Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Education and Technology Partnerships as Intercultural Communities: An Ethnographic Perspective
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Education and Technology Partnerships as Intercultural Communities: An Ethnographic Perspective

689
views

Published on

CITERS2014 - Learning without Limits? …

CITERS2014 - Learning without Limits?
http://citers2014.cite.hku.hk/program-overview/keynote-green/
13 June 2014 (Friday)
09:10 – 10:00
Keynote 1: Education and Technology Partnerships as Intercultural Communities: An Ethnographic Perspective
Speaker: Professor Judith GREEN (Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara)
Chair: Dr. Susan BRIDGES (Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, HKU)

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
689
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS AS INTERCULTURAL COMMUNITIES An Ethnographic Perspective Judith Green GeUniversity of California, Santa Barbara with Dr. Stephanie Couch, California State University East Bay Richard Bacon, Graduate Student, UC Santa Barbara Beth Yeager, California State University East Bay CITERS Conference, University of Hong KongJune 13, 2017
  • 2. MAKING VISIBLE THE INVISIBLE  Over the past four decades my colleagues and I have been developing an Interactional Ethnographic research approach that grew out of studies in which we partnered with K-20 teachers, students, and technology developers, in a range of institutional and social settings.  The Interactional Ethnographic epistemology (way of knowing) supports systematic and overtime analysis of how participants are constructing complex patterned ways of knowing, being and doing everyday events in classrooms and social groups as cultures-in-the-making.
  • 3.  Guided by theoretical perspectives from anthropology, learning sciences, sociolinguistics, and sociology, we seek to develop understandings of  How and in what ways members and partnering groups/actors individually and collectively construct local knowledge?  How local cultural and academic knowledge is constructed in and through the moment-to-moment and overtime discourse and interactions among members?
  • 4. AND WHAT COUNTS AS PARTNERING: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE  Ethnographers seek to step back from their own cultural assumptions (Languaculture 1-LC1) to learn, from the group (LC2) with whom they are partnering in research, by examining  Who can do (say or engage in) what  With whom  In what ways  For what purposes  Under what conditions  With what outcomes or what consequences for what can be accomplished subsequently by both the individual and the collective
  • 5. RICH POINTS MAKE VISIBLE DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDINGS OF CULTURAL PRACTICES In intercultural Interactional spaces,  A researcher or participant may experience a frame clash (clash in frames of reference or interpretation), when they do not share a common understanding of  What is happening (or expected to be happening)  What something means to insiders  What insiders need know to participate in expected ways  If the researcher/participants actively explore the pathways (roots) leading to the frame clash, they can TURN the frame clash into a rich point for exploring what they, or others, need to know, understand, produce and predict to participate in expected way
  • 6.  This approach orients the ethnographer(s) to questions that make visible local, situated ways of  communicating,  interacting,  Interpreting the referential, semiotic, material & social work of members of a group (Languaculture 2)  This approach make visible  What members construct as ways of knowing, being and doing the processes and practices that constitute members’ knowledge of actions and content  How changing policies from intersecting systems are consequential for (impact) the academic work of students and teachers alike STUDYING SOCIAL GROUPS AS LANGUACULTURES
  • 7. TELLING CASE 1: THE EMBEDDED ETHNOGRAPHER AS LEADER
  • 8. THE STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE PROGRAM AS A TELLING CASE The program is an award winning hybrid online program that was  Developed by an inter-Institutional team (K12 district administrators, community college instructors and technology leaders, college/university faculty, adult school administrators, and Math and English Language Arts researchers and faculty)  Served 4,700 students in 78 schools and educational settings, in 40 of the 58 counties in California  Served Students who had failed the High School Exit examination (CAHSEE) 4-6 times but after taking the Stepping program  38% passed for English Language Arts Test for the first time  48% of passed the Math Test passed for the first time
  • 9. THE EMBEDDED ETHNOGRAPHER AS PARTNER: CASE STUDY 1 To generate developing understandings of how teams form and develop, while creating technology-enabled educational programs, the embedded ethnographer, as team leader, sought understandings of  What kinds of model(s) of interactive leadership and partnering work were, or needed to be, developed within and across the development and implementation phases of the program?  What unanticipated and novel challenges arose as actors moved across time and during phases of development?
  • 10. STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE Live on-line instruction On site instructional support Hybrid Approach
  • 11. A WORKING MODEL WAS DEVELOPED BY ENGAGING IN THE FOLLOWING PROCESSES ACROSS TIME Engaging in interactive-responsive processes guided by an abductive logic of inquiry (Agar, 2006) Engaging in iterative and recursive analyses across times, events and multiple levels of analytic scale (Agar, 2006) Constructing systematically what was occurring from an emic, or insider’s perspective (Heath & Street, 2008) Undertaking contrastive analyses of data, theories, perspectives, and/or methods (Corsaro, 1981)
  • 12. PARTNERING ACROSS THE PROGRAM: A GROUNDED WORKING MODEL
  • 13. WHAT THE LEADER(S) NEEDED TO EXPLORE How social, professional and academic practices within and across disciplines in a team compare and contrast with those of other partners  Experts in a field contributing to the project,  Students engaging in the program,  Instructors/facilitators of the program To uncover frame clashes challenging the work of the team, the leader needed to examine the social meanings, and academic practices, within and across groups to construct warranted claims about  What was happening (or or not)  When and where,  under what conditions,  for what purposes,  in what ways,  with what outcomes or consequences for what was being developed.
  • 14. THE PROGAM AS A COLLECTIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT
  • 15. INTERSEGMENTAL PARTNERS: CC, UC, CSU, LAUSD Creating Opportunities for Students who failed the CA High School Exit Exam Butte Glen Community College District Lake Tahoe Community College District University California, Los Angeles University California, Santa Barbara Los Angeles Unified School District And Other School Districts
  • 16. PARTNERING FOR CONTENT AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT Math Instructional Design Team: English Language Arts Instructional Design Team: Technology Team: Lake Tahoe CCD Faculty •Larry Green CSU Fullerton Faculty •Harris Shultz UCSB—Math Researcher •Sarah Hough UCSB Faculty • Carol Dixon •Beth Yeager •Judith Green SBCC Faculty •Margaret Prothero, Butte Oommunity College District Administrators •Tim Calhoun •Dave Albrecht •Dave Hammond UCLA •Programmers
  • 17. NO SIZE FITS ALL !!!  The team developed a program with  Multiple Entry Points  Multiple Delivery Models  Strength Based For All
  • 18. STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE IS
  • 19. INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESSES PROVIDED Video Conferencing With Online Instructor, group Online Resources Tutoring – Online or other formats Possibly using e- conferencing E-Conferencing, discussion forums
  • 20. Achieving Access and Engagement Voice Over/Highlig hting Video Based/Transc ripts & Closed Captioning Meta Discourse Interactive (journal responses, reflection) It includes:
  • 21. The strong video base provides students with explicit examples of what it looks like and sounds like to engage in active reading and writing and test taking.
  • 22. The highlighting of text, synchronized with an audio voice over, allows the student to actively read along and to associate what is heard with written text. Points where the voice over is optional allow the reader to choose his or her own pace for reading the text. Voice overs enable students at multiple reading levels and/or levels of language proficiency to access the text.
  • 23. The voice over and pop up texts provide explicit talk about what they just heard and saw in the video: Helping students make connections between prior ways of applying concepts and practices and new applications.
  • 24. The pop up Windows throughout allow students to interact with and respond to what they are hearing and/or reading.
  • 25. EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM STRUCTURING Each lesson moves from Part One (concept explanation, concept building, including guided and independent practice) in real world contexts, to Part Two (Thinking Like a Test Maker) This shift uses concepts and practices in a test taking context (concept explanation, concept building), and includes guided and independent practice in applying understanding these concepts to the test context Each lesson embeds applications involving Word Analysis, Reading Comprehension, and Literary Response. Each lesson actively ‘walks the student through’ new concepts and then provides student with opportunities to practice and make links between conceptual understanding and reading practice and using that knowledge in the test context.
  • 26. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT STEPPING’S APPROACH TO READING AND WRITING? Traditional Approach to Comprehension (examples) Active Reading Practices in Stepping – An Approach to Meaning Making  Who are the main characters?  What is the main idea?  Where does this story take place?  When does the story take place?  Why did this happen?  Making predictions – predicting possible interpretations  Asking questions of & with text  Looking for & using clues  Noticing details in text  Making connections  Grounding in evidence
  • 27.  Interactional Ethnography provided a systematic approach to  Making visible how the work of partnering in this particiular group (or other social spaces) shapes particular opportunities for development and learning from others, leading to particular types of knowledge  Engaging in cross-case analyses to explore how opportunities for learning differ across partnering groups and actors  Identifying consequential progressions within and across phases of development, implementation and use
  • 28.  The contrastive analyses are possible given a longitudinal ethnography undertaken with Beth Yeager from 1991-2000 in her fifth and sixth grade classes  The data records include parallel collections each year:  Video tapes of the first three weeks of school (all day-- 6 hrs/da) and purposeful samples of cycles of activity across the school year (ca. >100 hours of video tapes of key events)  Artifacts produced by students within these cycles of activity  Interviews (formal and informal) of teacher and students  Public records of policy decisions related to what occurred each year  Ongoing work with the teacher ethnographer (one of the authors) THE ETHNOGRAPHY(1991-2002) AS A FOUNDATION FOR CONTRASTING ACTIONS
  • 29. Initiating Question(s) 1: Where can I locate discourse in which Samuel inscribes evidence of his use of creativity and imagination to express thoughts, ideas, and/or feelings that can serve as an anchor for analysis of intertextually tied events? What were those events and/or interactions? Showcase Portfolio Dear Reader letter. Identify all instances of social science referenced. Select the earliest cycle identified as an anchor for forward and backward mapping to the roots and routes to becoming a social scientist. Representing data:
  • 30. (RE)PRESENTING DATA: MOVING FORWARD IN TIME ACROSS DAYS TO IDENTIFY PROCESSES AND PRACTICES ON FIRST DAY WERE RELATED TO DEVELOPING INQUIRY AND LITERACY, AS WELL AS ACADEMIC IDENTITIES. Analyzing events: Tracing across the first 6 days of school, the processes and practices referenced by and constructed jointly by the teacher with the students and others in the class (researcher, teaching assistant)
  • 31. From individual opportunities to multiple collective spaces that constitute a consequential progression of activity and opportunities for learning
  • 32. Initiating Question(s) 3: How did the teacher construct opportunities for learning to engage in inquiry in the first cycle of activity? What were those events and/or interactions? Identify the flow of engagement in intertextually tied events and identify the boundaries of the cycle of activity to construct a data set to analyze what each event afforded him in learning inquiry, taking up identities, and engage with literacy processes and practices. Representing data:
  • 33. • Across time and events, there was a consequential progression that shaped texts, practices and knowledge afforded individuals-within-a-group as well as the collective [Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & Duran, R. 2000] • Consequential progressions in one year provide a basis for exploring opportunities gained and lost when policies change what is possible for teachers and students to do, construct, and therefore, display as learning in classrooms IDENTIFYING CONSEQUENTIAL PROGRESSIONS ADDS TO THE THEORETICAL EXPLANATION
  • 34. HOW EXTERNAL CHANGES Supported and constrained opportunities for learning across years, holding the teacher, school and grade level constant
  • 35. TRACING DISTRICT LEVEL CHANGES Exploring how political changes at the district system level changed opportunities across a three year period
  • 36. THREE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES IN PRACTICES
  • 37. Across Years, Changing DISCOURSES Impacted What Could Be KNOWN TAKEN UP CONSTRUCTED By the Teacher by Students By restricting linguistic resources and instructional approaches, policy shifts constrained academic access and the construction of social and academic identities

×