International Visual Methods Conference Sept OU 2011


Published on

I presented this at the 2nd IVM conference in September 2011 at the OU, Milton

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Intro to this area
  • International Visual Methods Conference Sept OU 2011

    1. 1. Nicola Beddall-Hill ( & Bump ) LDC ESRC PhD candidate Ensemble TLRP TEL project Developing mobile ethnographies using novel digital tools: stories of visual methodology and analysis with an iPhone 3GS and head mounted camera – (Presentation will be on Slideshare afterwards) Strand: Using New Technologies International Visual Methods Conference: 13 th - 15 th September 2011, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Supervisors: Prof. S. Quinsee & Prof. P. Carmichael
    2. 2. <ul><li>Context to research setting </li></ul><ul><li>New technologies used and guidance regarding their use </li></ul><ul><li>How the data produced was organised </li></ul><ul><li>Strategies to analyse the data </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed future development options </li></ul>Presentation aims
    3. 3. PROJECT OUTLINE <ul><li>PhD Linked to the Teaching & Learning Research Programme (TLRP) for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) funded by ESRC & EPSRC </li></ul><ul><li>Investigating the use of mobile technologies for learning by students in field trip setting on a higher educational course </li></ul><ul><li>Research questions </li></ul><ul><li>What is ‘going on’ in the field trip setting? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the technology enable, change or create barriers to learning processes on field trips? </li></ul><ul><li>How do the students integrate this technology into their learning practices? </li></ul><ul><li>How can the role of technology in this setting be theorised? </li></ul><ul><li>What can be given back to the users to aid practice? </li></ul>
    4. 4. METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES <ul><li>Main challenges: </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile setting, moving through time & space, with sometimes difficult weather & terrain to negotiate. </li></ul><ul><li>Needed to achieve the least obtrusive but closest observation method possible - to view the students’ interactions with each other & the technology in this unfamiliar, & often informal, learning setting. </li></ul><ul><li>Could not operate as a detached observer – 24/7 experience </li></ul><ul><li>Methodological choice: </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnographic approach using mobile methods of research & a variety of digital tools to collect the mainly qualitative data. </li></ul>
    5. 5. DATA COLLECTION: FIELD TRIPS Field trips 2009 Lake District 2009 Malta 2010 Lake District Students 6 (4 male, 2 females) 10 (6 males, 4 females) 10 (7 males, 3 females) Projects 2 projects of 2 days 1 full day, 4 half day data collections 2 projects of 2 days Total data GB 17.88 (Not including indoor DV) 27.3 20.45 Digital ethnography Video, photos, field notes, GPS tracks, questionnaires & focus groups. Digital video, still photos, field notes, audio recordings, also focus groups Video, photos, field notes, GPS tracks, questionnaires & focus groups. Mobile methods Head camera No additional to above Head camera & iPhone 3GS
    6. 6. MOBILE METHODS <ul><li>Relatively new methodological development based around the suggested paradigm shift of ‘Mobilites’ (Urry, 2007) & the affordances new mobile technologies facilitate. </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile methods enable ‘co-present-immersion’ (Urry & Buscher, 2009), that is the ability to stay in motion with those they are observing through different modes of movement & by using a variety of different data capture methods. </li></ul><ul><li>For mobile learning research this enables the researcher to observe & the rich ‘in-world’ interactions instead of evaluating the role of the technology post learning. </li></ul>
    7. 7. The head mounted Camera: option 1 <ul><li>POV1.5 Action Camera (POV1) </li></ul><ul><li>Fully integrated point-of-view (POV) video system (nearly to DVD quality) </li></ul><ul><li>Waterproof, dustproof & shock-resistant </li></ul><ul><li>Mountable bullet camera with built-in recorder & wireless remote (3m) </li></ul><ul><li>Used a 4GB SDHC Card (takes up to 8) </li></ul><ul><li>Has its own editing software if needed </li></ul><ul><li>RRP £500 upwards </li></ul>
    8. 8. The head mounted Camera: option 2 <ul><li>Kodak Zx1 flip camera and Gorilla tripod </li></ul><ul><li>720p HD video capture at 60fps, up to 10 hours record time (2hr using rechargeable batteries) </li></ul><ul><li>Weather resistant & rugged design </li></ul><ul><li>Stills & video at variety of speeds in HD & VGA quality </li></ul><ul><li>Mountable flip camera with internal memory (128MB) which is expandable with SDHC Cards (up to 32GB) </li></ul><ul><li>Has built-in software for editing videos </li></ul><ul><li>Built-in mono microphone </li></ul><ul><li>RRP £45 for camera & £12 for Gorilla tripod </li></ul>
    9. 9. Using head mounted Cameras – weighing up the pros and cons… DD = Device dependant Advantages Disadvantages Excellent sound & picture quality (DD) Delicate equipment - easily broken! Reduced capture of participants’ faces Creates a lot of footage to review -but can ‘tag’ sections (DD) Some are water others weatherproof (DD) Difficult to maintain the correct recording angle Focused recording of the mobile device & interactions around it Not clear what is happening on the mobile device’s screen Students are interrupted less by using this method Visible to the public (DD) which can create anxiety for some Long record times, easy download (DD) Focus of attention/event is not wholly selected by the researcher
    10. 11. Using the iPhone 3GS – weighing up the pros and cons… Advantages Disadvantages Reasonable sound & picture quality Capture is researcher-led Quite robust for use outdoors & lightweight Difficult to view screen in sunlight & not waterproof! Can capture many different types of data, only using one device Poor zoom & sound range Wide choice of applications to choose from Expensive equipment Students are interrupted less by using this method Students & public may not know they are being recorded Long record times & large storage, easy download & synching Occasional signal loss & wrong application selected
    11. 12. Overall issues encountered with new technologies <ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><li>Head camera: Which to use, various battery, file format & quality issues. </li></ul><ul><li>iPhone: sometimes difficult to . </li></ul><ul><li>Participant </li></ul><ul><li>Head camera: Student embarrassment around wearing & lecturer discomfort at potential interference & lessons being filmed? </li></ul><ul><li>iPhone: Difficult for students to know when they are being recorded, too comfortable with its social vs. research role? </li></ul>
    12. 13. TIME & SPACE <ul><li>The use of the iPhone 3GS meant ALL data was more accurately time logged (important for time-lining). </li></ul><ul><li>It also allowed the ‘geo-tagging’ of the photo’s & video which could then be viewed on Google Earth (the use of a geo-tagging card can enable this in digital cameras). </li></ul><ul><li>The application ‘Pin Trip’ allowed memos to be created at various points of interest & also could exported to Google Earth. </li></ul><ul><li>Further work with geo-visualization software & the use of consistent data capture techniques might have enabled a more integrated & visual analysis method to have been developed. </li></ul>
    13. 14. ANALYSIS: Large data sets Raw data Bento-files linked & labeled But software fails! Level 1 Level 2 Level 2b
    14. 15. ANALYSIS: Storytelling <ul><li>The raw data was sorted into time-lines, but even after that it was still hard to begin to access it for analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>Storytelling is a good way of presenting ethnographic data – it provides an initial rich description of what took place in chronological order. </li></ul><ul><li>From this meaningful relationships between the events can be drawn out, specific scenes focused upon & compared. </li></ul><ul><li>It prioritizes the participants & allows their own voices to be brought in via quotations of their dialogue. </li></ul><ul><li>Through writing stories about the field trips & continued submersion with the data I began to find critical events & themes emerging which I could link to theoretical concepts. </li></ul>
    15. 16. ANALYSIS: Thematic approaches <ul><li>Thematic Analysis is poorly defined & explained – for guidance see Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). Pp.77-101. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Through its theoretical freedom, thematic analysis provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data.” (Braun et al., 2006:78) </li></ul><ul><li>The themes do not ‘emerge’ but are actively identified by the research through submersion in their data, which occurred through the storytelling. </li></ul><ul><li>These themes were compared across cases, refined, challenged & examined within the conceptual framework. </li></ul>
    16. 17. Ethical Issues in Mobile Methods <ul><li>Recording participants in time & space, monitoring via GPS and constant video – invasion of privacy? Both participants & public? </li></ul><ul><li>But… the strict anonymity enforced by the University committee. What is essential & what begins to erode the richness of the data? It also reduces data sharing possibilities within the large TEL network. </li></ul><ul><li>Possible answer: self recording? However extra burden upon students in this case & will often ‘miss’ the mistakes which are of the greatest learning consequence. </li></ul><ul><li>Instead sensitivity & good trust relationship with participants needs to be built with clear roles for the technology being used. </li></ul>
    17. 18. FUTURE DIRECTIONS <ul><li>Mobile methods are growing in popularity especially given our increasingly ‘mobile’ lifestyles & challenges researching them – </li></ul><ul><li>** See: Urry, J. (2007), Urry, J., & Buscher, M. (2009) & Ricketts-Hein, J., Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>New technologies are enabling this growth, but need careful consideration about their social/research roles – </li></ul><ul><li>** See: Beddall-Hill, N. L., Jabbar, A., & Al Shehri. S. (2011), Beddall-Hill, N. L (2010) & especially Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2009), Murthy, D. (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical issues are emerging around these methods and tools – we need to be sensitive in their implementations – </li></ul><ul><li>** See: Lally, et al,. (2011) & Wishart, J. M. (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>New methods of analysis needed for this type of data? Integrating geo-visualization data to map time & space… </li></ul>
    18. 19. Email: [email_address] Twitter : Web: Nicola Beddall-Hill ESRC PhD candidate Learning Development Centre TLRP TEL project Ensemble Learning with mobile devices in the field
    19. 20. REFERENCES <ul><li>Beddall-Hill, N. L., Jabbar, A., & Al Shehri. S. (2011) Social Mobile Devices as Tools for Qualitative Research in Education: iPhones and iPads in Ethnography, Interviewing, and Design-Based Research . Special Learning Without Frontiers Conference issue 2011. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology. 7 (1), 28-4. Retrieved September 12 th 2011 from </li></ul><ul><li>Beddall-Hill, N. L (2010) Witnessing learning in mobile settings using a head mounted camera. In E, Brown, E. (Eds.), Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. A report from the STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop series. (pp.39-42). University of Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute (LSRI) </li></ul><ul><li>Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2009). Using a head-mounted video camera to understand social worlds and experiences, Sociological Research Online, 13 (6),1. Retrieved June 15 th 2009 from </li></ul><ul><li>Lally, V., Sharples, M., Bertram, N., Masters, S., Norton, B., & Tracy, F. (2011). Researching the Ethical Dimensions of Mobile, Ubiquitous, and Immersive Technology Enhanced Learning (MUITEL) in Informal Settings: a thematic review and dialogue. (FUNDED by EPSRC/ESRC RES-139-25-0402) Submitted to Interactive Learning Environments (Special Issue). </li></ul>
    20. 21. REFERENCES CONT. <ul><li>Murthy, D. (2008). Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research, Sociology, 42 (5), 837-855. </li></ul><ul><li>Ricketts-Hein, J., Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2008). Mobile Methodologies: Theory, Technology and Practice, Geography Compass, 2 (5), 1266-1285. </li></ul><ul><li>Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press </li></ul><ul><li>Urry, J., & Buscher, M. (2009). Mobile Methods and the Empirical. </li></ul><ul><li>European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 99-117. </li></ul><ul><li>Wishart, J. M. (2009). Ethical considerations in implementing mobile learning in the workplace, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning , 1 (2), 76-92. </li></ul>