Interviewing observing and studying material culture are the primary ways to discover and learn in the field. Interviewing includes talking with participants both formally and informally. Observing includes formal structured noting of events, activities, and speech and participant observation. Gathering aspects of material culture includes artifacts and written material that may be available in or about the setting or about individuals. The ways of learning about phenomenon and setting are referred to as methods or techniques. Interviewing requires good observing skills. They go together in a qualitative study. Collecting data is not passive. Observations signal participants' emotions, attention and interest, authenticity and fatigue. Data is collected through observing, interviewing, and documenting material culture. Qualitative researchers capture and represent the richness, texture, and depth of what they study. Decisions about data gathering are reflected in the following questions: Is the project an evaluation, action research or a descriptive study? What are the researcher's assumptions about reality and knowledge claims? Is the work ethnography, a phenomenological study, or a sociolinguistic one? How do actions and reactions of participants shape what is possible, desirable, and ethical? Qualitative researchers decide how deeply or broadly to employ data-gathering techniques. Gathering data from a large number of participants yields information from many perspectives; this gives the study breadth. Focusing on a few participants in contrast encourages an in-depth understanding not possible with a larger sample. Prefigured techniques carefully specify interview questions or closely structure observations. The researcher can modify questions as they go through the project, but the questions should essentially remain the same as planned. Open-ended designs allow observations and interviews to be more holistic and exploratory than prefigured techniques. Ebb and Flow: A final decision is the mix of techniques. This mix too is forecast in the study's design and may change over the course of the research.
People see, hear, smell, taste, and touch as natural activities of every day life. What differentiates systematic qualitative inquiry from these everyday activities is purpose and discipline. Skills involved in gathering data are skills we use everyday: asking questions, listening looking, and reading. When employed in a research project, these sense-making activities are used more diligently and systematically. They are dictated by purpose and discipline. They are used to capture actions, words, and artifacts-data- so that they may scrutinize these data to learn about social phenomena.
During the data gathering, the researcher's challenge is to build a foundation for whatever findings or conclusions are drawn. If you claim to know something as a result of your research, data must exist to support those claims. In recording data, ask yourself the following questions: What do you observe and why? What questions do you ask and why? What changes in the preliminary design do you make and why? What preconceptions and prejudices are shaping your project? What problems do you encounter? How does your membership in particular social groups shape the research? Because qualitative inquiry happens in a natural environment, the discipline to document findings and procedures systematically and thoroughly is even more essential than in a laboratory or experiment. Data gathering is a deliberate, conscious, systematic process that details both the products-the data- and the processes of the research activities so that others may understand how the study was conducted and judge its adequacy, strength and ethics. You interview because you want to understand individual perspectives, to probe or clarify, to deepen understanding, to generate rich and descriptive data, to gather insights into participants thinking, and to learn more about the context. Deeper understandings develop through the dialogue of long, in-depth interviews, as interviewer and participants "coconstruct" meaning. Interviewing takes you into participants' worlds. Informal interviews are serendipitous. Occurring while you hang around a setting or as you are entering a home to conduct a more formal interview. These are casual conversations, incidental to social interactions. The interview guide approach is typically used in qualitative studies. The purpose of guided interviews is to elicit the participants' worldview. The researcher develops categories or topics to explore but remains open to pursuing topics that the participant brings up. The research poses open-ended questions followed by requests for elaboration; the participant responds with long narratives.
Phases of the interview: introduction-overview and purpose, informed consent, tape recording, ownership of content; Body of the interview- themes or topics, elaborations, transitions and summaries; Summary and closure-thanks, keeping the door open, review process for sharing transcript, next steps.
Standardized open-ended interviews are tightly prefigured having fixed questions that are asked of all participants in a particular order. Dialogic interviews are true conversations in which researcher and participant together develop a more complex understanding of the topic. There is authentic give and take in these interviews, mutual sharing of perspectives and understandings. Seen as conversation with a purpose, the interview yields a narrative. Both parties' social group identities either ease conversation or make it tricky.
Follow up questions allow you to ask for more detail, hoping to discover the deeper meaning of things or more concrete examples. The strength of an interview comes from the relevance of the interview questions and from your skill in asking follow-up questions. Open-ended elaborations provide more detail. Open-ended clarification allows for rephrasing and implying that more detail will help you to understand. Detailed elaborations provides information such as timing of events, interactions and roles, physical environment, locations, and people present.
Ethnographic researchers interview participants about culture, phenomenological researchers search to define lived experiences through dialogic interviews, and socio-communication researchers try to elicit speech events that are relevant to their topics of interest. Case study researchers seek a balance between the emic and etic perspectives. Elite and focus group interviews are also used. Ethnographic interviews are thematic or topical in structure. Phenomenological interviews assume that shared experiences have an effable structure and essence. Interviewing elicits people's stories about their lives. Interviews may be used as a means for exploring and gathering experiential narrative material. The interview may be used as a vehicle to develop a conversational relation with an interviewee about the meaning of an experience. Seidman calls for 3 Interviews: 1. the focused life history, 2. the details of experience and 3. reflection on meaning.
Socio-communications interviews are discourse analysis and semiotics. They rely on text as a major source of data, although sociolinguistics may gather data through interviews. Silverman distinguishes between text and interview data: Texts are data consisting of words and images that have become recorded without the intervention of a researcher whereas interviews frequently result in transcriptions, text, that has been produced through researcher intervention.
Observation: We observe to understand the context, to see tacit patterns, to see patterns people are unwilling to talk about, to provide direct personal experience and knowledge, to move beyond the selective perceptions of both researcher and participants. We should observe the social system: formal and/or informal patterns of interaction, ways people organize themselves, tacit rules in operation, recurring events, and down time; We also should observe activities and actions: full sequence of events, time sampling, rituals and ceremonies, crises, and unplanned activities. Writing field notes to record your observations in critical. It provides a written record. You should write descriptively and include where you observe, who was there and not there, what happened, when events happened and why events took place. You should also include specific and concrete details and use evocative adjectives, action verbs and avoid evaluative language. Be specific and then be even more specific. As soon as possible write up the raw field notes. Put your notes into the computer and elaborate on skimpy notes. Include thick, rich descriptions. You also study material culture. Material culture might include objects such as schoolwork or other types of documents. The analysis of do material culture is called content analysis.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Learning in the Field by Rossman and Rallis Chapter 6
Access is a continuous process of building relationships. Access is more than physical entry or obtaining permissions. The process of gaining access takes time and is an insightful process about your environment. You must make contacts (phone or letter), negotiate with gatekeepers, obtain “invitations” to participate, get oral and written permissions and build relationships.
Be Prepared: Know why you are in the setting. Be able to explain your presence. Be able to state your strategy. Be informed about all of the players involved in the setting.
Have a clear conceptual framework. The conceptual framework provides a focus and purpose, allows you to define your strategy, and provides a rationale for your research decision-making.
Your role and interactions will be defined by the context of your setting. Your strategy and the genre of research will also shape your role. Participation is a continuum that ranges from co-participation to immersion as a participant to isolation as an outside onlooker. Different degrees of participation either facilitate or hinder data collection. Immersion and co-participation enable the researcher to learn the specialized language and norms of the setting and are more likely to yield a deep emic understanding than simply standing around and watching people.
Portrayal of Your Role is important. Do you make your presence known? Will you quietly blend into the setting and hide your purpose and research persona? Will you be truthful, but vague?
Amount of time required for your research is shaped by the design. More involvement requires more time.
Negotiations are ongoing. Trusting relationships build trustworthy research reports. Clarifying your relationship as a researcher to your participants.
Define ownership of data at the beginning of the process and define who can review and edit a written report. Remember that reciprocity recognizes the need for mutual benefit in interactions. You obtain data and the participants “find something that makes their cooperation worthwhile.”
Build a good relationship with the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are the people in your setting who control avenues of access. Sponsors, gatekeepers, and key sources of information determine, in part, the quality and quantity of data. Gatekeepers can make or break your study. Handle them gently.Find a common bond on which to build a sense of shared understanding
Be Prepared: Know why you are in the setting. Be able to explain your presence. Be able to state your strategy. Be informed about all of the players involved in the setting.
Have a clear conceptual framework. The conceptual framework provides a focus and purpose, allows you to define your strategy, and provides a rationale for your research decision-making.
Your role and interactions will be defined by the context of your setting. Your strategy and the genre of research will also shape your role. Participation is a continuum that ranges from co-participation to immersion as a participant to isolation as an outside onlooker. Different degrees of participation either facilitate or hinder data collection. Immersion and co-participation enable the researcher to learn the specialized language and norms of the setting and are more likely to yield a deep emic understanding than simply standing around and watching people.
Portrayal of Your Role is important. Do you make your presence known? Will you quietly blend into the setting and hide your purpose and research persona? Will you be truthful, but vague?
Amount of time required for your research is shaped by the design. More involvement requires more time.
Negotiations are ongoing. Trusting relationships build trustworthy research reports. Clarifying your relationship as a researcher to your participants.
Define ownership of data at the beginning of the process and define who can review and edit a written report. Remember that reciprocity recognizes the need for mutual benefit in interactions. You obtain data and the participants “find something that makes their cooperation worthwhile.”
Build a good relationship with the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are the people in your setting who control avenues of access. Sponsors, gatekeepers, and key sources of information determine, in part, the quality and quantity of data. Gatekeepers can make or break your study. Handle them gently.Find a common bond on which to build a sense of shared understanding
Understanding interpersonal interaction...critique
Githens, R. (2007). Understanding interpersonal interaction in an online professional development course. Human Research Development Quarterly, 18(2), 253-274.
A Qualitative Analysis of Interpersonal Interaction in E-learning
Githen’s study explores the complexities of inclusion of interpersonal interactivity in online professional development. He provides excellent literary support to establish a need for this study. Githen identifies moderate constructivism as the theoretical lens through which he designs his study. Based on the work of Garrison and Anderson (2003), he uses the community of inquiry model to develop his framework for viewing interpersonal interactions and social presence in “Current Issues,” an online professional development program for people working in the rehabilitation and disabilities services field.
Githen uses a qualitative case study approach to explore interpersonal interactions in e-learning; however, he notes that a brief amount of quantitative data is included in his study. Githen uses triangulation to minimize misrepresentation of the members of the case study. He relies on observation and interpretation to develop narrative descriptions of the participants and the case study. A possible weakness of this study is related to timing. Githen does not begin his case study until six weeks after the actual course has been completed. He defends this late start by saying that participants are not affected by the presence of the researcher. Despite his acknowledgement of this problem, Githen does not discuss how this lack of actual observations of participants and facilitator interactions during the progression of the course may affect his understanding.
Githen provides an excellent, detailed description of the setting for his case study and also includes an outstanding portrayal of participants. The study focuses on a six-week noncredit course in Continuing Education Online, a federally funded program for rehabilitation and disabilities service providers. The course includes both synchronous and asynchronous activities. Githen describes five staff members by pseudonym and 10 course participants by pseudonym. His identification of issues evolves throughout the course of the study. Githen includes issues that emerge over the duration of the program, not as formalized questions to be answered, rather as embedded issues that evolve in the findings of the case. His discussion of methodology is well developed and includes a rich description of his data collection and analysis as occurring “simultaneously in order to allow for a more fluid and emergent inquiry” (Githen, 2007, p.258).
Githen conducts interviews with course facilitators and five participants. He also does an inductive analysis of online and written materials (including all course discussions and postings). His iterative process of reading, note-taking, compiling narratives, and identifying themes is appropriate in this case study. Although he discusses his coding scheme, Githen only states that he uses a “thematic coding process” (Githen, 2007, p. 258).
This study includes thick, rich details and would be fairly easy to replicate. Githen’s discussion highlights the emergent themes and issues of the study, as well as further areas of interest to pursue. In the conclusion, Githen states the limitations of the study. Using a reflexive approach of evaluating his role in the research, Githen indicates that his experience teaching and coordinating an online master’s degree program affects his thinking about online learning. He also includes another personal bias. He strongly believes in the inclusion of interpersonal interaction in e-learning. Githen also includes implications for practice and states that his findings are not applicable to all e-learning environments. However, he states that his findings can be used to help determine how and whether to include interpersonal interactions in the design of other web-based programs. This case study extends the existing body of research on social presence and interpersonal interaction and is beneficial to understanding the complexities of social presence and interpersonal interaction in e-learning. His report offers insights into other online courses that include interpersonal interactions for professional development.
A Qualitative Analysis of Interpersonal Interaction in E-learning
Githen’s study explores the complexities of inclusion of interpersonal interactivity in online professional development. He provides excellent literary support to establish a need for this study. Githen identifies moderate constructivism as the theoretical lens through which he designs his study. Based on the work of Garrison and Anderson (2003), he uses the community of inquiry model to develop his framework for viewing interpersonal interactions and social presence in “Current Issues,” an online professional development program for people working in the rehabilitation and disabilities services field.
Githen uses a qualitative case study approach to explore interpersonal interactions in e-learning; however, he notes that a brief amount of quantitative data is included in his study. Githen uses triangulation to minimize misrepresentation of the members of the case study. He relies on observation and interpretation to develop narrative descriptions of the participants and the case study. A possible weakness of this study is related to timing. Githen does not begin his case study until six weeks after the actual course has been completed. He defends this late start by saying that participants are not affected by the presence of the researcher. Despite his acknowledgement of this problem, Githen does not discuss how this lack of actual observations of participants and facilitator interactions during the progression of the course may affect his understanding.
Githen provides an excellent, detailed description of the setting for his case study and also includes an outstanding portrayal of participants. The study focuses on a six-week noncredit course in Continuing Education Online, a federally funded program for rehabilitation and disabilities service providers. The course includes both synchronous and asynchronous activities. Githen describes five staff members by pseudonym and 10 course participants by pseudonym. His identification of issues evolves throughout the course of the study. Githen includes issues that emerge over the duration of the program, not as formalized questions to be answered, rather as embedded issues that evolve in the findings of the case. His discussion of methodology is well developed and includes a rich description of his data collection and analysis as occurring “simultaneously in order to allow for a more fluid and emergent inquiry” (Githen, 2007, p.258).
Githen conducts interviews with course facilitators and five participants. He also does an inductive analysis of online and written materials (including all course discussions and postings). His iterative process of reading, note-taking, compiling narratives, and identifying themes is appropriate in this case study. Although he discusses his coding scheme, Githen only states that he uses a “thematic coding process” (Githen, 2007, p. 258).
This study includes thick, rich details and would be fairly easy to replicate. Githen’s discussion highlights the emergent themes and issues of the study, as well as further areas of interest to pursue. In the conclusion, Githen states the limitations of the study. Using a reflexive approach of evaluating his role in the research, Githen indicates that his experience teaching and coordinating an online master’s degree program affects his thinking about online learning. He also includes another personal bias. He strongly believes in the inclusion of interpersonal interaction in e-learning. Githen also includes implications for practice and states that his findings are not applicable to all e-learning environments. However, he states that his findings can be used to help determine how and whether to include interpersonal interactions in the design of other web-based programs. This case study extends the existing body of research on social presence and interpersonal interaction and is beneficial to understanding the complexities of social presence and interpersonal interaction in e-learning. His report offers insights into other online courses that include interpersonal interactions for professional development.
Understanding interpersonal interaction...abstract
Aprille Noe Black
Thomas Jeffrrey
Githens, R. (2007). Understanding interpersonal interaction in an online professional development course. Human Research Development Quarterly, 18(2), 253-274.
Abstract
Githen’s qualitative case study was implemented to evaluate how interpersonal interaction affected ten participants and five staff members in a web-based professional development program. The study explored the inclusion of social presence and interpersonal interaction using a community of inquiry framework established by Garrison and Anderson (2003) focused on cognitive presence, teaching presence and social presence. The study examined Current Issues, a course designed for adults employed in the disabilities and rehabilitation services area. Significant findings revealed the following: participants valued socialization in the field; modeling was necessary to establish socially interactive exchanges; inactive participants were actually engaged in lurking and following the dialog of other course participants; and actively engaged learners indicated complex and contradictory attitudes towards interpersonal interactions.
Thomas Jeffrrey
Githens, R. (2007). Understanding interpersonal interaction in an online professional development course. Human Research Development Quarterly, 18(2), 253-274.
Abstract
Githen’s qualitative case study was implemented to evaluate how interpersonal interaction affected ten participants and five staff members in a web-based professional development program. The study explored the inclusion of social presence and interpersonal interaction using a community of inquiry framework established by Garrison and Anderson (2003) focused on cognitive presence, teaching presence and social presence. The study examined Current Issues, a course designed for adults employed in the disabilities and rehabilitation services area. Significant findings revealed the following: participants valued socialization in the field; modeling was necessary to establish socially interactive exchanges; inactive participants were actually engaged in lurking and following the dialog of other course participants; and actively engaged learners indicated complex and contradictory attitudes towards interpersonal interactions.
Notes from "Learning In the Field" by Rossman & Rallis
Chapters 4 and 5
Unit of Analysis
Particular locus of control
Identify it in your study
Broad Genres in Literature
Rossman and Rallis discuss three
Ethnography
Phenomenology
Socio-communication
Ethnography
Social groups
Focus on Culture
Participant observation
Reminder of emic and etic views
Critical ethnographies take a radical perspective looking at issues of power and oppression in the social setting
Reproduction
Resistance
Marriage ]
Mores of reproduction
Mores of society
Phenomenology
Lived Experiences
Extensive and prolonged exgagement through a series of indepth intensive iterative interviews
Urpose of interviews
History, orientation reflective dialog
Socio-communication studies
How people communicate verbally and non-verbally
Words and action, use, communicative mean
Words, gestures, signs
Sociolinguistic research: microanalysis of naturally occurring speech events and interactions within their context
Semioticists: study conformity to and deviance from the intended meaning of signs.
Interpretivist assumptions
Knowledge is subjective
Researcher should engage directly with subjects
Society is orderly
This is traditional qualitative research
Knowledge has some order to it
Postmodernist Assumptions
Society is essentially conflictual and oppressive
Research involves issues of power
Research is authored by raced, gendered, classed, and politically-oriented individuals
Race class and gender are crucial to understanding the overall lived experience.
Traditional qualitative research has silenced the voice of the oppressed
Have to be reflexive because they have such strong feelings
Reflexivity is crucial.
Case Study
Overall Strategy
In-depth and detailed exploration of a single example that are instance drawn from a class of a similar phenomena
Descriptive holistic heuristic and inductive
Complex and multilayered
Particular focus using a variety of techniques
Context dependent
Reason things out by analogy
Practical considerations
Doable
Can we do the study…time, resources knowledge and skills
Want to do ability
Interest in the topic
Should-do-ability
Potential contribution to the person, the setting, the participants, society
Conceptual Framework
Your theory of the world you are studying
What do you want to learn
Experience in practice
What is already known
Previous research
Theoretical base
What questions remain unanswered?
What assumptions are you making?
Introduction
Literature Review
Using the lit
Ongoing conversations used to assess previous research and theretical concepts
Introduction establishes credibility and interest established the author’s voice
Literature Review
Theoretical articles
Current articles
Landmark Studies
Which takes us to our purpose
Literature Review Guidelines
Provide a roadmap for your reader
State what will be and will not be included
Specify your theoretical framework early
Aim for a clear and cohesive essay
Avoid summaries or annotations
Use subheadings (remember APA format)
Use transitions
Prepare a table
Write a conclusion of the review
Check the flow of your argument for coherence
STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Establishes a theoretical framework
Demonstrates knowledge about the topic
Reveals gaps in the literature
Leads toward the general research questions
Articulates a sound rationale for the need to conduct the study
Purpose is the essence of the study
Intent grounded in genre
Central concept
Definition of concept
Unit of analysis
Significance, overview, and Limitations
Significance
Reasoning emphasizing the contribution to the relevant domain
Overview questions
Guide your work
Nondirectional: don’t imply cause and effect
Limitations
Stipulate weaknesses of the study
Design and Methods
Plan
Demonstrates capability to do the study
Preserves design flexibility
Components of design and methods
Overall genre and rationale
Site and poupulation selection
Site entry purposeful sample
Data collection procedures, including sampling , people, events, processes interactions
Preliminary data analysis strategy
Trustworthiness, including limitations
Ethical considerations
Unit of Analysis
Particular locus of control
Identify it in your study
Broad Genres in Literature
Rossman and Rallis discuss three
Ethnography
Phenomenology
Socio-communication
Ethnography
Social groups
Focus on Culture
Participant observation
Reminder of emic and etic views
Critical ethnographies take a radical perspective looking at issues of power and oppression in the social setting
Reproduction
Resistance
Marriage ]
Mores of reproduction
Mores of society
Phenomenology
Lived Experiences
Extensive and prolonged exgagement through a series of indepth intensive iterative interviews
Urpose of interviews
History, orientation reflective dialog
Socio-communication studies
How people communicate verbally and non-verbally
Words and action, use, communicative mean
Words, gestures, signs
Sociolinguistic research: microanalysis of naturally occurring speech events and interactions within their context
Semioticists: study conformity to and deviance from the intended meaning of signs.
Interpretivist assumptions
Knowledge is subjective
Researcher should engage directly with subjects
Society is orderly
This is traditional qualitative research
Knowledge has some order to it
Postmodernist Assumptions
Society is essentially conflictual and oppressive
Research involves issues of power
Research is authored by raced, gendered, classed, and politically-oriented individuals
Race class and gender are crucial to understanding the overall lived experience.
Traditional qualitative research has silenced the voice of the oppressed
Have to be reflexive because they have such strong feelings
Reflexivity is crucial.
Case Study
Overall Strategy
In-depth and detailed exploration of a single example that are instance drawn from a class of a similar phenomena
Descriptive holistic heuristic and inductive
Complex and multilayered
Particular focus using a variety of techniques
Context dependent
Reason things out by analogy
Practical considerations
Doable
Can we do the study…time, resources knowledge and skills
Want to do ability
Interest in the topic
Should-do-ability
Potential contribution to the person, the setting, the participants, society
Conceptual Framework
Your theory of the world you are studying
What do you want to learn
Experience in practice
What is already known
Previous research
Theoretical base
What questions remain unanswered?
What assumptions are you making?
Introduction
Literature Review
Using the lit
Ongoing conversations used to assess previous research and theretical concepts
Introduction establishes credibility and interest established the author’s voice
Literature Review
Theoretical articles
Current articles
Landmark Studies
Which takes us to our purpose
Literature Review Guidelines
Provide a roadmap for your reader
State what will be and will not be included
Specify your theoretical framework early
Aim for a clear and cohesive essay
Avoid summaries or annotations
Use subheadings (remember APA format)
Use transitions
Prepare a table
Write a conclusion of the review
Check the flow of your argument for coherence
STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Establishes a theoretical framework
Demonstrates knowledge about the topic
Reveals gaps in the literature
Leads toward the general research questions
Articulates a sound rationale for the need to conduct the study
Purpose is the essence of the study
Intent grounded in genre
Central concept
Definition of concept
Unit of analysis
Significance, overview, and Limitations
Significance
Reasoning emphasizing the contribution to the relevant domain
Overview questions
Guide your work
Nondirectional: don’t imply cause and effect
Limitations
Stipulate weaknesses of the study
Design and Methods
Plan
Demonstrates capability to do the study
Preserves design flexibility
Components of design and methods
Overall genre and rationale
Site and poupulation selection
Site entry purposeful sample
Data collection procedures, including sampling , people, events, processes interactions
Preliminary data analysis strategy
Trustworthiness, including limitations
Ethical considerations
Action Research: FETC Conference Session
I attended an Action Research session at FETC in Orlando, Florida entitled Online Learning and Action Research: Taking the University to School. The workshop was conducted by Margaret Riel and Paul Sparks. Margaret Riel is the director of the Center for Collaborative Action Research at Pepperdine University and teaches the action research sequence in the online program in the Masters in Educational Technology Program. Based on the discussion of the panel, action research is a process of deep inquiry into one’s practices and is a systematic, reflective study of one’s actions and the effects of these actions in a workplace environment:
Action research is a process of deep inquiry into one's practices in service of moving towards an envisioned future aligned with values. Action Research is the systematic, reflective study of one's actions and the effects of these actions in a workplace context. As such, it involves deep inquiry into one's professional action. The researchers examine their work and look for opportunities to improve. As designers and stakeholders, they work with others to propose a new course of action to help their community improve its work practices. As researchers, they seek evidence from multiple sources to help them analyze reactions to the action taken. They recognize their own view as subjective and seek to develop their understanding of the events from multiple perspectives. The researcher uses data collected to characterize the forces in ways that can be shared with practitioners. This leads to a reflective phase in which the designer formulates new plans for action during the next cycle. Action Research is a way of learning from and through one's practice by working through a set of reflective stages that helps a person develop a form of "adaptive" expertise (Center for Collaborative Action Research, 2007, p.1).
Pepperdine offers an online Master’s and PhD program in Educational Technology. They discussed the importance of action research, collaboration, and communities of practice. According to Riel, “Over time action researchers develop a deep understanding of how forces interact to create a series of complex patterns. Action research is a process of living one’s theory into practice” (Riel, FETC 2008). Action research is a systematic method of study that allows practical and relevant discoveries. Critical reflection is key to the success of action research. The goals of action research include: improving practice through continual learning and progressive problem-solving; developing a deeper understanding of practice and designing a well specified theory of action; and improving a community in which your practice is embedded through participatory research. Critical reflection should be based on a careful examination of evidence from multiple perspectives; therefore, action research can provide excellent strategies for improving an organization’s way of working and also affect the climate of the company. According to Mitch Townsend, a member of the panel, he used action research to reorganize a company and totally turn around a failing program and develop a positive climate within his corporate community. Also, he re-emphasized the importance of communities of practice for sharing ideas, discussing thoughts and feelings, and reflecting on processes. After completing his M.A. Ed Tech at Pepperdine, he started working at a company called MindShare Learning. He is totally convinced of the significance of action research and MindShare allows him to participate in action research around the world.
In action research, questions the researcher asks guide the process. Quality questions inspire the researcher to study the setting and to collect evidence that will help find possible answers. Riel stated that “good questions often arise from visions of improved practice and emerging theories about the change that will move the researcher closer to the ideal state of working practices” (FETC, 2008). Weak action research questions are generally questions that have known answers and the goal is simply to prove the known answer to others. Also, questions that can be answered with a yes or no are considered very weak action research questions. And, if questions can be answered by simply reading the literature on the problem, then the questions have already been addressed and are not good action research questions.
Action research should also include a final report. The final report should be detailed and written to inform others within the research community of practice of the findings. It is important to share this information with the community of practice as they will appreciate and value the knowledge you gained in the study. Deciding what to include in the report is a very important component of the action research process. Riel recommends including an introduction that provides a description of the context of the research and an explanation of how the researcher fits into the community of practice. Also, a literature review can be included in the introduction. The research questions should be stated after the introduction and the cycles of the research should be described in detail. Also the evidence that will be collected to study how others react to your action should be stated and your intentions for analyzing the data should be included in this section. Reflections and final reflections allow the researcher to conduct a serious review of what has been learned. “A reflection provides a deep understanding of why things happened as they did and how those outcomes help you address your overarching question. At the end of writing a good reflection, you will know more than you did when you started it” (Riel, FETC, 2008).
My impression from the information shared in this workshop and from their website is that action research offers an exciting way to study distance education. The presenters in this session encouraged me to look at distance programs that include collaboration and social presence and to think about qualitative research for conducting my study. They provided several educational settings that offer distance courses that include a constructivist approach and collaborative activities in their design. I plan to spend some time looking at the resources they suggested. It was a great workshop.
Action research is a process of deep inquiry into one's practices in service of moving towards an envisioned future aligned with values. Action Research is the systematic, reflective study of one's actions and the effects of these actions in a workplace context. As such, it involves deep inquiry into one's professional action. The researchers examine their work and look for opportunities to improve. As designers and stakeholders, they work with others to propose a new course of action to help their community improve its work practices. As researchers, they seek evidence from multiple sources to help them analyze reactions to the action taken. They recognize their own view as subjective and seek to develop their understanding of the events from multiple perspectives. The researcher uses data collected to characterize the forces in ways that can be shared with practitioners. This leads to a reflective phase in which the designer formulates new plans for action during the next cycle. Action Research is a way of learning from and through one's practice by working through a set of reflective stages that helps a person develop a form of "adaptive" expertise (Center for Collaborative Action Research, 2007, p.1).
Pepperdine offers an online Master’s and PhD program in Educational Technology. They discussed the importance of action research, collaboration, and communities of practice. According to Riel, “Over time action researchers develop a deep understanding of how forces interact to create a series of complex patterns. Action research is a process of living one’s theory into practice” (Riel, FETC 2008). Action research is a systematic method of study that allows practical and relevant discoveries. Critical reflection is key to the success of action research. The goals of action research include: improving practice through continual learning and progressive problem-solving; developing a deeper understanding of practice and designing a well specified theory of action; and improving a community in which your practice is embedded through participatory research. Critical reflection should be based on a careful examination of evidence from multiple perspectives; therefore, action research can provide excellent strategies for improving an organization’s way of working and also affect the climate of the company. According to Mitch Townsend, a member of the panel, he used action research to reorganize a company and totally turn around a failing program and develop a positive climate within his corporate community. Also, he re-emphasized the importance of communities of practice for sharing ideas, discussing thoughts and feelings, and reflecting on processes. After completing his M.A. Ed Tech at Pepperdine, he started working at a company called MindShare Learning. He is totally convinced of the significance of action research and MindShare allows him to participate in action research around the world.
In action research, questions the researcher asks guide the process. Quality questions inspire the researcher to study the setting and to collect evidence that will help find possible answers. Riel stated that “good questions often arise from visions of improved practice and emerging theories about the change that will move the researcher closer to the ideal state of working practices” (FETC, 2008). Weak action research questions are generally questions that have known answers and the goal is simply to prove the known answer to others. Also, questions that can be answered with a yes or no are considered very weak action research questions. And, if questions can be answered by simply reading the literature on the problem, then the questions have already been addressed and are not good action research questions.
Action research should also include a final report. The final report should be detailed and written to inform others within the research community of practice of the findings. It is important to share this information with the community of practice as they will appreciate and value the knowledge you gained in the study. Deciding what to include in the report is a very important component of the action research process. Riel recommends including an introduction that provides a description of the context of the research and an explanation of how the researcher fits into the community of practice. Also, a literature review can be included in the introduction. The research questions should be stated after the introduction and the cycles of the research should be described in detail. Also the evidence that will be collected to study how others react to your action should be stated and your intentions for analyzing the data should be included in this section. Reflections and final reflections allow the researcher to conduct a serious review of what has been learned. “A reflection provides a deep understanding of why things happened as they did and how those outcomes help you address your overarching question. At the end of writing a good reflection, you will know more than you did when you started it” (Riel, FETC, 2008).
My impression from the information shared in this workshop and from their website is that action research offers an exciting way to study distance education. The presenters in this session encouraged me to look at distance programs that include collaboration and social presence and to think about qualitative research for conducting my study. They provided several educational settings that offer distance courses that include a constructivist approach and collaborative activities in their design. I plan to spend some time looking at the resources they suggested. It was a great workshop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
