500

here are 28 students visible in photo 3 with possibly more not in the photo which is more than the current cap in B.C. Perhaps class size was bigger in the fifties because of the teaching strategies used or the lack of students with high needs at that time. All of the students’ hands are in front of them which tells me that this was an expectation with which they are complying. Most of the students are either looking at the t.v. or at the teacher which tells me they are engaged in the lesson. The girls are wearing dresses while the boys are wearing pants and shirts which I interpret to mean that there were distinct gender roles in society at the time. The boys could’ve been more rough and tumble while the girls were cautious and neat. They were probably raised to fill different roles as adults like stay at home moms and working dads. Because all the boys have short hair, and the girls have longer hair, I think that they lived in a conservative society with traditional norms. The students are not always sitting beside someone of the same gender. Perhaps there was assigned seating which means that the teacher needed to control their behaviour somewhat. I assume that the students didn’t need many visuals to keep their attention since the classroom walls seem bare. The children obviously didn’t need a lot of stimulation. Perhaps this means people weren’t regularly bombarded with visuals in their daily life like billboards, commercials, etc. Because the teachers removed the desks to allow students to sit in chairs, I am led to believe that the students were sitting for a long period of time. Otherwise, they wouldn’t go through the hassle of doing that. This suggests that the students were able to concentrate for a long period of time. Maybe it was because of the technology which holds the attention of many of our youth today or because of their ability to focus. The children were all caucasian which I interpret to mean there was not a lot of cultural diversity in Calgary at that time. People must not’ve done a lot of travelling or air travel wouldn’t have been accessible to everyone. If there were other ethnicities around, the children didn’t go to the same school. These documents are important to analyze because they show a glimpse into education and childhood of my parent’s generation. From looking at the differences between their childhood experiences and mine, I can better understand their point of view on certain topics like how to raise my child. Considering I work with some teachers who are my parents age, I see why it would be harder for them to embrace 21rst century teaching methods and technology because it is a very different approach compared to how they were taught.

I was a passive observer at a playground today. I wonder if my presence affected the behaviour of one of the boys I was observing. He looked at me at least three times while on the playground. He was not as athletic as the other boy and struggled with playing on some of the features. Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) say that you need to have a rapport with those who you are observing. Maybe this boy was partly nervous because a stranger was watching him play.

Since I was not involved in the situation, it was easier for me to record field notes. However, I know it would be more difficult to do so if I had been an active observer. It would be hard to take mental notes of what was happening and engage with the participants at the same time.

I found it time consuming to type the notes after the observation. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p.406) say, “One of the challenges for time-strapped educational researchers planning to do ethnographic research is the length of time in the field…and the length of the written account.”

I offered my interpretations of what I had seen but I would’ve liked to interview the boys as well to clarify questions I had.

I found it difficult to separate myself from my observations. I wonder if someone else would’ve interpreted the situation the same as I did. At the end of my notes, I realized I had assumed the non-athletic boy probably did better in school which was a major stereotype.

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

2:51 I am sitting at picnic table with my daughter who is in an orange umbrella stroller which I positioned in front of me to conceal my notepad and pen on my lap. We are at a new “play for all” playground which was recently installed in front of an old neighbourhood rec. centre. The playground is accessible to the physically disabled so there are many low set features like swings or spinning chairs that someone in a wheel chair could access. It is also a great park for small children for this reason. It is chilly with grey skies today so the playground is empty. I’ve been here for about ten minutes and have seen many small children walk by with one of their parents but they continue into the rec centre.

2:52 A mom with two small children and a dog, around the age of three and four, pass by the playground. The children want to play but the mom ushers them along stating, “It’s too cold.” Two boys about the age of 11 or 12 come darting out of the rec centre to the playground. Boy 1 jumps on the tallest feature on the playground and immediately goes to the top. He is wearing a marron puffy down jacket, jeans, and white sneakers. He has sandy coloured hair, buck teeth, and big eyes. He looks gangly because he is tall and thin. Boy 2 is wearing the same jacket but navy blue. He has darker jeans on and black winter boots. He has brown hair. He is heavier set than the other. There are no parents around.

PC: I wonder if they’re brothers because they have the same jacket?

Boy 2 runs to one of the two low circular shaped swings and stands on it. Boy 1 follows and stands on the other circular swing next to the first boy. Both grab the ropes suspending the swings and use their bodies to get them moving.

2:54 Boy 1 lies down on the swing while it’s still in motion. Then he gets off and gets back on the swing but facing the rec centre this time. Boy 2 is still swinging but also turns direction to face the rec centre. Boy 1 is going much higher than boy 2.

Boy 2 looks at me. Boy 1 jumps off his swing and is oblivious that I’m here. Boy 2 gets off and walks to a different structure in the shape of a sea serpent which he climbs. Boy 1 is still swinging fairly high.

Two little children and their mom walk by.

PC: I wonder if there is a swimming lesson going on since these two look to be the same age as others who’ve walked by since I’ve been here.

Boy 1 moves to a small, red spinning seat. Boy 2 climbs on to the head of the sea serpent. He seems cautious and starts to lower himself to a lower part of the head instead of jumping from the top. Once to the lowest part of the head, he calls to his friend (brother?) to get his attention. Boy 1 doesn’t see him and goes back to the circular swing.

PC: Boy 2 was trying to get his friend’s attention so boy 1 would watch him jump off the head.

Boy 2 walks to the other circular swing and stands by it. Boy 1 jumps off his. They’re talking but I can’t hear what they’re saying. Then boy 1 says, “Let’s see who can jump the farthest!”. Both get on the swings in a standing position. Boy 1 starts swinging first and is going very high. Boy 1 says, “Bet I can get higher than you! You can jump whenever you want.” He jumps and falls (on purpose). He then stands where he fell to mark his spot. Boy 2 jumps but not very far at all. He hops a bit further once on the ground then quickly moves to the spinning seat.
PC: Boy 2 was trying to make his jump look longer by taking small hope after he initially touched the ground. He was trying to avoid playing the game again and from hearing comments by moving to a different structure.

Boy 1 pushes him around on the seat then goes to a structure that looks like a boat. Boy 2 goes to a swing made to hold a wheelchair and balances on it while standing. He doesn’t swing. Boy 1 goes to the spinning seat and spins himself.

Boy 2 looks at me. Boy 1 doesn’t.

PC: I wonder if boy 2 feels self-conscious that I am here. He must notice me watching at them. He is obviously not as athletic as the other boy and an audience might make him feel nervous. I wonder if boy 1 is unobservant or confident enough in his athleticism that he doesn’t care who watches.

Boy 2 lies down on the swing while boy 1 moves to that structure and pushes him. Boy 2 looks back at him because boy 1 is behind him. Boy 1 changes the side that he is pushing on to face boy 2 now.

PC: I think these two have a fairly respectful relationship even though they are quite different. I don’t think they would choose to play together at recess at school because boy 1 would choose a sports game and boy would probably choose to read or walk around. This further strengthens my guess that they are brothers.

Boy 1 moves to a spinning pole and then walks away, exploring other small noise making features with his hands as he goes. Boy 2 is still swinging on the wheel chair swing but is going slower now because no one has pushed him for a bit.

Boy 1 is standing by a feature that you shout into that looks like a periscope. He says, “I have a secret to tell you that I’ve never told anyone.” He walks over to the wheelchair swing to help his boy 2 who is struggling to get off. Boy 2 looks at me as he gets off the swing.

Boy 2 walks over to a different periscope. Boy 1 says, “I can not tell anyone.” Then he speaks into the periscope feature. Boy 2 makes noises (animal sounds) back into it. Boy 1 says, “Come on. Let’s go.” They both walk off the playground and boy 2 gives a noogie to boy 1.

PC: I feel bad for boy 2 because it must be tough for him to be around other boys at school who are much more rough and tumble than he. I find myself thinking he is probably successful in academics. However, that shows me that I can stereotype students as either being athletic or academic.

End 3:05

A naive philosophy of action research by Bob Dick

Dick, B.  (1997) The naive philosophy of a naive philosopher [On line].  Available at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/naive.html

The webpage is a supplementary resource for a program called Areol Action Research and Evaluation. The author writes informally about his personal philosophy applied to action research in response to prior students’ complaints that philosophy wasn’t studied in the Areol program. The content is biased. The author admits he isn’t qualified to teach on such a subject and doesn’t find it important. The site is maintained by the author who I assume is a lecturer at Southern Cross University, where the course Areol is offered. The page was last edited in 2000. There is a link to a text version provided but it does not work. The page is not well supported by other resources as it only has one reference.

Eric Journal

Carrington, V. (2008). “I’m Dylan and I’m not going to say my last name”: Some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 151-166.

Eric Document

Britton, S. M. (1992). Mobile technology education laboratory: An alternative for elementary technology education in a restructuring school district in central California. (Master’s dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC (EBSCO). (ED387079)

How is the article structured?

Dr. Middleton’s article starts with reference for the article, title, author name, article, short bio on Dr. Middleton, and a list resources.

Beck and Fetherston’s article is the same as the above except it includes an abstract, a conclusion, has a headings system and does not contain any bios.

What is the author’s intent? Who is the audience?

Dr. Middleton’s article is intended to inform other professors and researchers about publishing their work in electronic journals. It cites advantages and challenges of the increasing movement from traditional to electronic journals.

The authors Beck and Fetherston report on how grade three students’ attitudes towards writing change as they incorporate a word processor to the writing process. They could be writing a paper for their own education degree which they’d share with other teachers.

What authority do the authors have to make their claims?

Dr. Middleton has a variety of research experience. He is the Associate Director for a research centre. This leads me to believe that his descriptions and predictions of the changes happening with journals are reliable. His article was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Beck and Fetherston did a literature review and have a large resource section which makes their writing seem well informed. It is unclear if their article was peer-reviewed. The Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual is a magazine and not a journal.

How would you characterize (label or describe) each article? Why (that is, what criteria did you use for your characterization)?

I would label Dr. Middleton’s article as a narrative because he is reflecting on what he has observed and experienced over time in his career.

Beck and Fetherston’s article combined a literature review and case studies including observations and interviews.

Which of these articles would you use in a review of research literature? Why?

I would use Dr. Middleton’s article in my review.

I would not use Beck and Fetherston’s article because their case studies do not seem reliable. For example, the teaching methods of the teacher in the study is what caused the students to not like writing with a pencil and paper. If they didn’t have to be extremely neat when writing, the students may have liked the process more. The word processor may not have improved their attitudes had the teaching strategy been different.

Apparently the students in this study had adequate keyboarding skills which didn’t take away form typing the stories. As a grade three teacher, my students would be very frustrated if I asked them to type out a story especially if they had to create it as they went along (without a first copy).

I think it is biased that the students had access to pictures on the word processor and not when using paper and pen to write their stories. Writing with pictures is always beneficial for sequencing and adding detail to writing.

Since the students were allowed to use the spell check feature in the software program, their conventions mark would be higher using the word processor.

It seems like the study should’ve compared the effects of using the software program, “Story

Book Weaver Deluxe (1994)” on writing instead of a word processor.

I thought the voice with which the authors wrote was too informal for the type of report they intended to write. I also thought the amount of quotations in their writing was distracting.

Try to write out one research question or topic for each of the 4 paradigms. Label your questionsusing the Sipe and Constable categories of: positivist, interpretivist, critical theory and deconstructivist.

I teach grade 2/3 French Immersion (except I’m on maternity leave right now) which means that I teach every subject in French and students are suppose to speak French to me and each other all day. Primary in B.C. means grades 1 to 3. Students are between the ages of 5 and 9.

My topics refer to teaching and learning French which could be further broken down into spelling, writing, oral language, reading etc. To simplify things a bit, I’m just referring to French, in general.

Positivist – Are primary French Immersion (F.I.) teachers in British Columbia using smartboards to encourage student centred learning of the French language?

Interpretivist – What do primary F.I. teachers think is the best way to use smartboards to teach French?

Critical Theory – How can school boards encourage primary F.I. teachers to use smartboards in a student centred way to teach French effectively?

Deconstructivist – What is the most effective way to teach French in the primary F.I. classroom?

or

How can teachers most effectively teach French in the primary F.I. classroom using smartboards and a student centred approach?

I cheated and gave two questions for the deconstructivist topic. I still a bit puzzled about this one. Deconstructivism seems to say there are no truths so initially I thought I’d leave out the assumption that smartboards and student centred learning are the best techniques for teaching French. Maybe I’m reading to much into it.