Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo15/3/13Research design and instrumentation for studiesof knowledge pr...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo25/3/13Outline1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.2. Methodo...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.35/3/13
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloResearch orientation§  Idiographic vs nomothetic research§ Nomothet...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo55/3/13Questioning the concepts of formal andinformal§  How learners...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo65/3/13Challenging school practices§  Two different learning culture...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  The things you learn in school are...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  “Functionally, the distinction bet...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  The relationship between everyday ...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  ’Leisure is hard work.’ (K. Drotne...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo115/3/13Barton & Hamilton (1998). Ecologicalperspective on literacySi...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloKnowledge practices§ Understanding knowledge practices as ‘personal ...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo135/3/13Knowledge connected - trajectories ofknowledge buildingUnders...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo2. Methodological challenges145/3/13
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloTwo	  dimensions	  	  §  Increased	  focus	  on	  studying	  literac...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloMethodological	  challenges	  §  How	  do	  we	  define	  literacy	  ...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloTechnologies and methodological challenges§  In	  collec3ng	  data.	...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo3. Research design and instrumentation185/3/13
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo195/3/13Example§ ’Knowledge	  in	  Mo3on	  Across	  Contexts	  of	  ...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloPiloting phase§  Baseline	  data	  § Diaries	  for	  Learning	  Liv...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloKnowMo§  The	  overarching	  research	  ques3ons	  in	  this	  proje...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo§  The	  research	  design	  	  § Qualita3ve,	  longitudinal	  stud...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloSample§  30 students from two classes at each school will be selecte...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo2 x 2 years design§  The data collection (first 2,5 years)§ Will be...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo§  The	  main	  focus	  of	  the	  observa3ons	  and	  interviews	  ...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo3 domains out of school1.  Families – Home2.  Organized Sports3.  Med...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo275/3/13Design	  and	  methods	  §  Etnografisk	  3lnærming.	  
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloMethods§  Questionnaire.§  Fieldnotes.§  Video observations in and...
Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo4. Examples. Data and analysis.295/3/13
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloExamples. Data and analysis.§  From project ‘Local Literacies and Co...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloPreliminary findings§  Transitions§  Some have a clear idea about d...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloSample§  60 students/families divided by 3 cohorts. (Representing th...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloA. Diaries§  What can such diaries tell us about knowledge practices...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloB. Fieldnote, one session§  What is going on here?§  How do you int...
Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloC. Interviews combined with other data§  We start coding interviews,...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Workshop on research design and instrumentation for studies of knowledge practices

453 views

Published on

CITE and Faculty of Education joint workshop - Workshop on research design and instrumentation for studies of knowledge practices (for staff & students of Faculty of Education, HKU)

Date:
2 May 2013
Time:
3:30pm - 5:30pm
Venue:
Room 101, Runme Shaw Building, The University of Hong Kong
Speakers:
Professor Ola Erstad, Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo, Norway

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
453
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Workshop on research design and instrumentation for studies of knowledge practices

  1. 1. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo15/3/13Research design and instrumentation for studiesof knowledge practicesOla ErstadInstitute of Educational Research,University of Oslo, Norway
  2. 2. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo25/3/13Outline1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.2. Methodological challenges3. Research design and instrumentation4. Examples. Discussions
  3. 3. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.35/3/13
  4. 4. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloResearch orientation§  Idiographic vs nomothetic research§ Nomothetic: It describes the effort to derive laws thatexplain objective phenomena in general.§ Idiographic: It describes the effort to understand themeaning of contingent, unique, and often subjectivephenomena.§  From qualitative approach to develop items for a survey, anda possible scale on ‘learning across contexts’.45/3/13
  5. 5. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo55/3/13Questioning the concepts of formal andinformal§  How learners draw on resources form different domains oflife. ’Funds of knowledge’§  Digital content creation challenges the fundamental controlof information (teacher, book, assessment)§  ’Learning in motion’ (Nespor, 1993). Learners movebetween contexts§  School; a social space for learning and critical reflection.
  6. 6. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo65/3/13Challenging school practices§  Two different learning cultures§  Differences between subject domains§  Now more focus on use of technology in schools, but definedmore to enhance established pratices rather than defining new§  Parallel discourses: The implications of the PISA study andabout 21st century competences.
  7. 7. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  The things you learn in school are to do with educationand to get jobs. You’re not really using them in actualreal life. (18-year-old, Bentley, 1998)§  I guess I could call myself smart. I mean I can usuallyget good grades. Sometimes I worry though, that I’m notequipped to achieve what I want, that I’m just a taperecorder repeating back what I’ve heard. I worry thatonce I’m out of school and people don’t keep handingme information with questions… I’ll be lost. (15-year-old, Bentley, 1998)75/3/13
  8. 8. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  “Functionally, the distinction between everyday and academicthinking skills is somewhat akin to a difference betweeneffortless or incidental cognition and deliberate effortfulcognition. In general, everyday thinking skills provide themeans for interacting with our world on a day-to-day basis,involve routine scripted activities, and are executed relativelyautomatically. Problems requiring academic thinking skills, incontrast, place a far greater emphasis on precision, deliberateevaluation, accurate understanding, and predictions consistentwith the provided facts.” (Reeve, Palincsar, & Brown, 1985,p. 3)85/3/13
  9. 9. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  The relationship between everyday and academic thinking has been centralin writings on education and learning for a long time, going back toVygotsky (1986, Thought and Language) on “everyday” and “scientific”concepts, and Bartlett (1958, Thinking) on “everyday” or “experimental”thinking. Both Vygotsky and Bartlett used these conceptions as a way ofdescribing conceptual development and the zone or connections betweendifferent ways of understanding, in what enhances deeper insight withindifferent areas and issues.§  “The decontextualized nature of learning and knowledge practices inschools in many subject domains is something students have tolearn.” (Lauren Resnick, 1987)95/3/13
  10. 10. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloEveryday and academic practices§  ’Leisure is hard work.’ (K. Drotner, 2008)§  “There is a growing consensus that we can come tounderstand more about learning if we document bothsimilarities and differences between learning processesinside and out of school and focus on the study of thecomplex relationships between them.” [Hull & Schultz,2001].105/3/13
  11. 11. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo115/3/13Barton & Hamilton (1998). Ecologicalperspective on literacySix propositions that frame their concept of literacy as a social practice,and their ethnographic study:(a) Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can beinferred from events that are mediated by written texts;(b) there are different literacies associated with different domains of life;(c) literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and powerrelationships, and some literacies become more dominant, visible, andinfluential than others;(d) literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goalsand cultural practices;(e) literacy is historically situated; and(f)  literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquiredthrough processes of informal learning and sense making.
  12. 12. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloKnowledge practices§ Understanding knowledge practices as ‘personal and socialpractices related to working with knowledge.’ (Hakkarainen,2009: 215).§ To investigate how teachers and students relate to knowledgecreation and knowledge building, as well as to how teacherscan integrate students’ knowledge practices from out ofschool in the classroom.§ The term ‘knowledge’ is used in the broadest sense, fromwhat is explicit, or stated in official discourse, to what isimplicit, and thus informing one’s activities, and, further yet,to that which underlies the competencies in specificsituations, so-called ‘procedural knowledge’ (Hakkarainen,2009).125/3/13
  13. 13. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo135/3/13Knowledge connected - trajectories ofknowledge buildingUnderstand knowledge within a domain as negotiablerather than ‘out there in the world’, readily available forthe learner to pick up.How we grasp the connectedness and transitions betweenaspects of knowledge building along different time-scales?-  Domains-  Informal-Formal-  Online-Offline-  Number of information sources-  Ontological and academic learning
  14. 14. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo2. Methodological challenges145/3/13
  15. 15. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloTwo  dimensions    §  Increased  focus  on  studying  literacy  as  part  of  social  prac3ces  (prac3ces-­‐events)  § Autonomous  vs  ideological  § Cultural  contexts  § Local  literacies  §  The  impact  of  technological  and  media  developments  § Representa3onal  means  § Content  crea3on.  User  generated.  § Sharing,  distribu3on  
  16. 16. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloMethodological  challenges  §  How  do  we  define  literacy  prac3ces  in  a  3me  of  remixing  and  distribu3on  of  content?  §  Development  of  familiar  methods  and/or  a  need  for  new  methodological  approaches?  §  How  can  technologies  help  us  in  collec3ng,  organizing  and  analyzing  data?  
  17. 17. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloTechnologies and methodological challenges§  In  collec3ng  data.    §  Online  communi3es.    §  New  tools  for  colelc3ng  data  §  In  analyzing  data.    §  All  that  data!  §  SoOware  developments  §  In  presen3ng  data  §  Mul3modal  §  Representa3ons  and  models  to  grasp  complexity  175/3/13
  18. 18. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo3. Research design and instrumentation185/3/13
  19. 19. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo195/3/13Example§ ’Knowledge  in  Mo3on  Across  Contexts  of  Learning’  project.  Focusing  on  teachers,  and  learners.    § Series  of  biographic  presenta3ons  or  thema3c  orienta3on?  § Developing  a  conceptual  framework  (’tree’)  in  Nvivo.  
  20. 20. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloPiloting phase§  Baseline  data  § Diaries  for  Learning  Lives  project  § Longitudinal  survey  data  on  youth  for  Knowledge  in  Mo3on  project.  (1992-­‐2002-­‐2012)  §  Reviews  205/3/13
  21. 21. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloKnowMo§  The  overarching  research  ques3ons  in  this  project  are:  § How  do  teachers  handle  differences  and  similari3es  between  knowledge  prac3ces  in  and  out  of  school?  § And  what  are  the  implica3ons  of  connec3ng  young  people’s  knowledge  prac3ces  from  different  domains  for  student  learning  and  teachers’  didac3c  strategies?  215/3/13
  22. 22. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo§  The  research  design    § Qualita3ve,  longitudinal  study    § Involving  two  lower  secondary  schools  in  two  different  local  communi3es  in  one  medium-­‐sized  city.  The  schools  are  selected  in  coopera3on  with  one  University  College,  and  will  draw  on  previous  collabora3on  between  this  college  and  several  prac3ce  schools.    § The  criteria  for  selec3on  will  be  size  (minimum  of  80  students  in  each  grade)  and  experience  with  integra3ng  ICT  in  teaching.    § We  will  also  aim  at  selec3ng  communi3es  that  differ  with  respect  to  the  socio-­‐economic  composi3on  of  the  popula3on.  225/3/13
  23. 23. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloSample§  30 students from two classes at each school will be selected§  Both girls and boys, and academically strong and weakstudents§  Based on conversations with teachers and on grades during thefirst semester of 8th grade§  Select students after spending time in the classroom to get asense of the interaction235/3/13
  24. 24. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo2 x 2 years design§  The data collection (first 2,5 years)§ Will be conducted over two-and-a-half years,enabling the project team to follow developmentsover the course of lower secondary school, from thesecond semester of eighth grade until the end oftenth grade.§  Designing models and ways of working (last 2 years)§ The later phases will include design experimentsand the involvement of teachers in the schools andteacher education. Some overlap with the last part ofdata collection.245/3/13
  25. 25. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo§  The  main  focus  of  the  observa3ons  and  interviews  will  be  on  iden3fying,  describing  and  analysing  learning  processes  in  each  of  the  specified  domains.  In  each  of  the  domains,  we  will  explore  the  following  five  dimensions  of  the  knowledge  prac3ces  taking  place:  §  Ac#vi#es  and  Structures:  What  aspect  of  the  ac3vi3es  and  literacy  prac3ces  in  each  domain  can  be  defined  as  knowledge  prac3ces?  To  what  extent  are  these  knowledge  prac3ces  structured  and  supported?  In  which  ways  can  different  knowledge  prac3ces  be  characterized  as  formal  or  informal?    §  Content:  How  can  we  understand  the  body  of  knowledge  made  visible  by  the  knowledge  prac3ce?  What  do  young  people  as  learners  extract  from  the  content  of  their  out-­‐of-­‐school  prac3ces  as  well  as  the  use  of  learning  resources  in  the  classroom?  §  Actors:  Who  are  involved  in  the  knowledge  prac3ce,  and  how  do  the  respec3ve  actors  contribute?  What  characterizes  interac3on  between  actors  in  specific  knowledge  prac3ces?    §  Media#on  and  Tools:  What  are  the  means  of  communica3on  and  collabora3on  within  specific  knowledge  prac3ces?  §  Outcome:  What  is  the  outcome  of  the  knowledge  prac3ces  in  each  domain?  What  characterizes  students’  mo3va3on  in  different  ac3vi3es?  And  how  is  this  outcome  nego3ated  in  classroom  ac3vi3es?  255/3/13
  26. 26. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo3 domains out of school1.  Families – Home2.  Organized Sports3.  Media Use§  Each domain with one researcher each. One post.doc andone PhD in the classrooms at the same time as fieldworkout of school. Interaction analysis and resources/funds ofknowledge used.265/3/13
  27. 27. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo275/3/13Design  and  methods  §  Etnografisk  3lnærming.  
  28. 28. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloMethods§  Questionnaire.§  Fieldnotes.§  Video observations in and out of school.§  Interviews (Teachers and students).§  Logs by teachers and students.§  Recordings of family conversations at dinner.§  Artefacts made by students?285/3/13
  29. 29. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo4. Examples. Data and analysis.295/3/13
  30. 30. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloExamples. Data and analysis.§  From project ‘Local Literacies and CommunitySpaces’ (Learning Lives).§  The three T’s as analytic concepts: Transitions, Transfer,Trajectories. (A focus on literacy practices and learning identities. ‘Richpoints’, Spradley)§  Research questions:§  R 1. How can we understand and follow ‘learning’ across social contextsand over time?§  R 2. What are the ‘funds of knowledge’ available to the community ofGroruddalen?§  R 3. What are the major challenges faced by young people engaged intransitions between levels of education?305/3/13
  31. 31. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloPreliminary findings§  Transitions§  Some have a clear idea about decisions.§  Many are insecure, for different reasons. Decide last minute.§  Often out-of-school experiences that are important.§  Transfer§  Positionings in being a learner. Structure and strategies as learners.§  Content from out-of-school in different subject domains. Teachersstruggle.§  Trajectories§  Ways of engagement and participation in different contexts andactivities§  Many change their learning identities in moments of transitions§  Evolvement of literacy practices from first to last grade. More complextools and ways of working with texts.315/3/13
  32. 32. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloSample§  60 students/families divided by 3 cohorts. (Representing theschool as a timescale, how to become a learner.)§  Different subject domains:§ Cohort 1: Sessions preparing for school.§ Cohort 2: Norwegian, social sciences, math, project work§ Cohort 3:§ Academic track: Social sciences, Advanced Math, Mediaand Communication§ Vocational track: Health and skin care. Car repair.325/3/13
  33. 33. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloA. Diaries§  What can such diaries tell us about knowledge practicesacross contexts?§  Focusing on:§ Spaces/places ther are during a day§ Activities they are involved in§ The role of technology335/3/13
  34. 34. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloB. Fieldnote, one session§  What is going on here?§  How do you interpret the intention and acting in thissession by the teacher?§  How are the students engaged or dis-engaged in thecontent issues of this session?§  Implications?345/3/13
  35. 35. Institute of Educational Research, University of OsloC. Interviews combined with other data§  We start coding interviews, fieldnotes and diaries.§  Then add coding to other types of data to elaborateanalysis of the written data types.§  What is expressed in interviews as ways ofunderstanding learning identities?§  How are funds of knowledge expressed and for whatpurposes/what role do they have?355/3/13

×