Dissertation Proposal Meeting


Published on

My dissertation proposal meeting held on 11/22/2011.

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

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

No notes for slide
  • No unique/real self; only self moderated and framed by unique historical situations (Gee, 2009)Participation in social spaces is a perpetual process of identity construction, reconstruction, and negotiation (Ivanič, 1998)
  • ----- Meeting Notes (11/22/11 11:56) -----* are professional expectations addressed in the beginning (before the intervention)"what are you noticing or thinking about in terms of your online social identity?" where they are or are positioned at the moment of the first interviewonline social identity vs. professional identity that is evolvingwhere do they come from as far as awareness of problems, etc."exposure to online professional expectations" instead of "realization of professional expectations"how are psts understanding online social identity through experiences like this"learning experience" or "teachable moment" instead of intervention; focus of time, not agent of change; introducing a problem/bend in the road/caseground the issue in larger phenomenon* beef up web 2.0 to address how it impacts the world more generally (business, etc.); cultural context in relation to speed at which tech is advancing; role of professionals in the field takes time to respond curricularly to these challenges; less an intervention, more a normal process of change within education* address international perspective; define moral turpitude* include prior work with pre-service teachers in reflexivity piece* detailed description of learning moment* context for over-arching design of the program* think about using faculty to understand student context* think about it as a change process throughout, not just intervention* bias is very clear in questions (RQs and appendices); need to balance them* literature on teens in privacy* be more explicit on privacy* re: reflexivity - some discussion on vulnerability of study (have made personal decisions and how to manage questions from students); own identity as a teacher and researcher in online spaces* pinterest? in 1st question, get at how online life is changing as a result of new introductions, etc. [in appendix A]interest spaces, affinity spaces; making distinction of interest-driven sites, affinity spaces, and where this is situated* include demographic form and append to consent form* if looking at identity; important to keep participants the same over time* individual interviews following focus groups* one focus group per cohort* number of complete cases may vary (e.g. 12 complete phase 1 to 3); in analysis between phase 1 and 2, determine who will stick around for 3; spell out if there is a follow-up interview or not?** interview -> focus group -> interview* gift card etc.?* ask for more information on undergrad consent/participation* approach cohort coordinators and frame it in an important way (of vital interest)* have focus groups meet in another room; put up sign or whatever to remind them, but don't call them out* write memo after training; can use training as data phase; can also memo about people who didn't consent** post training field notes* two different analytic methods, one looking at individual, one at group* RQs: need individual-level questions and group-level questions* minimum space is a month between 2 & 3; analysis on focus groups should rephrase questions "does online participation reflect your identity"; do you play with your identities in online spaces (represent yourself in certain ways at different times)?ask question on whether they organize how they share thingsinclude examples in questions (e.g. FB lists)C-4,5: use indentation; include more probes (e.g. tell me more)D-1: remove "since the intervention", change to "since we last talked"think about "what stayed with you", "what you worried about", "what bothers you", "what have you been thinking about", "what have you been reflecting on when you think of your identity as a teacher" - bring in domains that are important"as a teacher" or "as a social being" or "future teacher" instead of "identity", to help them understand what i'm talking aboutreword D-2; the way I talk about it should be the way I ask it* need expert peer debriefer; use advisordebriefing as opposed to collaborative analysis* non-expert peer debriefer; someone starting on doctoral dissertation; monthly meeting* my lit review is surrounding, not focused on study, so it might be more traditional* don't be so critical of glaser & strauss; throw out part of doctoral dissertation requirements* don't go into third person when talking about myself* remove informality in literature review (e.g. "we're not going talking about that")* social media & SNSs; critiques Selwyn; identity management by corporations** get at technology as extension of self at beginning (before talking about tech integration)* has COPs changed as a result of Web 2.0? Wenger & White "habitats of technology"
  • Dissertation Proposal Meeting

    1. 1. Pre-Service Teacher Identity and Participation in Online Social Networks Royce Kimmons - Dissertation Proposal November 22, 2011
    2. 2. Need for the Study• Teachers in trouble• Prevalence of SNSs• Interest in SNSs for education
    3. 3. Examples of Teachers in Trouble• A Florida middle-school teacher was fired for posting an inappropriate picture on MySpace (WKMG Local 6, 2007).• A Pennsylvania student teacher lost her teaching credential and position for posting a picture of herself as a "drunken pirate" on MySpace, because the action was said (a) to constitute a breach in standards of professionalism and (b) to promote underage drinking (Stross, 2007).• A Connecticut teacher was fired for having a MySpace page with, amongst other things, naked men on it (Neuburger, 2008).• A fifth-grade teacher in New York is awaiting termination hearings after she privately said on Facebook that she "hates [her students] guts" and that she wouldnt save them if they were drowning (The Huffington Post, 2011).• Many more examples
    4. 4. Why is this happening and what’s the problem?• Different perspectives: – New teacher – Seasoned teacher – Administrator – Student – Parent – Legislator
    5. 5. Network Thinking• Prevalent in a variety of fields• Asks efficiency questions• Ignores individuals
    6. 6. Web 2.0• Changes everything• Opens up questions of social participation (e.g. constructivist pedagogy)• Changing role of the consumer – Consumer as creator – Consumer as collaborator – Consumer as product
    7. 7. Technology Integration• Limitations and problems – Focuses on implementation and altogether ignores issues of identity• Tech use vs. tech participation• Tool vs. extension of self• Communities of Practice – Focuses on identity formation within a discrete context; problematic in collapsed and multiple contexts
    8. 8. Literacy, Participation, & Identity• Connection between identity in specific communities and overall sense of self• Literacy as “way of being” rather than “way of doing” (Gee, 2009)
    9. 9. SNSs in Education• Focus on implementation and best practices (e.g. sharing openly)• Typically do not critically engage inherent assumptions of the medium that shape participation (e.g. “friends”, sharing, openness, authentic identity, etc.)
    10. 10. The Need• Understand relationship between teacher participation in SNSs and identity and how this is influenced by/responds to an understanding of professional expectations
    11. 11. Research Question(s)• Primary question – How does a realization of professional expectations impact pre-service teachers’ senses of online social identity? • How do pre-service teachers perceive their participation in online SNSs to reflect/impact their identity? • How does an introduction of professional expectations to pre-service teachers clash with their beliefs of how they can/should participate in online SNSs? • How do pre-service teachers perceive their participation in online SNSs to change in response to professional expectations?
    12. 12. Methodology• Goal: Produce Theoretical Understanding• Grounded Theory (Qualitative)• Pre-service teachers in first semester of PDS
    13. 13. Sample• First semester teacher education students in a large southwestern university• Intentional• Theoretical?• Ages 18+• Three (3) cohorts
    14. 14. Grounded Theory• Theory development through analytic abduction – Data generation – Coding – Memo-writing – Writing – Reflecting
    15. 15. Sensitizing Concepts & Reflexivity• Personal experiences with SNSs• Prior research with SNSs• Prior development of SNS-type tools
    16. 16. Three Phases and an Intervention• Phase 1: Intensive Interviews• Intervention• Phase 2: Immediate Focus Groups• Phase 3: Delayed Focus Groups
    17. 17. Phase 1: Intensive Interviews• n = 20• “Directed conversation” that asks participants “to describe and reflect upon his or her experiences in ways that seldom occur in everyday life” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 25).• Goal: Understand online social identity
    18. 18. Intervention• Mandatory, not part of study• Addresses – Professional standards – Legal and ethical requirements – Cases of teacher problems with SNSs
    19. 19. Phase 2: Immediate Focus Groups• n = 3 groups of 8 participants• Goal: Understand the “moment of impact”
    20. 20. Phase 3: Delayed Focus Groups• n = 3 groups of 8 participants• Goal: Understand adopted changes made to online social identity
    21. 21. Analysis• Transcription• Coding – Line-by-line (in vivo) – Focused – Theoretical• Memoing• Constant comparative analysis and theoretical questioning
    22. 22. The EndErr… the beginning …