Tag: research

Barron on Learning Ecologies

Barron, B., Martin, C. K., & Roberts, E. (2007). Sparking self-sustained learning: report on a design experiment to build technological fluency and bridge divides. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 75–105. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9002-4

“In order to go beyond traditional assessments of learning we assessed two aspects of students ‘learning ecologies’: their use of a variety of learning resources and the extent to which they share their knowledge about technology with others”

“we are working to understand learning across life spaces of home, school, community and through distributed resources offered by the Internet (see Fig. 1). This conceptualization of learning broadens the unit of analysis to include the total set of contexts, comprised of configurations of activities, material resources, and relationships found in physical or virtual spaces that provide opportunities for learning

Continue reading

Mapping as Method

Mapping as a Method: History and Theoretical Commitments

Valerie Futch & Michelle Fine (2014)

The article highlights three mapping studies conducted by the authors to demonstrate the utility of mapping as a useful  method for social inquiry and gathering information about subjectivities and identities. The authors historically situate the mapping method as stemming from Milgram and Joledet,  Winnicott, and critical feminist geographers, but note that the method has been overlooked by much of social psychology as a discipline. Interested in investigating “life-space” (from Lewin) the authors contend that mapping “can be rediscovered and revitalized as a highly useful qualitative method for researching our increasingly complex and ‘hyphenated’ lives” (44).

Mapping can provide insight into how people narrate and represent their own lives, life spaces, self, and others and “enables researchers to work with visual material that is highly interpretive, across conceptual landscapes (from the individual to the social), and in between various contexts and shifting structural conditions” (44). Mapping can highlight and revive the focus (historically from Dewey, James, DuBois and others) on the spheres that individuals inhabit daily and help researchers understand how, quoting Joledet, the “link between space and identity, space and experience, is linked to personal history.”

Continue reading

Mental Mapping

Where We Go From Here: The Mental Sketch Mapping Method and Its Analytic Components

J.J. Gieseking, (2013)

Mental mapping has a vaguely defined methodological history. Proponents contend that the method “affords a lens into the way people produce and experience space, forms of spatial intelligence, and dynamics of human-environment relations” and can be used as a “tool for examining the roles and meanings of space and place in everyday lives.” Through the discussion of original research, Gieseking provides an analysis and critique of the mental mapping methods devised by Lynch (Image of the City, 1960) and used Milgram and Jodelet (1970) and others in variety of ways. The article resulted from Geiseking’s frustration with and desire to understand the best practices for utilizing  the mental mapping method and the ambiguous guidelines for analyzing mental maps.

Continue reading

Device Ecologies

The conceptual framing, design and evaluation of device ecologies for collaborative practices

(2011). Tim Coughlan, Trevor D. Collins, Anne Adams, Yvonne Rogers, Pablo A. Hayae, Estefanıa Martın.  International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Researchers examined use of “device ecologies” through observation of three instances collaborative work that took place in a tech-enhanced room. Researchers designed the device ecology (tech-enhanced room) to watch the interchange between individuals in the three groups: undergrad geology study; undergrad biodiversity study; school church historical study. Items in the device ecology included a tabletop computer (view map, compare images, write/view hypotheses), Mirrored projection of tabletop,  laptops (2 or 3), a video stream to field site, phone, content management system (platform for sharing between devices).

Continue reading

Ed Tech: Investments without Research

Which Ed-Tech Tools Truly Work? New Project Aims to Tell Why No One Seems Eager to Find Out in The Chronicle of Higher Ed on 7/1/2016

The bottom line: Investments in Ed tech are often made without any research or evidence about the efficacy of the product and (perhaps therefore) many ed tech companies don’t see a need to conduct research about their product.

Ed tech developers and investors pay little attention to whether or not their products are effective. They “don’t see a financial payoff in spending their time or their limited financial resources on academic studies” to learn whether or not their products have the effects they claim. If research is done, it may never see the light of day if the ed tech company doesn’t like the results, “Most ed-tech studies that are now undertaken at schools of education tend to be performed as consulting projects, an approach that allows the companies that sponsor them to treat the output as proprietary information that may never get published”

UVA put together the Jefferson Education Accelerator, an ed tech incubator that brings together professors, business leaders, ed administrators, and policy makers. These individuals will spend the next year investigating the “political, financial, and structural barriers that keep companies and their customers from conducting and using efficacy research when creating or buying ed-tech products.”

After looking through the website, the outcome and goals of the Jefferson Education Accelerator project remains unclear. According to the “About Us” page, the Accelerator plans to “establish a network of educators, researchers, entrepreneurs and investors who believe in the potential of education technology, are dedicated to improving educational outcomes, and understand the rigors of testing implementations in the real-world.” How bringing these people together will improve educational outcomes is murky and raises the question: what sort of improved “educational outcomes” are we talking about? If part of the the focus is on developing a network, its important to note that the “Who We Are” section lists a group of ten individuals who range from higher ed administrators, tech investors, CEOs, former governors, and start-up founders and is notably devoid of professors or minorities (7 white men and 3 white women).

While I usually find focuses on efficacy as sign of pervading neoliberalism in higher education (which pertains here, too) it is important to understand what student’s are getting from these ed tech tools. If the tools “personalize” learning using some adaptive software,  does this lead to better student outcomes? More over what is an “improved outcome”?  A better grade? Is that the only measurement of success? Is success the ability to get “the right answer”? The ability to synthesize information? The ability to solve a real-world problem using the knowledge and skills gained in school?

Moreover, since they are the ones using it, how do students feel about the technologies that are supposed to be improving their education? Do they enjoy learning on these platforms? What affordances do student’s perceive in these educational technologies? If we are going to talk about efficacy, its equally important to talk about students’ perceptions and uses of these technologies.

© 2024

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY