting successful initial curricular adoptions at a private (2010, 2011) and public (2011, 2012) school, this project enabled research into: select South African students’ multimodal choices with online portfolio software; their choices’ resonances; and uncovers how changes in creating an online portfolio as an adjunct to a traditional one contributed to students’ negotiations with educators regarding 'problematic' multimodal choices.
2.1 Who supports the impact of the problem?
Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear (2011) have also identified the importance of students being taught “new media literacies” through digital media production and describe the challenge of educators’ “outsider mindset” being an obstacle to digital media’s successful adoption. This project has helped Visual Arts educators to develop “insider mindsets” that are better suited to support the initial curricular adoptions of online portfolios.
Both the private and public school’s curricula support students with creating showcase Visual Arts electronic learning portfolios (e-portfolios). Barrett (2008) has written about the importance of educating students to use e-portfolios for life-long learning. She has also blogged on the decline in North American secondary schools’ adoption of e-portfolios (2010), listing many challenges that e-portfolio adoptions face.
Hazel Owen (2009) did an e-portfolio literature meta-review, which showed that although there are pedagogical benefits of e-portfolio use in well-resourced, tertiary environments, there are many hazards too. My research has supported secondary school educators with exploring the benefits and hazards of their Visual Arts students’ e-portfolio use as an adjunct to the traditional portfolio.
3 Why does the problem exist?
The conceptual basis for the problem is that online portfolios are a new cultural form; freemium Web2.0 services only emerged from 2003. Their novelty partly explains why so little research has been done into the multimodal choices they afford.
3.1 Who supports the conceptual nature of the problem?
There are distinct resourcing barriers confronting adoption of Information Communication Technology in tertiary education in the developing world: Laura Czernieciwz and Cheryl Brown (2004) identified four key resource categories; 'technological' (i.e. availability of ITC resources), 'personal', 'agency' (i.e. access to digitisation and computer equipment), 'contextual' (i.e. formal enabling networks) and 'online content' (i.e. articles written for local audiences) where barriers to adoption occur. These categories arguably apply in secondary education too, as it is a similar formal environment.
My research project project has assisted two secondary school educators in overcoming some of these obstacles and has facilitated the curricular adoption of online portfolios for studying multimodal affordances, students’ selections, their choices’ resonances and uncovers the background to negotiations regarding 'problematic' choices.
There is a research gap regarding the multimodal choices that online portfolios afford, the choices that secondary school students make and the resonances of their choices. There is also a gap in describing how students negotiate with educators regarding choices the latter view as 'problematic'.
1.1 Who supports the presence of a problem?
David Buckingham (2003, 2007) argues that exposing students to media production in new school curricula can be a very effective form of media education. The new Visual Arts curricula that this Action Research project contributed to launching; “Create your own online portfolio” and “Improve your online portfolio” were intended to serve this aim.
In following these curricula, students made many multimodal choices in creating their online portfolios. Multimodal Theory, developed by Gunthar Kress (1996, 2010) and Carey Jewitt (2006, 2010), is highly appropriate for describing individual choices and their relationships; to each other, the page they help construct and other portfolio pages.
Jewitt (2006) has used Yrjo Engstrom’s (1987, 2001, 2005) Activity theory to explain the complex schooling context in which multimodal choices are made. Second generation Activity theory will be used to explain how the contradictions and tensions that result from a change to the traditional Visual Arts' classroom's 'tools', 'rules', 'division of labour' and 'community' in the new online portfolio activity system contributed to students negotiations with educators concerning 'problematic' choices.
2 How, where and when does the problem impact?
Although Buckingham’s body of research on media education (1990, 2007) suggests that teaching students media production is beneficial, there are few examples in the literature of these interventions by Visual Arts educators. There is also a research gap in students’ choices with online portfolio software.
By supporting successful initial curricular adoptions at a private (2010, 2011) and public (2011, 2012) school, this project enabled research into: select South African students’ multimodal choices with online portfolio software; their choices’ resonances; and uncovers how changes in creating an online portfolio as an adjunct to a traditional one contributed to students’ negotiations with educators regarding 'problematic' multimodal choices.
2.1 Who supports the impact of the problem?
Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear (2011) have also identified the importance of students being taught “new media literacies” through digital media production and describe the challenge of educators’ “outsider mindset” being an obstacle to digital media’s successful adoption. This project has helped Visual Arts educators to develop “insider mindsets” that are better suited to support the initial curricular adoptions of online portfolios.
Both the private and public school’s curricula support students with creating showcase Visual Arts electronic learning portfolios (e-portfolios). Barrett (2008) has written about the importance of educating students to use e-portfolios for life-long learning. She has also blogged on the decline in North American secondary schools’ adoption of e-portfolios (2010), listing many challenges that e-portfolio adoptions face.
Hazel Owen (2009) did an e-portfolio literature meta-review, which showed that although there are pedagogical benefits of e-portfolio use in well-resourced, tertiary environments, there are many hazards too. My research has supported secondary school educators with exploring the benefits and hazards of their Visual Arts students’ e-portfolio use as an adjunct to the traditional portfolio.
3 Why does the problem exist?
The conceptual basis for the problem is that online portfolios are a new cultural form; freemium Web2.0 services only emerged from 2003. Their novelty partly explains why so little research has been done into the multimodal choices they afford.
3.1 Who supports the conceptual nature of the problem?
There are distinct resourcing barriers confronting adoption of Information Communication Technology in tertiary education in the developing world: Laura Czernieciwz and Cheryl Brown (2004) identified four key resource categories; 'technological' (i.e. availability of ITC resources), 'personal', 'agency' (i.e. access to digitisation and computer equipment), 'contextual' (i.e. formal enabling networks) and 'online content' (i.e. articles written for local audiences) where barriers to adoption occur. These categories arguably apply in secondary education too, as it is a similar formal environment.
My research project project has assisted two secondary school educators in overcoming some of these obstacles and has facilitated the curricular adoption of online portfolios for studying multimodal affordances, students’ selections, their choices’ resonances and uncovers the background to negotiations regarding 'problematic' choices.
Labels:
academic
,
activitytheory
,
affordances
,
arts
,
choices
,
multimodal
,
online_portfolio
,
qualitative
,
research
,
software
,
south_africa
,
students
,
visual
,
web2.0
Location: Cape Town, Western Cape Province, RSA
Cape Town, South Africa
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Using Activity theory to study e-portfolio adoption
Yesterday, I gave a presentation to the Centre for Educational Technology's research group on "Using Activity theory to study e-portfolio adoption". In it, I defined my research questions and why Activity theory is well-suited to answer them. Then I described the research tools I am using and how the data gathered will be studied through the lens of inter- and intra-Activity theory frameworks. I closed by proposing a dual coding for my research; the first would define the relationship level (inter- or intra-framework), while the second would describe the relationship (construct to construct {i.e. Subject-to-Tool}).
Tony Carr was the designated responder to my presentation. He was pleased with the progress from my previous research proposal; particularly how I would be using the relationships between the common constructs of Activity theory to consistently address aspects in the complex secondary school educational environment. He advised that the activity system in a public school is likely to be very different from that in a private one, due to resourcing; these must be treated as distinct systems. Following his recommendation, I will define public-school Activity systems for; "before" and "after" adoption, "in-class" and "out-of-class curriculum" relationships and those that describe how the difference in decision makers' objectives influence curricular sustainability.
Dick Ngambi recommended that I could consider the process of using tools in the production of the e-portfolio separately from e-portfolios, themselves. He also encouraged me to think about how I could narrow the scope of my research, which has had to be an expansive exploration to understand all the factors that influence curricular sustainability.
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams recommended that I use "backgrounding" and "foregrounding" to prioritize areas of my research. After establishing the key complexities that influence curricular adoption since 2009, she proposed that I should define what I won't explore this year. Cheryl also asked me about the tools I would use to analyze my data. Although I am currently using Excel, I answered that I am considering using a dedicated CAQDAS solution. Olive Birabi gave feedback on the challenges of using Nvivo at UCT. Cheryl recommended that I attend the next research group meeting; a talk on "Critical Discourse Analysis" will include the use of Excel for studying qualitative themes.
Michael Paskevicius recommended that I prepare a blog post on how I got to Activity theory after exploring Usability testing, Diffusion of Innovations Theory, Use-In-Practice Methodology and Social Network Theory.
In the second part of the research group's meeting, Tony Carr presented on how he is using Activity Theory and content analysis to study the "Breakdowns and Contradictions in an Online Conference". Following his review example of select E-merge conference attendees feedback, I must look into defining how my project addresses primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary contradictions in its research methodology.
The research group meeting was very useful; it confirmed that my research process is on the right track, whilst giving me several ideas to improve. Thanks to its participants for their advice and encouragement!
Labels:
activitytheory
,
education
,
eportfolio
,
online_portfolio
,
research
Friday, 19 November 2010
Some Key Findings, Plus My First Podcast!
I gave a summary presentation on my research at the University of Cape Town's mini-conference on "Technology in Education", yesterday. After discussing the research problem and rationale, I covered my research questions and findings from 2010’s pilot study in the private school. Some interesting points were:
The emotional intelligence of a Visual Arts class' learners should be a key deciding factor for the type of social media platform an educator chooses. If it is low, giving learners the ability to comment and rate each others work, and interact with audiences outside class, could prove problematic .
The out-of-school support learners' have should be considered upfront in curriculum design. For example, encouraging learners from well-resourced homes to use scanners and cameras at home to digitize their art, could address bottlenecks in class and free-up equipment for use by less-privlidged learners.
Online portfolios could be a useful reference for exam moderators in the event of learners taking advantage of different schools' exam schedules to exchange work. This is a suprising instance of digital media actually helping to combat plagiarism!
There is considerable scope for the DOE and/or WCED to use training in Web 2.0 technologies and online communities to promote a Visual Arts educator community of practice that could share curricula, best practice and insights into how to teach and benchmark ITC literacies relevant to the post-school realities of modern creative professionals. Unfortunately, given the government's poor record in educational innovation, support for such an initiative is highly unlikely.
Given the support Visual Arts educators in Secondary School need to teach Web2.0 literacies in class, it is magical thinking for the government or school management to think that such initiatives could spontaneously "bubble-up"! The school executive and curricular advisers must get involved in thinking how to bridge the participatory gap between educators and learners AND how best to support learners with developing ICT literacy skills (like e-safety, information assessment and digital citizenship) that now arguably cut across ALL subjects.
All conference speakers' talks were recorded for podcasting by the CET's Lovemore Nalube. I'm sure mine will show how challenging summarizing over a year's research in forty minutes was :).
While feedback to the presentation was enthusiastic, I know I can do much better as a speaker. I also learnt a lot from Kevin Sherman's talk on creating memorable presentations. So, my resolutions for next year will include taking my public speaking to the next level AND simplifying my slides to be more memorable. I trust that this will make my second podcasting appearance so much better!
Labels:
activitytheory
,
affordances
,
arts
,
online_portfolio
,
research
,
software
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-8983
