1 Utilizing Mobile and Smart Technology: Breaking down the ‘Fourth Wall’ in Research August 25, 3:30-5:00pm | ecer 2016 Dr. Nettie Boivin, Assistant Professor Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University Dr. A. S. CohenMiller, Assistant Professor ECER 2016: "Leading Education: The Distinct Contributions of Educational Research and Researchers” | Dublin, Ireland, August 22-26, 2016
2 outline Initial study Insights from initial study – video tapingLiterature review and framework Methods Research Questions Data collection and analysis Findings – emergent themes Conclusion and Discussion
3 Initial Study The research theories stem from the initial study.The sessions included both pre- and post-interviews per session which were videotaped by the 12 researchers on smartphones or tablets. Qualitative case study of 5 Kazakh extended families (siblings, parents, grandparents) of shifts in attitudes to language, literacy practices. Started out as traditional There were more than 5 families consisting of at least 3 kids and one or two adults. Plus other random families who inconsistently participated. Approximately 15 to 20 participants to observe- therefore the videotaping allowed a complex data collection rather than a superficial one
4 Initial study sessionsThe researchers based the sessions around three of Cummins (2009) Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogies (TMP). Each session contained knowledge building on prior cultural and linguistic capital. The sessions attempted to promote critical thinking and identity learning. Activities ranged from storytelling, digital story creation, videos, songs, games, arts and crafts, and manga creation.
5 Insights from the initial study: unintentional practicesVideotaping resulted in unintentional practices; Utilizing these technologies – evidence is but components of trajectories in progressive multiliteracies; Digital technologies allowed researchers…to pierce the 4th wall of research. Development of a new research roles, methods, and framework – a digital co- constructed ethnographic study. Devices can aid research in socio-cultural home practices and multilingual learning. this study discovered how … been examined from a … as not just … allowed researchers greater depth of investigation …not only were incorporated in learning but…
6 Literature: Digital and mobile technology- co-constructing learningDigital networks are under-studied in the education literature, (Cruickshank 2006;Fitzgerald and Debski 2006; J.S. Lee 2006). The majority of MALL studies were in classroom and did not include Pre-K home context. Mobile digital technology also encourages spontaneous interactions, facilitates deeper integration of language learning with everyday communication needs and cultural experiences (Lu, 2008) some recent work has pointed to the potential of communication and media use in extending the literacy resources and practices of young migrants and children of immigrants This is a hugh gap as most educational research indicates language learning and literacy the home environment pre-school age is foundational for later learning.
7 Literature: 4th Wall Diderot, termed the 4th wall as the invisible barrier between artists and audience (Cuddon, 2012). Participant observation is a tool for collecting data however, as (Heath and Street, 2008, p.31) state, “only rarely can we shed features of ourselves to be a real participant”. However, this could occur if the researcher and participants are co-constructing research.
8 Literature : Shifting Research Gears to ethnographic multiliteraciesDialogic, co-constructive nature of ethnographic studies “Ethnographic work is dialogic between existing explanations and judgments and on-going data collection and analysis” (Heath and Street, 2008, p.57); Beyond “imposing” research methods upon others but instead an emergent, organic development (e.g., the ever-present usage of mobile technology in daily life); Multimodal and multiparticipatory nature of using digital media integrated with ethnographic research: Multiparticipatory: participants, observers, researchers, teachers, and community members; Multimodality as a means for enriching ethnographic empirical work (Clark, 2006, p. 228). - We are proposing moving into a greater
9 New Research QuestionsHow can digital and mobile technologies be utilized in ethnographic multiliteracies research? In what ways, if at all, does utilising digital and mobile technologies affect participants roles?
10 Methods: Breaks in Silence and Piercing the VeilPre-session questionnaires; During the sessions, on the breaks, at lunch there were moments when the participants, extended families and researchers partook in observation; The researchers and family members continued to videotape using smart phones and tablets; Hohti and Karlson’s ethnographic observation framework: the observational space the participatory space and the reflexive space (p. 552). that states that there are three different kinds of analytical spaces
11 Digital Data CollectionObservational space: Due to their framework, length, and structure allowed for the videotaping using digital and mobile technology to create observational space – There was approximately 25 hours of recordings from 10 to 12 researchers and families; Participatory space: The participants created and co-constructed multilingual resources utilising digital technology or a participatory space; Reflexive spaces: The videos which the parents and extended family members participated in creating with their mobile devices and then sent to themselves and other participants created reflexive spaces Video demonstrating the layered spaces: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-JXxrMqOR07aF9GRFcxNU1qZXM
12 Data Collection & AnalysisIdentified patterns in the data through coding the themes in each session (Anderson, 2011); Data from semi-structured and qualitative interviews were triangulated with the observations and videotapes from the sessions; Videos were normed amongst the researchers to ensure that no bias 7 consistent results watching the first video and assessing one of the older children in the video to mediate the teams results; Age, gender, length and type of family interaction, shifts or changes in participation, length and increase in participating in three languages (Russian, Kazakh, and English). The categories of video data included
13 Unexpected Co-constructed Research FindingsAfter reviewing the digital data it was noted that each of the family videos shared provided not only learning but research moments/themes Increase in language participation; Shift in elder attitudes towards literacy; Expansion in the circle of mediation of knowledge; Awareness of funds of knowledge; Intentional and unintentional family language policies.
14 Theme 1 – Increase in Language ParticipationDuring the viewing of the video for this literacy activity, the mother of the girl began to actively engage in her daughter’s activity. Post-session observations (this extract was overheard from one of the digital recordings with the MA student/researcher): The grandparents from CSF1 asked “please send the videotapes of the session. We want to try this at home”! She encouraged her participation and helped with vocabulary.
15 Theme 2 – Elders Shift in Attitudes Towards LiteracyMerits of technology The grandmother from CSF 1 stated “I never knew how much the children could learn playing!” In post-session interviews CSF 3, 4, & 5 stated: “liked the interactive style of the story …better than the Soviet style.” The families started to share their recordings with each other; Texting during the sessions to actively participating through videotaping in the sessions! and this sentiment was echoed by all of whom stated surprise
16 Theme 3 – Expanding the Circle of Mediation of KnowledgeWhen watching the session for CSF 4 – we noticed the GM verbally guided the child within the zone of proximal development (Anderson Friedrich and Kim, 2011). This was also observed with CSF 2 grandmother told an historical narrative and audiotaped it using her cell phone. She helped the girl create the story. In the video you hear her repeating Kazakh phrases to try to expand the girls knowledge.
17 Theme 4 – Community Funds of KnowledgeMediators of literacy (Gregory, 2001); CSF 4 F “I never thought of my other children helping their little sister ”! CSF 5 mother “in school we are taught it is just about books not telling stories with family members.” One session CSF 4 mother was present without the elder daughter and participated in digital story creation. She continued this practice at home. The mother was middle-aged and not from the digital generation. Overtime a community of learning could be created. She stated after the session “this was easier than I imagined”! session allowed the grandparents, older siblings, and extended family to become – An example of this was observed in the case study family 4 elder sister was highly involved in technology and learning due to her age and academic experience. However, -She returned the following sessions stating This was significant as -Her participation in technology illustrated that
18 Theme 5 – Intent and Unintentional Family Language PoliciesBased on the videotaping, the researchers obtained unintentional information. During interviews participants stated they believed in revitalizing Kazakh language, yet during video taping of literacy activities other practices were illustrated. Evidence taken from iPhone, iPad and other tablets revealed many participants started with Kazakh and continued the activity speaking Russian when they were interacting with their children.
19 Conclusion & DiscussionReturning to the research questions: How can digital and mobile technologies be utilized in ethnographic multiliteracies research? In what ways, if at all, does utilising digital and mobile technologies affect participants roles? Moving beyond one vantage point, namely the researcher, to a multiparticipatory, multimodal approach. Videotaping in the later interviews filled out additional “spaces.” Ultimately this type of mobile recording, where participants and researchers co-construct the research in this manner, allows for additional layers of the ethnographic experience
20 Questions? Thank you! [email protected]
21 Extras
22 References Anderson J, Friedrich N and Kim J (2011) Implementing a Bilingual Family Literacy Program with Immigrant and Refugee Families: The Case of Parents as Literacy Supporters (PALS). Vancouver, BC: Decoda Literacy Solutions. Bühler-Niederberger, D., & Schwittek, J., (2013).Young children in Kyrgyzstan: Agency in tight hierarchical structures. Childhood, Vol. 21(4) 502–516. Burkhalter, N., & Shegebayev, M. R. (2012). Critical thinking as culture: Teaching post- Soviet teachers in Kazakhstan. International Review of Education, 58(1), Clark, A. (2011). Multimodal map making with young children: exploring ethnographic and participatory methods. Qualitative Research, 11(3), Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An international journal, 4(3), Cheung, W. S. & Hew, K. F. (2009) A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2): 153–183. Cruickshank, K. (2006). Teenagers, literacy and school: Researching in multilingual contexts. New York: Routledge. Cuddon, J. A. (2012). Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. John Wiley & Son. Cummins J (2009) Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy: School-based Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp Dicks, B., Flewitt, R., Lancaster, L., & Pahl, K., (2011). Multimodality and ethnography: working at the intersection, Qualitative Research, 11(3)
23 Elfström Pettersson, K. (2013)Elfström Pettersson, K. (2013). Children's participation in preschool documentation practices. Childhood, p.1-17. Fitzgerald, M., & Debski, R. (2006). Internet use of Polish by Polish Melburnians: Implications for maintenance and teaching. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), Guler Duman, Gunseli Orhon, & Nuray Gedik (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from 2000 to ReCALL, 27, pp Heath, S. B. & Street, B. (2008) On Ethnography Teachers College Columbia. Hegelsen, E., (2014). Miku's mask: Fictional encounters in children's costume play. Childhood, p Hohti, R., & Karlsson,L. (2013). Lollipop stories: Listening to children's voices in the classroom and narrative ethnographical research, Childhood, 2014, Vol. 21(4) 548–562). Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2012) Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computer Higher Education, 24: 1–17. Hwang, G. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2011) Research trend in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4): E65–E70. Kremer-Sadlik, T., & Fatigante, M. (2015). Investing in children’s future: Cross-cultural perspectives and ideologies on parental involvement in education. Childhood, 22(1),
24 Laurent, A. , Nicoladis, E. , & Marentette, P. (2015)Laurent, A., Nicoladis, E., & Marentette, P. (2015). The development of storytelling in two languages with words and gestures. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(1), Lee, J.S. (2006). Exploring the relationship between electronic literacy and heritage language maintenance. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 93–113. Li, G. (2010). Culturally contested literacies: America's" rainbow underclass" and urban schools. Routledge. Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2006). Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (Vol. 4). Multilingual Matters. Prout A (2005) The Future of Childhood. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
25 Grandparents= GP, Mother= M, Father=F, Brother=B, Sister=S, Mothers-side= MS, Fathers-side=FSCSF 1 CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 Family 6 5 7 Children Boy -5, Girl -4 Boy – 2 Girl -4, Girl 5, Girl 7 Other family members Brother -9, Grandparents (FS), Father, (Mother deceased) Sister 7 Grandmother (fathers side), father Brother 11, Aunt 40, father Brother 19 & 26, Mother 40, father 50, GPS (FS) Sister 26, brother 20, 17, mother 40ish, father 50 Ethnicity Kazakh (FS), Korean-Kazakh (MS), Kazakh and mother half Kazakh and half Kyrgyzstani Kazakh FLP Kazakh- GP, Russian -F Kazakh, some Russian Russian, only a little Kazakh Kazakh but Russian - M Whole family speaks Russian, little Kazakh SES Medium Low Job University administrative staff, GP retired M=librarian, F= entrepreneur, GP-retired M-Cleaner at university, F-businessman F-Professor, M-housewife F-manager level in business, M-runs beauty salon, S-MA student Education BA High school Soviet PhD F/M BA, S-MA Region Grandparents from Uzbekistan moved to Almaty than Astana, fathers side Kazakh Father from Almaty, mother from Kyrgyzstan but moved to Almaty for school. Mother has relatives in Almaty. Met father while attending Father from Almaty but mother and aunt from East Kazakhstan. They moved to Astana for work. Mother from Almaty, Father from Oskemen in Eastern Kazakhstan Whole family from Russian area of Karaganda Extra Information Mother is dead- Lived on campus Lived on campus different block Lived off campus Lived on campus