It was refreshing to read Sandwell’s (2003) interpretation and expansion of bias. I also appreciated her delineation of steps which highlight the “contingent and contructed nature of history-as-a-process” (Sandwell, 2003, p 177) and can be used for examining primary documents. I would argue that her work sheds light on the very nature of research regardless of its quantitative or qualitative methodology.

I am beginning to understand that research requires the creation, preservation, and uncovering of data. The data must be judged as important or significant. It must be interpreted and finally incorporated into a meaningful explanation or narrative. In the end, it is the story of what we have learned and what we have yet to learn.

I would argue that all research is a process with a constructed and contingent nature. And so it seems curious that many of us returned to the old arguments of bias, controls, and variables to express concern about conducting historical research and using the photographs. And yet – we construct stories all the time; even those “based on hard evidence” are still stories. The veracity of our stories depends upon how well they are supported by congruent data and how well they hold up in the face of contradictory data.

Constructing a narrative about De Lorme’s photographs was challenging and my story was a bit cheeky! But it did make a point, as did his pictures, about the experimental nature of introducing technology to schools. Update the decorations, the clothes, and haircuts; replace the television with a Smartboard and the pictures could easily have been taken today. There are some obvious parallels; just as there are parallels between Sandwell’s (2003) story about historical research our story as students beginning our own research.

What a great activity as we begin our next module on completing a literature review!

Photo Analysis and Meaning

Ethnography Report: Issues and Challenges

Review

Reading about qualitative research and reflecting on my review of a qualitative study which was described by its authors as “quasi-experimental” (Tanner & Jones, 2007, p 326), I was impressed by the change in attitude towards qualitative studies since I completed by undergraduate degree thirty years ago.  I recall qualitative studies were considered pseudo-experimental; interesting to read but not worth serious academic consideration.  If fact, I seem to recall earning a high mark for my blistering critique of the research on the Rosenthal Effect as lacking hard data from controlled quantitative studies.

Armed with a new understanding that qualitative research can yield reliable and valid results, I approached my ethnographic study with real interest and enjoyed interviewing one of my students to collect some first-hand information on reflection and metacognition.

Issues and Challenges

Preparation and approach were the greatest issues in conducting this study. As I formulated my questions, I realized just how little I understood about metacognition and reflection. I needed to be better prepared. Still – I forged ahead trusting that I would learn something from the process. At the beginning of the interview, I was very aware of my role as Sam’s teacher and wanted to avoid his telling me what I wanted to hear. So while my questions helped me stay focused, I found that listening and responding purposefully helped me understand. I needed to suspend my need to drive the interview where I wanted it to go. Responding to Sam’s lead and asking open-ended questions to clarify my understanding resulted in more valuable information about the topic in a way that was more natural to Sam. We relaxed as we talked together so I think Sam was pretty comfortable answering my bluntly worded question at the end of the interview. I believe I was able to understand things from Sam’s point of view; this is pretty significant as my interest is reflection and metacognition.

References

Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2007). Using video‐stimulated reflective dialogue to learn from children about their learning with and without ICT, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 321-335

Individual Interviewed: Sam Student
Date/Time: January 29, 2013; 9:46 – 10:15 am
Place: My School Elementary, Room 21B
Interviewer: Don Adams

Purpose: Reflection and metacognition are fundamental to the success of mPortfolios with students. There is some debate about the ability of young children to reflect. This interview was conducted to collect some first-hand information in preparation for a literature review on the topic.

Background: Sam attends Kindergarten where I am the teacher. Sam was interviewed alone in the classroom while the rest of the class was attending music. We sat kitty-corner at a student table. I had a list of prepared questions. I prepared written notes which were used to prepare this paraphrase of the interview.

Question 1: How do you know when you are good at something?
Question 2: What are you good at?
Question 3: How do you know you are good at __________?
Question 4: How would I know you are good at __________?
Question 5: If you wanted to get better at __________, what would?
Question 6: How can someone learn to __________?

A discussion was held about what I was learning in school and my interest in understanding more about how children think. Sam smiled when I asked if he would like to talk about this and assented to the interview.

My Reflection

Very briefly, I think Sam showed the ability to think about thinking and to reflect. He provided an explanation about who someone was when he thought I needed it. He could tell me what he was good at and how he knew he was good at it. Feelings and thinking were part of his explanation. He made a interesting connection between fun, learning, and practice. Clearly Sam could think about needing to think when he learned to ride his bike and how he didn’t need to think once he had learned. It was my impression that Sam’s level of reflection depended upon what we were talking about. It seemed that it was easier for him to reflect about something he did rather than something he thought about.

This interview helped me prepare for my literature review on metacognition and reflection in young children.  I want to know more about; the types of metacognition, the development stages of metacognition, how to measure and understand metacognition, and how to stimulate metacognition and reflection in young children. The interview also reminded about “Theory of the Mind” or the understanding that other people have their own thoughts and feelings. It seems related to this topic – just not sure how.

I’d like to conduct this kind of interview again as I learn more. I’d like to compare the results as I understand more about what I am hearing.

I hear what you are saying and largely I agree. I am concerned when we confuse our perception that something is better with it actually being better or our perception that something is wrong with it actually being wrong. An example, the Kindergarten teacher across the hall uses almost none of the latest technology. He got a whiteboard last year and I teased him that I was going to glue some coat buttons on it so he could play Smartboard. I use a lot of technology. Is my classroom better? Some may say so but others would not; it’s about perception. And my perception is , that even without the technology, my colleague is a master teacher! He’s so good, my grand-daughter is in his class (my recommendation, even though there were other equally great choices!) If teaching children without technology is wrong then we have a lot to answer to as a profession. I think it is my responsibility as a technophile to be honest about the role of technology and its effect on teaching and learning. New is not always good and good is not always new. And now I climb back down from my soapbox….

Don

Great question…one I’ll have to consider as I develop my project as it will be similar to this example. While it may not have been their intent, the authors of this study allowed all of the students to experience the IWBs which may have, in part, addressed the concern of “harm to students”. I wonder if including the students in the question posed by the researchers (full disclosure) and not tieing participation in the study to a mark for the learning might better address the issue. Surely we can include our students in an activity solely for its research value. My students like it when I share my thoughts about research with them. You should hear what they have to say about the notion that small children do not engage in metacognition. If Piaget were alive, they would have a few things to say to him!

Don

In this UK research study the authors’ extended their use of video-stimulated reflective dialogue (VSRD) with teachers by applying the technique to students. Essentially a qualitative study, the authors describe it as “based on teacher-controlled interventions within a quasi-experimental design of control and intervention groups” (p. 325). In the first phase of the project, pairs of teacher worked together to plan the teaching of a subject. One of the pair taught using an interactive white board (IWB) while the other did not. Once complete, the teachers met with the researchers to discuss the ways IWBs had been used to support their lessons. During the second phase, both teachers used IWBs in their lessons. During each phase, the researchers: observed lessons, and met with groups of teachers to discuss issues, form tentative hypotheses, and decide upon new focuses. Lessons were also video-taped. Teachers chose clips from these videos that represented “significant moments in the lesson” (p 326) and met with the lead researcher to engage in a reflective dialogue stimulated by viewing these clips. Afterwards, the researcher met with a focus group of students from the lesson. This group viewed the same video clips selected by their teacher. Pupils were invited to comment on the features of the clips that helped or inhibited their learning. If it did not arise spontaneously, they were asked to discuss if the use of an IWB had assisted their learning or would have assisted it during non-IWB lessons.

Ethical Issues to Address

Informed Consent – The researchers did not describe the process for obtaining the informed consent of: the local council authority, the school’s head teacher, the classroom teachers, the students and the students’ parents.

Anonymity and Confidentiality – While the identity of the study’s participants was known to the researchers, steps were taken to ensure confidentiality. Schools, school personnel, and students were not identified by name. Videotapes were not retained and the transcriptions of interviews identified speakers by code (R = Researcher, P2 = Pupil 2).

Protection from Harm – The potential for harm to individuals who participated or did not participate in this study seems low. However, teachers with an interest in the affordances of ICT were recommended to this study by their head teachers and students labeled ICT as fun and motivating. I wonder if participants expected a benefit for participating in this study. Would a positive outcome result in recognition for the pupils, teacher and school? Would it result in the increased allocation of ICT to the classroom or school? Would non-participatory teachers and pupils be given the same opportunity to use ICT?