December 7, 2018

Qualitative-Land (A final reflection game board)

Below is my final reflection project for Qualitative Methods graduate level class. Each slide links to the main "game board" and audio was recorded and set on auto-play. The audio is provided in text below each slide (in lieu of hosting the full presentation somewhere).

 Hope you like it!

 Main Game Board
Welcome to Qualitative-Land! The game where you explore the main points that Amber learned in Dr. V’s Qualitative Research class this past Fall semester. Click on the game tiles numbers 1 through 10 to move through each learning point, and have fun!

1
 

Qualitative Research inquiry involves utilizing several methods that are organic and malleable; these methods allow for data capture from several rich and sometimes unexpected sources.

“anything can be data” –Dr. V

Many of the research studies that we explored utilized unexpected sources, such as the college dorm door art in Nathan’s text; the sound files in the Wailing Women text; and observation of people and characteristics, as found in many of our texts this semester.
 
2


Conversation and human interactions are ripe with data, including conversation (what is said, and what is not said), body language, positioning, eye contact, breaths, and other gestures.


Data can be found in big discourse analysis and little discourse analysis, in word choice, in referring terms used, and in how speech is reported whether as direct or indirect re-telling.

 3


Ethnographic research is an often used and powerful tool for collecting data and telling the story of an interaction or phenomenon.

The Princeton Department of Anthropology defines ethnography as “a research method central to knowing the world from the standpoint of social relations”… and that it “involves hands-on, on-the-scene learning.” Researcher Hruska states that her ethnographic procedures “included prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation.”

Using ethnography, we also can analyze and present our own background biases as the researcher, in addition to exploring all elements of a situation or phenomenon both critically and holistically.

4


Critical Discourse Analysis involves both the microanalysis and macroanalysis of conversations; conversation collected by observation, or by reviewing an interview transcript or recording. Several frameworks exist to guide discourse analysis, including Toon Van Dyke’s and Gee’s frameworks. Conversations can be analyzed through narrative analysis, coding through counting, and thematic coding. Conversation elements such as multimodals or semiotics can also be analyzed with the text. Very little is spontaneous in speech and typically people want to look good by how they present themselves.

5


Reflective Journaling can be a key tool for any researcher, especially in qualitative methods where we are making connections, noting differences, and writing down thoughtfully our activities and ideas about a subject.


Through my journal this semester, I have been able to build my thoughts from class and apply them to projects or theories I am cultivating, and fully clarify the perspectives and methods that I have been learning in class.

6


Coding is analysis (even before the analysis begins).

Many times while working on my own thematic coding project and also the two group coding projects, we made several key decisions of analysis during our coding process that ultimately affected the data received and then formally analyzed. Choosing a deductive or inductive structure for your coding is an analysis decision; receiving the coding themes in project 2 may have limited our themes applied; and sometimes our limited knowledge of a topic develops as we code, so we then need to go back and revise our previous coding applications. Many decisions are made during coding!

7


Observation will make you feel like a secret agent.

My observation assignment really pushed me out of my comfort zone, but it gave me great confidence at the success of data collection that me and my partner had through that project. Observation is a powerful qualitative tool that can produce great amounts of data. Just make sure you conduct your observations in a public place and stealthy like a secret agent!

8


Several perspectives are available for your research outlook and also how you analyze your data, including the research perspectives of: positivist, post-positivist, constructivist, modernist, pos-modernist, feminist, critical theory, and grounded theory.

All theories have their strengths and weaknesses; and may not be applicable to the current phenomenon you are researching. Expect to try on several perspectives and frameworks when analyzing your data and approaching problems of interest.

9


Don’t forget the essential ‘housekeeping’ to research: IRB approval, consent of participants/interviewees, confidentiality, privacy, anonymity, and keeping appropriate relationships.

These important considerations must be addressed up front and any violations of these policies or ethical issues could harm someone, end the project, and possibly end your career.

10
 

Triangulation is the confirmation of your data and coding themes across resources or across researchers. Doing so can strengthen your findings and enhance validity of your study.

Triangulation can be conducted at any stage of coding or analysis; it can be conducted multiple times throughout a project; or you can compare what two or more researchers have found in the same dataset.

Semester end!
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

October 15, 2018

From Behaviorism to Constructivism: People are more than Numbers

Enjoy my module 2 synthesis post:

Articles assigned:





  • A. Watters, Educational Technology & Skinner's Box
  • I. Illich, Deschooling Society, Ch. 6
  • S. Papert, The Children's Machine, Ch. 7
  • L. Cuban, [OTA] Public School Teachers Using Machines…


Instructor suggested questions [bolded]:
Where else do we see behaviorism picked up throughout the history of ed. Tech?

What is behaviorism is my first question:
“Behaviorism refers to a psychological approach which emphasizes scientific and objective methods
of investigation. The approach is only concerned with observable stimulus-response behaviors, and 
states all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment.” Further it states:
  • “All behavior is learned from the environment”
  • “Psychology should be seen as a science”
  • “Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like
     thinking and emotion”
  • “There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals”
  • “Behavior is the result of stimulus-response”

Who was Seymour Papert?
“Papert has been considered the world's foremost expert on how technology can provide new ways to 
learn and teach mathematics, thinking in general, and other subjects.”
Wikipedia: Seymour Aubrey Papert was a South African-born American mathematician, computer 
scientist, and educator, who spent most of his career teaching and researching at MIT. He was one of
the pioneers of artificial intelligence, and of the constructionist movement in education.”

Why was Larry Cuban writing for the OTA, whatever that was?
Photo illustration by Derek Brahney. Source image of painting: Bridgeman Images.
Image is from the blog post “Personalized Learning”: The Difference between a Policy and a Strategy”:

The “OTA” is the Office of Technology Assessment for the United States government that was in action
from 1972 to 1995 when it was defunded (OTA Archive at http://ota.fas.org/). When searching further
into this website archive, I was amazed at the number of publications produced by this team on a
broad range of technology applications.

Larry Cuban is professor emeritus in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford. He studies the
area of technology integration and assessment; and school reform through technology integration. He
keeps a blog which appears very active. He was writing for the OTA because the OTA if a facilitating
body of the US Government and they needed his expertise in the area of educational technology
integration and assessment.


How can we link these readings back to those in Module 1?

In module 1, our readings centered on how “things,” such as technology and educational innovations,
have implications both intended and unintended from how the designers create the product. Innovations
have politics and many early innovations were directly related to increasing efficiency of the system.
People and things were pieces to these systems that could be controlled, adjusted, and modified.
Sometimes human differences and emotions were not considered, and most certainly minority or
special populations needing accommodations and differences were not accounted for. As we move
into Module 2, we can see that the “politics” of artifacts is expanded and researchers begin to account
for people as more than just numbers and for production. People began to become the focus in many
systems. While efficiency is important, researchers realized that there are many factors that can
impact a system and some things cannot be measured by numbers and in a “neat little box”. The
underlying principles of behaviorism is still ever present as a backbone to our field, but we can begin
to see constructivist principles emerging, and we can most definitely see its emergence in the follow
up posts on Cuban and Papert’s personal websites.

As we move away from behaviorism and integrate more constructivist thoughts on learning and
technology integration, we see the following changes in the researchers approaches:

From:
To:
“All behavior is learned from the environment”
Behavior is a combination of environmental factors
and personal human factors
“Psychology should be seen as a science”
Psychology is a science and an art; there is room
for multiple “truths” to a situation
“Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable
behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking
and emotion”
We are concerned with observable behavior and
internal events like emotion, more equally
“There is little difference between the learning that
takes place in humans and that in other animals”
Humans learn in ways more complex than animals
do and there are many differences in our learning
“Behavior is the result of stimulus-response”
Behaviour is the result of choice, stimulus, emotions,
and many other internal and external factors
combined for that precise situation (and could
change for a number of factors, at a different moment
in time, or in a different environment)


How have the authors of these pieces reflected on what they wrote, now decades later (I assure you, they have).
They each have websites and have written reflective pieces comparing the past to the present methods
of teaching; they are continually updating their theory and applying it to current issues in education.
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 2, 2018

Instructional Design: An Opportunity for Integrity and Inclusion for ALL

This is a the first of many papers being written for my Digital Media and Learning class this Fall:
Links to papers read online:





ethics of care - pluralism by hello-magpie on DeviantArt


Synthesis and analysis:

Before beginning my first synthesis paper, I wanted to understand “synthesis” fully, since it’s a term that I have not been asked to perform very much [directly albeit] in my previous coursework. I found a great example and guidance after searching “blooms synthesis” as I wanted to know what our tested Bloom’s Taxonomy would define synthesis as: http://www1.center.k12.mo.us/edtech/Blooms/Synthesis.htm
As the page linked above defines, my articles/creations to follow will adhere to the following learning objective verbs and expressions:

Synthesis
Putting together ideas into a new or unique
product or plan.

Guiding questions for synthesis level:
What changes would you make to solve _______?
How would you improve _______?
Can you propose and alternative _______?
What way would you design _______?
Suppose you could _______. What would you do ________?
Can you construct a model that would change _______?
Can you think of an original way for _______?
Can you predict the outcome if _______?


This week, we were asked to read in order and synthesize 4 articles:
K. Marx, The Machine Versus the Worker
L. Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics?
B. Pfaffenberger, Technological Dramas
L. Lessig, Code 2.0, Ch. 7

Our instructor promised us that it really wasn’t that much reading.

Karl Marx is a name I have heard many times, but before reading the assigned article, I really couldn’t remember his major stances on the worker and the machine-industrial complex. The reading assigned was only two pages in length, but was substantial in the new perspective brought to me attention. His major points in this reading are:
  • p. 156 “The instrument of labour strikes down the labourer. This direct antagonism between the two comes out most strongly, whenever newly introduced machinery competes with handicrafts or manufactures, handed down from former times.“
  • He states that “machinery not only acts as a competitor…” but that the capital generated “is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes” (p.156).
  • On page 157, he gives the example of Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam hammer: he testifies that “Thanks to these new mechanical combinations, I have reduced the number of grown-up men from 1,500 to 750. The result was a considerable increase in my profits.” Mechanical innovation and replacement of human workers was seen as a solution to long standing strikes in many industries.

Prior to reading Langdon Winner’s article “Do Artifacts have Politics?,” I had no experience with the author, but I did have an idea of the article content: since most products or innovations are created for someone, or a specific audience or consumer type, I can infer that the affordances generated will favor that group, and that favoritism in design can be called ‘politics.’ After reading the selection, the following are the main points presented:
  • He states that “At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged by their contributions… but also for the ways in which they embody specific forms of power and authority” (p. 19). My thought in reaction to this claim of embodying power and authority is: ‘is this an intentional assertion of power/authority?’, but then I think it wouldn’t matter whether the answer was yes or no, rather that we must have designers with the highest ethical standards for all people so that the assertion of power and authority through innovations is a positive contribution intended to help the greatest amount of people, making considerations for as many learner types as possible and for known accessibility concerns. I am then reminded that sometimes good products come out of ill intentioned designs, such as nuclear power that grew out of military applications or maybe medicines developed through unethical methods that end up saving thousands of others.

Moving on to the next article “Technological Dramas”, I can speculate that the idea of artifact features having politics will be expanded upon by Bryan Pfaffenberger. Main points of this reading include:
  • Confirming my earlier thoughts about designers and how their personal values affect the social and political considerations and outcomes in a design, Pfaffenberger states that “The demonstration that technology is socially shaped (MacKenzie and Wacjman 1985) or socially constructed (Pinch and Bijker 1987) is a major achievement of science and technology studies (STS).... To account fully for a technical design, one must examine the technical culture, social values, aesthetic ethos, and political agendas of the designers” (p.282).
  • He goes on to assert that “Technical innovation provides an opportunity to embed political values in technological production process and artifacts, which then diffuse throughout society…” (p. 283).
  • Pfaffenberger then makes several claims that I personally questioned as I read them. I questioned the sources quoted for support of his idea, and I questioned the methods used to determine the thinking of the designers or managers described in the studies. He mentions “Noble (1986) shows how managers hoped that numerically designed machine tools would deskill lathe operators and transfer process control from the shop floor to management. Barker and Downing (1985) show how networked word-processing technology has been used to erode the work autonomy of typists by monitoring the number of times per hour that a typist presses a key” (p. 284). How do you ‘show how a manager hoped’ for something? Why does having a measure by which to compare yourself to others while typing at work ‘erode work autonomy’? Is this really what the managers or designers were thinking when designing these tools - thinking of controlling their workers? I do not think so. I would imagine that most inventors and good managers in business are creative, kind people looking to better the populations, the work conditions, and the precision and quality of products.

I decided to move onto the next article, because I did not have the time to locate and verify each of the sources that I found a little biased that were used to support Pfeffenberger’s argument.

Lessig’s open source text “Code 2.0” was published in 2006 and appears to be a very straight forward, comprehensive, and foundational text to understanding power in our digital world, despite being over ten years old now. We were asked to read chapter seven.
  • This author details how our lives are regulated by first naming us “as a dot” and then analogizing how we (quite sarcastically as “a pathetic dot”) are controlled in behavior by social norms (p. 122), that “the market is also a constraint,” laws, and architecture (p. 123).
  • I found the multiple historical examples of design choices to control or direct people fascinating, especially the French Revolution (p. 127) and the later building of wider streets; because I have been there and can visualize this constraint fully and how it later affected history during Napoleon's rule.
  • I appreciated Lessing’s inclusion of three major socially excluded classes: “discrimination against the disabled,” “drugs” (p. 131), and “abortion” (p. 132). Heavily socially stigmatized, these populations can give back to the world in innumerable ways, yet we seek to disinclude them or ostracize them for their actions. Unfortunately there are many other populations and stigmatized groups that can bring a lot to the world. I think of refugees and immigrants, people of gender or identity minority, people of religious minority or misunderstood groups; an endless list could be created entitled ‘you are different because ______, but you can still participate in and create fully’. I think this is what the creators of the internet intended (that unknowingly started humankind into all this digital social mess ;-) ).

In closing, I will attempt to provide a brief synthesis and closing to conclude this week’s reading assignment. I think that digital media and the internet has the unique power to make the world a more equal place for all. I think this is how it was intended when it was envisioned and built, but I think a handful of people’s greed and business interests seek to build on the majority’s good intentions and desire for inclusion for all people. Two ways that I think could encourage this positive ethic and intention in designers and developers is to 1. apply the principle of ‘care ethic’ in all design ventures and 2. Encourage broad adoption of a code of ethics for designers, similar to the oath a doctor would take prior to service with patients (but obviously a little less focused on life and death, but rather access and value in intentions).

I am particularly interested in adapting the physicians Hippocratic oath into a guiding document for designers and inventors., so I wanted to share it here for your consideration too. The current medically-focused oath reads as:

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
  • I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
  • I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
  • I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
  • I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
  • I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
  • I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
  • I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
  • I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
  • If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.”

We have great powers as designers to shape the experiences in our world to elevate all of humankind for higher purposes, or to harm and control. We have power in the way we design things and to which attributes we craft. We can also be the gatekeepers and choose not break our own values just for monetary gain or otherwise negative purpose. May we all design with integrity and care.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});