Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

My RP Defense


Published on

This the slides for my research proposal defense presentation on 30 June 2009. There maybe some changes to the actual (latest update) research proposal.

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to like this

My RP Defense

  1. 1. Title: Teachers adoption of knowledge management technologies and its impact on their k-sharing practices within a professional development context in Malaysia: An action research study Muhammad Khairiltitov Zainuddin (G0528917) Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Fauzan Noordin PhD Research Proposal Tuesday, 30 June, 2009
  2. 2. My background <ul><li>B.Sc (Physic) Indiana University (1984). M.of Mngt (IIUM, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>A teacher & administrator by profession. Started teaching in 1986. Hold administrative post in state education depart. (1995-1999) as AD, Science & Maths, MOE (2000 -2005) as Head Multimedia Technical Unit, Textbook Div. </li></ul><ul><li>Started the PhD programme in December 2005 (2nd Sem 2005/2006), MOE doctoral scholarship. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Presentation Agenda <ul><li>The Research Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Literature Review </li></ul><ul><li>Research Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>The Action & Research Agenda </li></ul><ul><li>Research philosophy </li></ul><ul><li>Background & research problem </li></ul><ul><li>Research purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical framework: Multiple theoretical perspective (3 theories) </li></ul><ul><li>Research objectives & 5 Research questions </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretive framework of KMS </li></ul><ul><li>KM technologies in TPD </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher Networks initiatives & research </li></ul><ul><li>AR in IS research </li></ul><ul><li>Justification of AR </li></ul><ul><li>The research design </li></ul><ul><li>Validity, credibility & transferability </li></ul><ul><li>The research agenda </li></ul><ul><li>The action agenda </li></ul><ul><li>Management & research time-line </li></ul>
  4. 4. Preliminary introduction - some definitions <ul><li>Title: Teachers adoption of KM technologies and its impact on their k-sharing practices within a professional development context in Malaysia: An action research study </li></ul><ul><li>Title main ideas: </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption - technology adoption </li></ul><ul><li>KM Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>K-sharing practices (k-sharing & practices) </li></ul><ul><li>Professional development (teacher) </li></ul><ul><li>Action research </li></ul>
  5. 5. The Research Framework: <ul><li>The Research Philosophy: Interpretive </li></ul><ul><li>Reality is dependent on the observer. Truth is subjective (ontological perspective). </li></ul><ul><li>(Epistemological perspective) Knowledge is socially created. </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretive Research (Klein & Myers, 1999): </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge of reality is gained only through social construction. </li></ul><ul><li>No predefine dependent & independent variables, </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on the complexity of human sense making as situation emerges. </li></ul>Interpretive methods of research in IS are “aimed at producing an understanding of the context of the IS, and the process whereby IS influences and is influenced by the context.” (Walsham 1993)
  6. 6. The Research Framework: <ul><li>The Research Problem </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher as k-worker must learn to collaboratively and share their knowledge with their colleague. </li></ul><ul><li>Need for teacher to be life long learners. </li></ul><ul><li>Most school in Malaysia enjoy good ICT infrastructure but not directly benefits the teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>KM ideas have potential to address future problems of the schools (Sallis & Jones, 2002). </li></ul><ul><li>Internet provide the opportunity for teacher to interact and share ideas & teaching experiences. </li></ul><ul><li>But, implementation of teachers networks is not without problem (adoption issues). </li></ul><ul><li>In some cases, introduction of IT to teachers don’t change teachers practices. </li></ul>
  7. 7. The Research Framework: <ul><li>An exploratory study taking the action research approach </li></ul><ul><li>Research Purpose: </li></ul><ul><li>To understand the problems & complexities of the process of introducing the KMT to teacher within the context of their professional development and how it changes the teachers k-sharing practices. </li></ul><ul><li>2 issues here: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1) Teacher adoption process of KMT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) Change in teacher practices - teacher knowledge sharing practices </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. The Research Framework: <ul><li>Theoretical Framework: Multiple theoretical Perspective. </li></ul><ul><li>Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) (Zhao & Cziko) </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion of Innovation Process Model - Process theory (DOI) (Rogers, 20030 </li></ul><ul><li>Representation & Action (R & A) (Vaast & Walsham, 2005) </li></ul>
  9. 9. The Research Framework: <ul><li>Research Objective </li></ul><ul><li>To understand the teachers KMT adoption processes within the context of teachers professional development. </li></ul><ul><li>To understand how how KMT changes teacher k-sharing practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Research Questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the current state of k-sharing practices among the Malaysian teachers? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the teachers’ perspectives toward KMt with respect to their professional development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do their perspectives toward the KMT, change over time, as the teacher use the technologies? Why (or Why not) they change? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do the KMT affect the teachers’ knowledge sharing practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the factors contribute to the adoptions (or otherwise) of KMT in the context of TPD in Malaysia? </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. The Research Framework: RQ1-Toestablished initial beliefs RQ2-Why their action change? RQ4-How KMT change teacher practice (k-sharing) Representation & Action (Vaast & Walsham 2005) Research Objective 2 RQ1-Identify social condition & norms (prior conditions) RQ5-The external factor (motivating & barriers) Innovation-Decision Process Model - Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003) RQ2-Teachers initial beliefs, attitude, goals RQ3-How they change over time? RQ5-Internal factor(s). Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) (Zhao & Cziko, 2001) Research Objective 1
  11. 11. Literature Review <ul><li>Chapter 2 (Page 8 - 17) </li></ul><ul><li>Briefly the chapter LR describe the theoretical foundation of the KMT from the interpretive perspective, proposed interpretive framework of the KM systems, KM in Education, teacher networking initiative and the proposed teacher development framework. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Interpretive KM Model <ul><li>Information Domain </li></ul>Knowledge Domain Individual Society Community Group IS KMS PERSONEL KNOWLEDGE (K-HOW, K-WHAT … ) EXPERIENCES (TACIT KNOWLEDGE) PDA PC/LAPTOP SEARCH ENGINES COP GROUP EXPERIENCE SHARED KNOWLEDGE K-BASES GROUPWARE CHAT WIKI FORUM BB DATABASES ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY Sharing Codification Codification Combination Group Learning Personal learning Static Dyanamic
  13. 13. Research Method & Design <ul><li>The research method: Action Research </li></ul><ul><li>AR in IS research </li></ul><ul><li>Justification for AR </li></ul><ul><li>The research design </li></ul><ul><li>Validity, credibility & transferability </li></ul>
  14. 14. Research Method & Design <ul><li>AR in IS research </li></ul><ul><li>Valid & well established research methods for IS research </li></ul><ul><li>include : </li></ul><ul><li>Baskerville & Wood-Harper (1996): “Critical perspective on AR as a method for IS”, JIT 11(3). </li></ul><ul><li>Avison, Lau, Myers & Nielson (1999): “Action Research”, Com of ACM, 42(1). </li></ul><ul><li>Baskerville (1999): “Investigation IS research with AR”, CAIS, 2(3). </li></ul><ul><li>Lau (1999): “Toward a framework for AR in IS studies”, IT & People, 12(2). </li></ul><ul><li>Davidson, Martinson, Kock (2004): “Principal of canonical AR”, IS Journal 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Checkland & Holwell (1998): “AR its nature & validity”, System Practice & AR, 11(1). </li></ul>
  15. 15. Research Method & Design <ul><li>Justification for AR </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of the problem - the need of intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Unavailability of a suitable case (for case study) </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity </li></ul>
  16. 16. Research Method & Design <ul><li>The research design </li></ul>Fig 5.1 (p. 40) Extended Checkland (1991) AR framework by Mackay & Marshall (2001) F = F R + F PS
  17. 17. Research Method & Design <ul><li>The research design </li></ul>Interpretive qualitative research Research Method M R KMT introduced - Action research Problem solving method (the intervention) M PS 5 Research Questions Research Interest A DOI-adopter characteristics, innovation attributes, process theory PCT & Representation & Actions Framework of ideas for the research interest F R Interpretive KM perspective Framework of Ideas for problem solving F PS Teacher professional development Teacher k-sharing Real World problem situation or the problematic P
  18. 18. MyTeacherNet <ul><li>Social network platform (Dolphin - open source) </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate various KM tools to collaborate & share information. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Research Method & Design <ul><li>The research sample (Participants) </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers from 3 primary schools and 2 secondary school in northern part of Perak. </li></ul><ul><li>Participated in a pilot project of ICT integration (ICTPD) which took place between March - May 2007, call K-Perak Elearning Cluster, joined project bet K-Perak Inc, State Educ Dept and Innovavation New Zealand Education (iNZed). </li></ul><ul><li>Final Report dated 15 June 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>After the pilot project the 5 schools were left without any guidance. </li></ul><ul><li>I have been involved with the initial group of facilitators since October 2007 (Trip to New Zealand) </li></ul>
  20. 20. Research Method & Design <ul><li>Data collection & Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple surce of data: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured & semi-structured interview </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participant observation (field notes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants dairies (online - blogs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online computer mediated communications (email, chat, discussion board & forums) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All interviews will be audio-taped & transcribed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of Nvivo (8) for data analysis as suggested by Berg (2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coding & abstrating using Nvivo 8. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adopt the grouded theory approach (open coding, axial coding, selective coding & development of theory) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Research Method & Design <ul><li>Research rigour: Trustwortiness & transferability </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of the research depend on its rigour & relevency </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative positivist research: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality = Validity + Reliability + Generalizability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rigour in Interpretive Research (MacKay & Marshall, 2000) - Trustwortiness & Authenticity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Credibility (adequate presentation of the context, participant & the research setting) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transferability (applicability of findings to other situation). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependability (transparency of research process - trackable , documentable & open to scrutiny) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confirmability (tracable to it source, data not the reseacher), plus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authenticity criteria (fairness, ontological, educative,catalytic, tactical) described by Guba & Lincoln (1989). </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Research Method & Design <ul><li>Research rigour: Trustwortiness & transferability </li></ul><ul><li>Strategies to achieve rigour include: </li></ul><ul><li>Triangulation </li></ul><ul><li>Members check </li></ul><ul><li>Audit Trail </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate (prolonged) engagement in data collection </li></ul><ul><li>Providing rich & thick description </li></ul>
  23. 23. Significance of the Study <ul><li>Theoretical significance </li></ul><ul><li>A deeper understanding of the KMT adoption process within communities of teachers, which are not many studies within this user group, and in studies from developing world. </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding of the impact of KMT to teachers k-sharing practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Practical significance </li></ul><ul><li>National policy for new teacher professional development programme. </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines for KMT development for teachers online community in the country and other developing world. </li></ul>
  24. 24. The Action & Research Agenda
  25. 25. The Action & Research Agenda Please refer to handout - Research Agenda
  26. 26. Thank you
  27. 27. Theoretical frameworks: Multiple Theoretical Perspective 2) Perceptual Control Theory (Zhao & Cziko, 2001) 3) Social Representation & Action (Vaast & Walsham, 2005) Multiple perspectives 1) Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1995; 2003)
  28. 28. Rogers’s (2003) Model of Innovation-Decision Process Stages <ul><li>Rogers’s (2003) Fig 5-1, p. 170. </li></ul>
  29. 29. Rogers (1995, 2003) Compared <ul><li>Rogers’s DOI theory (1995, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>_____________ </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Attitude formation </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to adopt </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Confirmation </li></ul><ul><li>Koch & Fusco (2008) 3 phase adoption modes by teachers </li></ul><ul><li>____________ </li></ul><ul><li>Getting started </li></ul><ul><li>Modelling & Scafolding </li></ul><ul><li>Maturing phase </li></ul>
  30. 30. Perceptual Control Theory (Zhao & Cziko, 2001) <ul><li>Goal-oriented </li></ul><ul><li>a framework for understanding teacher adoption of technology. </li></ul><ul><li>attempts to understand teacher adoption of technology from the inside </li></ul><ul><li>It considers teachers' use of technology by examining the goals of teachers and how the use of technology might help or hinder their goals. </li></ul>
  31. 31. Perceptual Control Theory (Zhao & Cziko, 2001) <ul><li>From a PCT perspective three conditions are necessary for teachers to use technology: </li></ul><ul><li>The teacher must believe that technology can more effectively meet a higher-level goal than what has been used. </li></ul><ul><li>The teacher must believe that using technology will not cause disturbances to other higher-level goals that the he or she thinks are more important than the one being maintained. </li></ul><ul><li>The teacher must believe that he or she has or will have sufficient ability and resources to use technology. </li></ul>
  32. 32. Social Representation & Action (Vaast & Walsham, 2005) <ul><li>How work practices change with IT use. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposition: Changes in work practices as result of interdependent transformations of how agents act (their action) and how they make sense of their action and of their environment (their representations) - p. 66. </li></ul>