You are on page 1of 48

CAPTURING LEARNING

Home About References MATHAGOGY PEPS MCCREA

Abstract
This pilot study employs a design-based research methodology (Van den Akker, 2006) and critical realist analytical framework (Danermark et al ., 1997), to evaluate the design and implementation of an online learning space, for a group of approximately 60 initial teacher education students in their final year. The inquiry aims to describe how learning happened in the online space, and explain how the design of the online space influenced learning. Five contextually-sensitive design principles are hypothesised, and these are interrogated through the lens of Mezirows transformative learning theory (2009). The design principles hypothesise that pubic yet safe online spaces have the potential to foster student voice and the performance of professional identities. Is is suggested that transformative learning has the potential to emerge if the technology affords an opportunity for reflexive engagement with this re-performance of identity. A conflict between the realist ontology and constructivist epistemology of the critical realism meta-framework is highlighted as a major challenge for educational research, as well as the complex nature of inquiry into socio-technological learning. The value of complexity theory

Contents
Abs tract Preface: digital s cholars hip Introduction Context: educational turbulence Context: online learning s paces Approach: critical realis t hacking Approach: des ign-bas ed res earch Approach: integrated methods Approach: critical realis t analys is Analys is : des cribing the des ign Analys is : des cribing learning Analys is : explaining learning Analys is : theoris ing learning Recontextualis ation Looking back: limitations Looking forward: pos s ibilities Pos ts cript: mus ings on authority Search

PDFmyURL.com

(Davis & Sumara, 2008), and the hacker ethos (Suiter, 2010) is explored in this context. This study attempts to rise the the responsibilities of scholarship in a digital age, and has been conducted using digital, networked and open practices where appropriate (Weller, 2012). The online version of this report can be found at http://www.pepsmccrea.com/capturing-learningpaper/ and a pdf version of the main body of the report can be accessed by clicking here.

Preface: digital scholarship


This is a report about my research into learning and design for learning in a digital age. However, it also represents my developing understanding of what it means to be a scholar in these times, and in particular the ethical choices facing contemporary researchers. In light of this, I have chosen to approach both the doing of the research and the reporting of the research using the following digital, networked and open practices: I have been using Twitter to connect to networks of expertise, providing access to highly current and relevant content, and as a way to share my thinking with others I have been blogging about my research, which has encouraged me to reflect on and articulate my thinking, and to create a space for discussion and feedback on my ideas I have analysed data using tools that allow them to be represented digitally and shared openly (after they have been anonymised) for reuse and scrutiny in meta-analyses and parallel studies I am publishing this report openly on the internet with a Creative Commons license so anyone (with the internet) can freely access and build upon my work I have built this report as a hyperlinked document to offer readers a connected experience, where they can be transported directly to source material I have designed this report so that readers can comment on it if they wish I have linked this report to my digital identity so readers can easily evaluate my credibility as
PDFmyURL.com

a researcher, and connect with me if they wish As you can see from this list, digital scholarship is more than just using technologies for effective collaboration and research it is as much about embracing open values and exploiting the potential of technology for the benefit of the academy and society (Weller, 2011). This includes: championing the importance of sharing and being generous (Wiley, 2010); recognising the need to practice inclusion on a larger scale (Meiszner, 2011); developing new systems for licensing content; and exploring alternative models for resourcing learning. The open movement is not new, but it does appear to be gaining momentum. At the time of writing [21/12/11] the Directory of Open Access Journals had over 7000 periodicals in its books. Furthermore, increasing numbers of academics are committing themselves to open practices by signing the Open Access Pledge , and the UK government is developing policy to encourage the publication of publicly funded research in Open Access Journals (Jha, 2011). The open revolution also faces some significant challenges as it grows in scale: issues of quality, identity and ownership (Weller, 2011). How does networked participation impact on the democratisation of knowledge creation and dissemination (Veletsianos, 2011). Can more open systems of publication match the academic rigor of established journals? What are the implications for academics of having a significantly more visible digital footprint? How do these practice fit with current institutional financial models of intellectual property? And how do we recognise and celebrate intellectual contributions in more open forums? One innovation that is attempting to address some of the structural issues outlined here is Creative Commons. Creative Commons provides an free, public and standardised infrastructure and set of licenses that offer a balance between stringent copyright law and the reality of (looser) internet publication practices. Fig. 1 described some of the components of the licences:

PDFmyURL.com

Fig. 1 Creative Commons licence codes (UCT, no date) www.capturinglearning.com is licensed by me, peps mccrea under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. This means that anyone is free to copy, adapt and distribute this research, as long as they attribute it to me. The image below (and on the top right) is a machine readable version of this license:

Fig. 2 Creative Commons licence for www.capturinglearning.com I am keen to explore the publication of my thesis in a similar manner, and wish to use this pilot as a
PDFmyURL.com

test case to explore the position of open publishing within our institutional systems. I am not the first person to do this for an interesting example check out Belshaws (2011) thesis on Digital Literacies, and for a more detailed coverage of the area see Andrew et al .s (2012) SAGE Handbook of Digital Dissertations and Theses.

Introduction
This is the report of a pilot project I am undertaking in preparation for my EdD thesis, exploring blended learning in higher education. It is aimed at helping me understand the role and influence of digital technologies on learning in the context of my practice as a secondary mathematics teacher educator. To help me do this I have designed and built a public, online discussion space using freely available webspace building software (WordPress), and am encouraging the 60 (mostly postgraduate) teacher trainees on my course to digest and comment on artefacts (articles, videos, websites etc.) that I post each week during the first 9 weeks of their course. The online space is called MATHAGOGY (link available on header bar at top of the page). My approach uses a modified design-based research (Van Den Akker et al, 2006) methodology and critical realist analytical framework (Danermark et al, 1997) to help me design, build and evaluate an online learning space and answer the below questions. Design-based research begins with the premise that learning experiences can and should be continually improved, and so my research questions are not built around an existing problem, but rather a potential opportunity: 1. How do learners learn in the online space I have designed and made? 2. How does the design of the online space influence their learning? My research and thinking about the world is located in a post-positive paradigm best described as
PDFmyURL.com

a critical realism (Bhaskar, 1975). As a realist I will be seeking to accurately describe what the MATHAGOGY learning experience looks like, as well as trying to develop a set of contextdependent generalisations that explain how the structure of MATHAGOGY and the agency of the learners using it are related. Critical realists describe these observable and non-observable links between structure and agency as causal mechanisms . A significant feature of the research design is an absence of initial conceptual framework. One of the main purposes of this pilot to to support me in identifying an appropriate lens and set of questions from which I can launch my thesis. Despite this predominantly inductive approach, I am aware that I will not be conducting value-free research. This project (like all aspects of my practice) are heavily influenced by my socio-cultural context, history, and pedagogical values: what I believe good learning and teaching looks like. This project provides a rich opportunity to explicate my tacit assumptions about pedagogy, and develop a more visible understanding of my pedagogic practice something that educational designers have found to be an invaluable byproduct of their engagement with design for learning (Swan, 2008 and Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). This is significant for me in my current context, but will be even more influential in my future. As an early career academic I am still in the formative stages of developing a theoretically grounded pedagogical approach. However, considering that it is likely that I will still be practicing in 2050 (Osborne, 2011) a secure grounding in digital literacies ( Belshaw, 2011) looks set to be equally important.

Context: educational turbulence


Higher education in the UK is currently striving to adapt in a turbulently changing economic, social and technological landscape: an era that is described increasingly as the digital age (JISC, 2009). The rise of mobile devices and web 2.0 technologies mean that digital practices are becoming a
PDFmyURL.com

taken-for-granted part of our daily blended lives, whilst the demand for digital literacies across a wide range of sectors continues to grow (Horizon, 2011). Blended in this context refers to mixed use of digital and non-digital tools. For a further exploration of digital literacies, please refer to Belshaw (2011). Accelerating technological innovation is not the only major influence on the digital age. Severe constraints on spending (as in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, Browne Report, and White Paper) are adding to the challenging context for higher education. This situation is forcing institutions to explore alternative models of education, and technology has been touted as a solution to cut costs, enhance marketing and meet the rising expectations of students. The UK task force recently identified blended learning as a real opportunity for UK institutions to develop responsive, engaging and interactive provision which, if offered at scale, can deliver quality and cost-effectiveness and meet student demands for flexible learning (HEFCE, 2011). Student expectations also appear to be changing. Experiences are being sought that are more consistent with their blended lives. Learners are increasingly demanding to learn whenever and wherever they want: in essence, to have a more blended learning experiences ( Johnson, 2011). However, the ECAR (2010) study suggests that institutions continue to make poor use of digital technologies (see Fig. 3 below). While course management systems are indeed prevalent, this is only narrowly exploiting the potential of technology for learning.

PDFmyURL.com

Fig. 3 Infographic of the ECAR ( 2010) national study of students and technology The promise of technology for education is compelling. However, the uptake of blended learning in higher education has been slow, and technology has not had the transformative impact on learning that many had hoped (Conole, 2011). I suggest that one of the reasons for this is the huge challenge of enabling a digitally literate academic staff body. Developing both a robust understanding of technology and its role in learning requires sustained engagement, and a commitment to changing practice. HEFCEs (2009) revised strategy for e-learning and JISCs (2009) Effective practice in a digital
PDFmyURL.com

age made a start on that agenda, challenging institutions to move beyond capital investment in technology, towards the engagement of staff in the use of technologies and related pedagogies (UCISA, 2010). More recently, our current government has made hints that it will be prioritising that agenda further. In a recent speech [01/12/11], Michael Gove clearly signalled the importance of fostering digitally literacies within the profession (DfE, 2011) and promised policy for the new year. One of the important responsibilities of research in this area is to interrogate the technological determinacy of solutions being advocated within educational policy, to ensure that we are not building practice upon potentially naive conceptions of change. The discourse surrounding technology, like that of neuroscience, is highly compelling, and the academy has a particular responsibility to play an initially sceptical role (Pickering & Howard-Jones, 2007) . In summary, this context serves as a strong rationale for a project such as this. In addition to contributing to a developed understanding of design for blended learning in higher education, it will provide my students with an enhanced experience and perhaps most importantly : develop my capacity as a digitally literate professional.

Context: online learning spaces


For this project I will be focussing on a particular aspect of blended learning: the design and evaluation of an online learning space (MATHAGOGY). Virtual spaces differ from physical spaces in several ways, most notably for this project: in their asynchrony . This refers to a certain degree of freedom from the constraints of time and affording learners access and interaction whenever and from wherever they wish. There are a wide range of online spaces that are currently used for learning. To help map this territory I will describe these spaces according to the model of learning they predominantly
PDFmyURL.com

territory I will describe these spaces according to the model of learning they predominantly espouse (acquisition, participation, or a mix), and the extent to which they are managed by institutions. Fig. 4 below offers a comprehensive visual representation of this typology.

Fig. 4 Map of online learning spaces: click for acronym definitions (Pea-Lpez, 2010) The first major category of space, commonly known as a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment), is usually fully managed by institutions and predominately based on an acquisition model of learning, offering students access to course materials (eg. powerpoint presentations, readers, hyperlinks) although these is evidence that this focus is beginning to broaden (UCISA, 2010).
PDFmyURL.com

One major criticisms directed at VLEs is that they tend to sustain existing models and perceptions of learning rather than engaging with the possibilities for learning offered by the affordances of new technologies (Laurillard, 2007). The widespread adoption of VLEs also appears to have limited the discourse surrounding blended learning. In 2009, Ofsted reported that the best learning environments gave learners the opportunity to reinforce aspects of their work as well as the chance to catch up on missed material. This narrow pedagogical view of the effective use of VLEs in higher education was characterised by a stark absence of references to participatory tools and models of learning. The second kind of space, a PLE (Personal Learning Environment), is used more frequently by learners in their everyday lives but is rarely referred to as a learning space. It is not formally managed by institutions and draws on mixed modes of learning. A PLE is typically the set of tools and spaces a learner uses to support their learning. The combination of tools used is based on personal needs and preferences, and may include social networking sites, discussion forums, bookmarking services, video curation, wikis, blogs, and so on. The possibilities are vast see Fig. 5 for an example PLE toolset.

PDFmyURL.com

Fig. 5 Example PLE toolset (Villar et al , 2010) One of the major problems associated with PLEs in education is that their effectiveness is dependent on the autonomy and digital literacy of the learner, and that as a consequence: they favour the academically prepared (Wiley, 2011). Another issue is that of tool fatigue humans can only manage so many tools at one time. How can we decide what to choose and invest in amongst the growing variety of alternatives?
PDFmyURL.com

This leads us to the third kind of space, not yet clearly defined, but emerging in higher education. This is a hybrid space a fusion between the VLE and PLE (Pea-Lpez, 2010) , supported rather than managed by institutions, and based on mixed models of learning as required. This may be viewed as a way of scaffolding learners in the development of their own PLE, and as a consequence: their autonomy and self-directness as learners. The big challenge raised by this third type of space is the immense complexity of its implementation. Consider Facebook. I have been told that many of my students use Facebook to complement their formal learning experiences. What would be the impact of an institutionalisation of that space: on identity, on ownership, on agency, on autonomy? What would be the ethical implications for higher education institutions of the corporate interface: of practicing in the public domain; of the status of our data? And if instituions tried to set up an alternative social networking service, within the walled garden of the VLE, would people ever really engage with it? It is precisely the complex nature of this third space that makes it the most appealing for me. It raises emerging issues worthy of attention. Academics have access to a growing set of tools for enhancing learning, and a responsibility to challenge dominant acquisition models of learning (Laurillard, 2007). Furthermore, the design of this third space is accessible to individual academic staff. Web 2.o is providing an abundance of free tools for every occasion. I have more choice than ever in personalising learning experiences for my students. I choose the tools, set up the spaces, facilitate the learning. Digital design becomes just another wing in my pedagogical repertoire, the broadness of which impacts directly on the diversity of learning experiences available to my learners.

Approach: critical realist hacking


PDFmyURL.com

As part of my EdD journey I have been working hard to understand both my assumptions about the world (my ontology, epistemology and axiology), and how I have arrived at them. I refer to these areas of my knowledge as my philosophical position because in my experience they are fairly cognitively structural. Like religious beliefs they are ideas upon which my understanding of the world rests, which colour how I see the world. They are based on intuition as much as reasoning, although I realise it is not quite this straightforward as I digest a body of literature that resonantes with my paradigmatic thinking, that process changes how I think, although to what extent these changes are structural is beyond my grasp at the moment. One of the things I have come to realise is that my philosophical position is heavily influenced by the professional identities I have performed in the past, namely those of engineer and teacher . Because I have spent time living and working within both natural and social science paradigms, I have found it a real struggle to reconcile the tensions between their worldviews, and identify a clear philosophical standpoint. Two major breakthroughs have really helped me in this pursuit: the discovery of critical realism and hacker meta-theories. As I result I suggest that this project (and my research in general) is best described as being underpinned by a realist ontology, a constructivist epistemology and a hacker axiology. So what does this mean in practice? The post-positive ontology of critical realism is based on the following three assumptions: 1. There is a single reality, which extends beyond the self, but which is only approximately and n o t wholly knowable (Krauss, 2005). Critical realism distinguishes clearly between our knowledge about the world , and the world that is the object of that knowledge. This is in contrast to the constructivist assumption that a different reality exists within each persons conscious. 2. Reality is an open system with emergent properties. This means that it is not reducible to its constituent parts. This differs form positivist positions which view the world as a deterministic machine, or constructivist positions which espouse an ungrounded shifting sea of cultural
PDFmyURL.com

meaning (Burgoyne, 2010). 3. The emergent nature of reality means that that general laws which explain the social world are unlikely to exist. Instead, critical realists aim to uncover causal mechanisms that connect structure and agency within our world. Some of these mechanisms are only available to the researcher through the events that they cause at an observable level (Crawford & Wright, no date). For me, structure refers to the enduring forms and outcomes of social practice, and agency refers to a human capacity to choose and act upon those choices. Structure can enable or constrain agency (Scott, 2005). So how do we come to know about the causal mechanisms that explain our reality? Critical realists, like constructivists, believe that knowledge is constructed within our neural systems. As such, people offer different perspectives on reality, and so a large aspect of social inquiry concerns itself with investigating qualitatively the meanings that people make of the world (Carter & New, 2004). Although critical realists prioritise peoples descriptions of their experiences, they acknowledge that these perceptions are historical, value-laden, situated (Carter & New, 2004), and cognitively biased (Wikipedia, 2011). The plastic nature of our knowledge makes the an awareness of the positionality of the researcher crucial (Krauss, 2005). It also means that we can never achieve complete accuracy in our description and explanation of reality. Furthermore, because our descriptions of the world have the capacity to change the world (and in doing so make themselves redundant) we will always be at least one step behind the evolving, emergent and looping nature of reality (Scott, 2005). Despite the risk posed to prediction by the fallibility of this position, practical adequacy can still be achieved when the resultant knowledge is judged useful and effective in a contemporary context (Sayer, 1992 in Crawford & Wright, no date). The values that I aim to espouse resonate with those practiced by the hacker community. When I talk about hackers I am not referring to the narrowly defined stereotype promoted by the media: the closet geek who endangers national security by cracking national security networks. This is a
PDFmyURL.com

cracker. A hacker is someone who explores systemic knowledge structures and learns about them by making. They teach themselves and each another because they are at the bleeding edge of knowledge about that system (Suiter, 2010). Hackers value playing, making, innovating and sharing as much as knowing. Their art is bricolage re-imagined for a time when computers have replaced magic (Suiter, 2010) and their products are tangible, functional examples of knowledge in practice (Eraut, 1994).

Approach: design-based research


One of the challenges of this project (and my EdD journey so far) has been to find a methodology that aligns with my philosophical position. In particular, I needed something that embraces the hacker epistemology of making as knowing, and that can lend itself to the critical realist investigation of agency and structure. Design-based research is my best fit find so far. It is an approach that arose from the ashes of failed design experiments in education during the last century (Van den Akker, 2006). It was recognised that such a positivist approach was unlikely to yield much of value, but that investigating design for learning in natural settings still had a lot of potential for the improvement of theory and practice. The approach gained momentum during 2003-2006, witnessing several dedicated journal special issues (Educational Psychologist and Educational Researcher). Things then went a bit quiet in the last 5 years, but is a new book being released in March (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). I am looking forward to this in the hope that it will clarify the direction of design-based research. Currently, proponents espouse a diverse range of positions within post-positivism, and the approach lacks a clear sense of paradigmatic location. I suggest that it espouses a realist ontology as it claims and generates transferrable design principles, although there is a lack of consensus as to the context-dependent nature of these.
PDFmyURL.com

The epistemological assumptions underpinning current design-based research are not so clear. However, for me (coming from a critical realist perspective) the approach is less about isolating 2006). I see the aim of design-based research as to improve learner experiences by developing theory, artefacts and practices, through looking at the process of learning and the means that enable and constrain it in naturalistic settings. It may be further characterised as: Improvement oriented utilising pragmatic approaches aimed at making improvements rather than being problem-oriented Iterative following a repeating cycle of design, evaluation and theorisation Process oriented seeking to understand what happens during the activity in question avoiding a black box model of input-output analysis Learning focussed looking at how learning happens in the context of the intervention, and how the intervention influences learning Utility oriented evaluates the design according to its value for users in real contexts - ie. impact on practice Theory oriented design should be grounded in theory and evaluations build on, and adds new insights to theory (Van den Akker et al, 2006) Pedagogically situated has a sharp focus on the underpinning pedagogies of design, and fosters the explication of learning and teaching value positions Design situated recognises and values the (currently underrepresented) centrality of design practices in education In an over-simplification of the process: design-based researchers collaborate with educators to design a theoretically informed artefact (resource) or process (activity), trial it in a natural setting,
PDFmyURL.com

variables and generating

context-free generalisations,

and more of a kind

of interventionist ethnography (Dede, 2004). It is experimental , but not an experiment (Kelly,

evaluate it, theorise the findings and then start all over again from a more informed position. The principle reason this may be a wise choice of methodology in our current educational climate is down to the potential impact factor of design-based research on policy and practice. I do not have enough authority to evaluate the influence of educational research on policy, but the literature suggests that it has been limited. I suspect this is in some part due to the different goals of researchers and policy makers, but Dede (2004) suggest that it is also because educational research is sometimes too theoretically focussed, and conducted with policy and practice only loosely in mind. Design-based research has been proffered as a vehicle to foster wider improvement, not just as an end in itself. The visibility of its outcomes (well-designed artefacts in particular) together with a strong sense of empirical inquiry could well make an appealing case for political attention. However, at least equally important is the direct influence of design-based research on practice. It creates a situation where educational design becomes infused with, and steered by theory. When contrasted with examples of poorly-grounded educational designs or retrospective research, it seems an obviously sensible approach. From a realist perspective, design-based research can generate plausible causal accounts because of its focus on learning processes (DBcollective, 2003), and its location in natural settings. This means that resulting designs are a good fit for the demands of practice, and theorisation has the potential to provide more robust explanations (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). For this project I will be using critical realism and a hacker ethos to steer my design-based research methodology. In particular, I will be looking at the relationship between the structure of the design and agency of the learners. The hacker ethos suggests that intuition and imagination hold equal status to theory in design, and so I will be using my own craft knowledge as much as theory to build the online space. Whilst one of the main objectives of design-based research is the development of theory, Amiel
PDFmyURL.com

& Reeves (2008) argue that this might only occur after long-term engagement with multiple iterations. As a result I will need to be sensitive to the credibility of any claims I choose to make. The investment (both in human capital and over time) required to make design-based inquiry worthwhile could be seen as one of its greatest weaknesses. However, I suggest that the cost of not infusing design with theory may be greater still. To balance this equation Edelson (2006) suggests that any intervention must be sufficiently innovative to be worth the investment risk. This immediately creates an ethical tension: is it permissible to experiment with learners experiences in order to improve them? The whole of the education system is predicated on incremental improvement through innovation and evaluation. If there is an issue here, it is endemic and beyond the immediate scope of this report. The final challenge faced by design-based research is the demand put on researchers when they (as in my case) are also acting as a designer. Success requires the bridging of multiple domains of expertise: research, design, pedagogy, and subject specialisms where appropriate. This mixed positionality becomes increasingly complex as the researcher-designer endeavours both to make the design work well at the same time as trying to evaluate it (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). To mitigate this risk, I am aiming to be reflexive throughout the project.

Approach: integrated methods


This study is guided by the following two questions: 1. How do learners learn in the online space I have designed? 2. How does the design of the online space influence their learning? To help me do this I will be employing an integrated mixed methods framework (Castro et al , 2010). Mixed methods is a common approach for those conducting research using critical realism, and strives to generate representative descriptions and explanations of reality, balancing demands
PDFmyURL.com

for accuracy, with the pursuit of generalizability. Integrated mixed methods is a particular approach to using mixed methods that supports a simultaneous rather than sequential analysis of the data generated from the different methods. This approach allows for a concurrent, integrated and unified process of data analysis which places an equal status on both qualitative and quantitative methods (Castro et al , 2010). However, because the epistemology underpinning critical realism is constructivist, the methods selected will lean more towards the qualitative end of the spectrum of choice. Mixed methods have been gaining popularity over the last few years (Wheeldon, 2010). I am aware that choosing to use multiple approaches to developing knowledge means that, for a finitely resourced project such as this, I will be spreading my time and attention more thinly than otherwise, and will likely use several methods more superficially than I would if I was using only one. However, the realist demand for generalisation means that this is a sacrifice that has to be made. Mixed methods will allow me to explore the consistency of findings obtained though different instruments, and to clarify and build upon the results of one method with another (Wheeldon, 2010). The group I have designed the online space for is made up of a mix of postgraduate and undergraduate students in their final year of initial teacher education. There are about 60 learners of a fairly demographically diverse nature, drawn together within the aim of becoming secondary school teachers of mathematics. At the start of this year the group attend university based sessions for the first nine weeks before they go into school on a full-time placement. It is during these first couple of months that they will be encouraged to engage with the online learning space I have designed (MATHAGOGY), at the end of which time I will generate data for analysis, evaluation, and possible theorisation. For this project I have chosen to use a series of semi-structured focus groups together with a qualitative survey. I have chosen to use focus groups rather than individual interviews because of the inductive nature of this inquiry I anticipate that focus groups will encourage participants to
PDFmyURL.com

respond to and build upon each others contributions, in a similar way that elicitation techniques are used in individual interviews (Cohen et al , 2007). I hope to get about six participants (10% of the population) involved in the focus groups a sample size that will lead to a reasonable likelihood of reaching saturation in my data analysis (Castro et al , 2010). I recognise that there are some important disadvantages to using focus group methods. For this project in particular, it means I will miss out on the opportunity to talk to participants alone and in confidence. In a peer group situation they may be less likely to share information that could damage their own, or other participants reputations or feelings. However, on balance I am convinced that for the purposes of this study, the benefits of grouping participants outweigh the disadvantages, partly because they will have an opportunity to contribute in confidence as individuals in the project survey. I have chosen to employ a compact, semi-structured, qualitative survey (Cohen et al , 2007) to complement the data generated from the focus groups. The survey will be sent electronically to all participants (60 or so) soon after the focus groups are conducted. This means that anyone who wants to say something more has the opportunity to do so without delay. The survey will pose two fairly open questions and offer a large amount of space to respond in text. The phraseology is designed to be open and familiar: 1. Have you learnt anything from MATHAGOGY? 2. How could we improve MATHAGOGY for the future? One of the major limitations of this study is its lack of consideration of natural data during the analysis stages. All participant comments are openly accessible and recorded on the learning space it would be technically straightforward to retrieve this data, creating an additional perspective on reality. However, I have chosen not to do this for two reasons. Firstly, this is only a pilot project and has finite scope and resource. Secondly, because at the beginning of the project, students were not informed that their comments would be analysed. The ethical issues surrounding the use
PDFmyURL.com

of open data are emerging and complex, but the analysis of natural data is something I do wish to explore in further detail in preparation for the next stage of my EdD. All participants were made aware from the beginning that the design and evaluation of MATHAGOGY was the focus of a research project for my (their lead tutors) EdD. In addition, those who attended the focus groups were made aware that I was recording the discussion, and the primary data was deleted soon after it has been processed. What actually happened Everyone in the group was invited to join me for focus group sessions on the ninth friday afternoon following lectures. Nine students chose to attend (a 15% self-selecting sample) and I saw them in groups of threes. The focus group was fairly loosely structured: I posed an opening question: tell me about your MATHAGOGY experience, let them speak, and probed further where I felt there was something interesting behind what they were saying, or if I needed clarification. The focus groups came to a natural conclusion each time between 30-40 minutes. I made memos of my thinking during the sessions, and audio-recorded the discussions on my smartphone for subsequent analysis. Clearly these students are the ones who are more likely to have engaged with the online space and so are not an unbiased sample of the population. However, for the focus groups this was not significantly problematic ,as I was striving to generate data about those learning experiences that did occur rather than how frequent they were. The survey was designed to explore the representativeness of the student experience. It had an approximately 75% response rate (n = 46) which was enough to give me an insight into how the experiences of the focus group participants extrapolated across the population.

Approach: critical realist analysis


PDFmyURL.com

Approach: critical realist analysis


In order to maintain a coherent epistemological approach I will be using a critical realist analytic framework to guide the analysis of my data. The end goal of this is to identify causal mechanisms which explain how structure and agency in the context of this project are related. To do this I will be using a modified version of Danermark et al .s (1997) six stage model of explanatory realist research. Stage 1: Description In the first phase of analysis I will be aiming to generate a rich description of both the product (an analysis of the webspace design) and process (how people perceived they learned through the webspace), using the variety of data available including: students responses during the focus groups and survey; my field notes; and analytics available via the learning space software. It is important to note that I am not trying to describe how people have actually learned via MATHAGOGY at this stage (as a critical realist) I cannot claim anything beyond an interpretation of their perceptions. In my analysis of the learning process I will use words and phrases used by the participants as much as possible, to create authentic and rich descriptions in preparation for the next phase of analysis. Stage 2: Decomposition During this phase I will aim to dissolve the complex and composite into a variety of dimensions. This is not the same as practicing reductionism emergent processes are greater than the sum of their parts, and so the concept of dimensions rather than components is more appropriate here. I am aware that I will have a significant influence over how the data will be divided up, and where the boundary of interest lies (Burgoyne, 2010). This is okay it is not possible to look the data fro m every possible angle, particularly in an open social system such as education, where there are limited clear boundaries. This is where my research questions will play an important role, in steering the analytical process:
PDFmyURL.com

1. How do learners learn in the online space I have designed? 2. How does the design of the online space influence their learning? Stages 3&4: Abduction & Retroduction These two stages will be conducted concurrently as the value here lies as much in their interplay, as discretely considered processes. Abduction refers to the interpretation and redescription of the dimensions highlighted in the previous phase. It is the construction following the deconstruction phase, but now with the aim of building an abstracted yet conceptually coherent model of reality. As this phase progresses I will need to explore and exploit relevant conceptual and theoretical frameworks in the development of a robust explanatory model. However, due to the inductive nature of the project, it is not appropriate to pre-identify any of these, as it might risk (further) limiting the scope of my imagination and reasoning significant aspects of researcher thinking during the process (Hume in Stevens, 2009). Retroduction refers to the process of highlighting various dimensions and asking myself questions such as: How are they related/unrelated? What properties underpin them? What else is going on here? What causal mechanisms are at play? Together, abduction and retroduction can result in the uncovering of underlying mechanisms (how learning is happening/not happening in and because of MATHAGOGY) and a potential theorisation of the process (Livock, no date). One of the main challenges here is to distinguish between cause and correlation. Whilst we can observe correlation we cannot observe cause we infer cause. Another is to sensitise myself to how the data and my values are intertwined (Carlsson, no date).
PDFmyURL.com

Reflexivity plays an important role in addressing my positionality I will be keeping one eye on the analysis and one eye on myself throughout. A keen awareness of the fragile nature of any knowledge claim lies at the heart of the critical realist paradigm. It is important to recognise that this is my first real attempt at trying to analyse data in any depth. As a result, I am sceptical as to the credibility of any theorisation that I may claim to achieve. Nonetheless, I am going to have a good crack at theory building as I hope to learn (at least) as much from the engaging with the process as I do from the project outcomes. Stage 5&6: Redescription & Recontextualisation In these final stages, the scene is set to look at any theory that I develop through the eyes of existing theoretical frameworks, as well as interrogating their explanatory power in the wider context of online learning spaces in higher education.

Analysis: describing the design


This section of the report details the design of the online learning space (MATHAGOGY), and briefly explores the model(s) of learning that it espouses, or rather that I have espoused as the architect. It is not a section that appears in a typical educational research report, but is an essential requirement of the design-based methodology employed in this project. The goal of critical realist research is to uncover the underlying causal mechanisms that link structure and agency. Within this project, structure refers to the design of the learning space, my role as a tutor and the culture that emerges within the space. Without an explication of these first two elements there would be no structure to relate to in the structure-agency analysis. The third element is a little different because it is emergent rather than designed , and so falls within the analysis of participant experience. There is of course a much greater range of structures that enable or constrain the agency of participants, but I have drawn a boundary around the
PDFmyURL.com

aforementioned aspects to provide the inquiry with a sufficiently sharp focus. An obvious critique of this research design is that it deviates from suggested design-based research methodology by not grounding the learning space design explicitly in theory. As this was the my first research iteration I decided to generate a design grounded foremostly in my own tacit expertise (Eraut, 1994), and to use this as an opportunity to explicate my pedagogy (Swan, 2008). This may limit the potential of theorisation during analysis, but the uncovering of my values holds a greater long term return-on-investment value in a pilot project such as this. As a result, successive iterations will be grounded in both theory, and a clear understanding of my own assumptions and practice as a designer. There are four major components of the MATHAGOGY architecture: environment design; content design; interaction design; and role of the tutor: Environment design The space itself is a fairly formal, uncluttered, and focussed on a single core activity: the presentation of relevant artefacts with the opportunity to comment on them. The use of a logo has been employed to give the space a more aesthetic appeal, arguably of equal importance to functional effectiveness (Burkhardt, 2006). Content design Content was curated based on my subject expertise. Artefacts (articles, videos, websites etc.) were selected for both their media format (a variety was deemed desirable) and potential to challenge participant perceptions of what it means to be a maths teacher in the digital age. The abundance of information available on the internet in our times means that finding and identifying highly relevant artefacts requires a certain degree of digital literacy expert curation is a digitally literate pedagogy underpinning this aspect of the design (Weller, 2011). Content was deliberately presented neutrally, forcing participants to position themselves when commenting on the artefacts. Interaction design One of the major design features of MATHAGOGY was the provision of a
PDFmyURL.com

space to comment on artefacts. This demonstrates the value I place on participation models in addition to acquisition models of learning, where learning occurs through intellectual activity rather than just via the absorption of information (Mayes & de Freitas, 2007). Commenting on and collaboratively discussing are processes rooted in Vygotskyan (1978) and Bahktinian (1986) notions of social constructivism and conceptual development. Role of the tutor (me) My role in MATHAGOGY is characterised as: designer of the learning space; curator of relevant content; and lurker in the interaction space. The absence of my voice in the comments is a deliberate decision, not based on time constraints, but rather on the premise: as soon as you have an expert in the room, people defer to them. Instead, participants were left to figure out their positions together, learning from in each other, congregated by a relevant social artefact (Littlejohn, 2011). This resonates with learning processes described by communities of practice theory (Wenger, 1998). Overall, the design is based on a mixture of acquisition and participation models of learning, valuing both the assimilation of a body of knowledge as well as the development of traditional and digital literacies (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007), where participants can practice critical reflection and perform their values (Adhikari, 2011) in an authentic professional setting (Eraut, 1994).

Analysis: describing learning


This section offers an overview of how I handled the data (generated by the focus groups, survey and field notes), with an insight into the description phase of the analysis. The first part of the process involved semi-transcribing the focus group recordings. I did this by listening several times to the audio recordings, and each time capturing what I felt were significant soundbites on Idea Sketch (a concept mapping tablet app). These were then supplemented by soundbites harvested from the survey, and from my field notes, to produce the soundbite
PDFmyURL.com

overview illustrated in Fig.6 below:

Fig.6 Screenshot of soundbite overview (click for larger image) The reason I chose to only semi -transcribe the captured data is because I wanted to prioritise
PDFmyURL.com

the connection of concepts from early on in the process. Using concept mapping rather than verbatim transcription meant I could amend and move around the soundbites with each listen. At the end of this process I had a loosely in vivo themed overview of the content which I was able to export to excel and tag with (what I felt were) appropriate dimensions (see Fig.7).

Fig.7 Screenshot of the attributing dimensions process (click for full dataset) Following this I was able to filter the dimensions and get a sense of recurring and/or significant themes. A crude quantitative analysis of the attributed dimensions is illustrated in Fig.8 below (Wordle uses word size to represent occurrence frequency).

PDFmyURL.com

Fig.8 A Wordle illustrating the relative frequency of attributed dimensions This crude quantitative analysis was used in conjunction with the earlier, more qualitative analysis (where I filtered each dimension in excel, and then was able to further connect the soundbites which were attributed the same dimension) to create a sense-making artefact (Siemens, 2005) which I could then take my analytical knife to. This process of making as understanding is an important part of the hacker epistemology which underpins and runs through this project. The resulting artefact is presented below:
PDFmyURL.com

Your tutor gives you a link He says this is our forum and tells you to get involved You want to impress him So you have a look It is a simple website with some writing And videos and articles and links All of its interesting And it doesnt look like too much So you read the first post Hes asked you to comment You go to write something But youre not sure what you think It takes you a while You figure out where you stand Youre not quite comfortable But you give it a shot Now youre writings out there You feel a bit exposed Everyone can read what youve written What will they think? Next week theres another post You read other peoples comments They change how you see things
PDFmyURL.com

You reluctantly continue The ideas each week are great Where does he get them? Youd prefer just to read them Commenting requires so much more thought You start to feel more confident Its like practicing something MATHAGOGY feels like a safe space But is it really? Your workload is mounting Youve no time to read or comment But at least itll be there If you want to look back At this point I felt that I had described the perceived learning experiences of the participants in enough range and detail to be able to begin deconstruction. The one thing I have felt uneasy with is the centrality of my intuition and imagination during this process. My past identity as an engineer screams use your reason man at me, but I take comfort in deferring to Hume (in Stevens, 2007) who suggests that imagination plays a role of equal importance to reasoning, when conducting social research.

Analysis: explaining learning


In this section I present an overview of the the abduction-retroduction process and its outcomes: a set of causal mechanisms, framed as design principle hypotheses. The emphasis on design is an
PDFmyURL.com

important part of the design-based research methodology employed by this project the hypothesis of contextually-sensitive transferrable principles allows for the theory emerging from this analysis to be implemented, evaluated and refined in subsequent iterations (Van den Akker, 2006). As discussed previously, the abduction and retroduction processes are conducted simultaneously, in an attempt to identify connections between structural and agentic aspects of the perceived learning experience, with the aim of distilling a conceptual framework from which causal mechanisms may be inferred. A snapshot of the retroduction process is captured here. During this phase I posed and tackled questions such as: What is happening here? How are the dimensions related/unrelated? What properties underpin them? What else is going on here? What causal mechanisms are at play? During this process certain relationships between dimensions began to emerge as significant. The majority did not. The diagram below (Fig.9 ) represents the main dimensions identified and how they are connected.

PDFmyURL.com

Fig.9 Snapshot of the abduction process (click for larger image) These connections were subject to substantial interrogation as to the nature of their relationship: incidental, correlative or causal. Those that appeared to be causal were reframed as design principles hypotheses. I have made hypothetical rather than theoretical claims at this stage because neither my data analysis framework nor personal analytical aptitude warrant claims of any causal certainty. I used two frameworks to help guide me during this latter phase of analysis. The first was the project research questions:
PDFmyURL.com

project research questions: 1. How do learners learn in the online space I have designed? 2. How does the design of the online space influence their learning? And the second was a loose typological framework developed by Illeris (2007) in his comprehensive synthesis of learning theory literature. As a result, I organised my design principle hypotheses by how individual or (more commonly) combinations of structural dimensions enabled or constrained certain types of learning. Below is a list of the design principle hypotheses (DPH), organised by learning type, supplemented with examples of soundbites harvested from the focus groups. Assimilative This refers to learning experiences that do not disrupt current schemas. New concepts can be added to existing frameworks without significant overhaul. DPH1 The greater the abundance of subject information, the greater the value of curation as a pedagogical activity Where are you getting these amazing things? I was able to acces high quality content that would have taken me years to find DPH2 The greater the perceived subject expertise of the curator, the greater the perceived value of the content, even if that curator is just repurposing existing content (Siemens, 2005) You take it seriously More educational value than other blogs Accommodative This refers to learning experiences that require making room for, where existing framework have to be modified so that new concepts can be integrated into personal knowledge networks (Illeris, 2007).
PDFmyURL.com

DPH3 The more the online learning space is perceived as being safe yet public, the more likely participants are to perform their professional identity An opportunity to try ourselves out as maths teachers Room to explore your thinking You know other people are going to read it DPH4 The greater the opportunity for participant voice, the greater the potential for identity development I spent an hour just thinking what to write Where do I see myself fitting in with the ideas It represents you Transformative This refers to learning experiences that result in a capacity change. Existing concepts and frameworks are reframed and reinterpreted, destabilising personal knowledge networks, and allowing for future learning to happen in a different way (Mezirow, 2009). DPH5 The greater the opportunity to be reflexive about their learning (including identity development), the greater the potential for sustained capacity change (as learners) Makes you a more critical person Ive changed how I comment now when I read others views it make me think differently eg. did I read that right? Disclaimer As I write these I am acutely aware of the challenge presented by the original contribution to knowledge criteria of the thesis phase of the EdD. What I have generated here are hypotheses: suggested relations that require rigorous exploration before they could become
PDFmyURL.com

claims that could be generalised, even in a context-sensitive manner. There are at least three significant challenges which I will need to get to grips with and figure out if I am to fulfil this criteria in the future. The first challenge is to understand how to unpick the the influence of the design, when compared with the influence of the implementation (Ravenscroft, 2007) of online learning spaces. In the case in this study, the design is highly visible, but the implementation is much less so. If MATHAGOGY was implemented on a similar course in a similar context, but different tutors and learners, how would the experience differ? This leads me into my second challenge: The enormous complexity of the general process of learning, and as a result: the daunting challenge of identifying causal mechanisms that influence it. This complexity is confounded by the limitless social, cultural and political forces that contextualise and influence education (Selwyn, 2011). And finally, the challenge of unpicking learning and perceived learning. With the methods applied in this project what position am I in to make claims about actual learning? What value do perceptions of learning hold? And how can my expertise as a choreographer of learning help me to evaluate learning in a meaningful way? Interestingly, the last two of these appear to be largely the result of a conflict between the realist ontology and constructivist epistemology of the paradigm that I am operating within these issues are discussed in more detail in the Limitations chapter of this report.

Analysis: theorising learning


This section attempts to explore my analysis and DPHs (Design Principle Hypotheses) through the lens of transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2009), with the ultimate goal of building on, or repurposing some of that body of understanding. At this stage it is important to note that:
PDFmyURL.com

Due to the pilot nature of this study any knowledge claims will be tentative and hypothetical. I have yet to fully articulate what theory looks like within a critical realist paradigm. Is a set of design principles a sufficient theoretical contribution (as would be accepted in the world of natural science), or in a social science context does theory have to be something greater ? As discussed previously, transformative learning refers to cognitive capacity change within the learner, or what Mezirow (2009) would describe as a modification of our frame of reference (aka. mindsets, habits of mind, meaning perspectives). This can be contrasted with informative learning, which happens more often as a result of assimilative and accommodative processes (as described in the previous chapter) (Kegan, 2009). Epistemologically, these alternatives may be thought of as the difference between what we know and how we know. Mezirow (2007) argues that the latter is significant for learners, because new ways of knowing are more likely to generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action (p.92). This project may be able to contribute to transformative learning theory in two aspects, both of which are under-represented in the literature I have been exploring. The first is in connecting agency and learning within Mezirows (2009) framework, and the second in clarifying the relationship and distinction between informative learning and transformative learning, with acquisition and participation models of learning. 1. Connecting agency and learning within transformative learning In my data analysis, the notion of identity performance emerged as a significant process in fostering perceived learning via MATHAGOGY. (DPH5). What is I have positioned is it under accommodative learning processes (DPH3&4), but with the potential to become transformative if performed reflexively significant here that this reflexive opportunity is directly linked to the capacity of the learner to re-construct and reperform their identity (or self): a process that resonates closely with Levines (2005) description of agency. I suggest that this reframing of reflexive identity re-performance as agency may be a
PDFmyURL.com

useful theoretical contribution when considered alongside the growing body of structure-agency theory, as it has the potential to help educators make more informed decisions when designing for transformative learning. For example, if I want to build a online learning space to foster transformative learning I can more readily attend to the structural factors that may enable or constrain the opportunity for identity reperformance, with a clearer vision of how this might impact on my learners abilities to act in similar (and possibly professional) contexts. Furthermore, I would be able to utilise theoretical frameworks such as structuration (Giddens, 1984) or morphogensis (Archer, 1988) to help me understand how my design can lead to transformative experiences, and how these changes in agency might then modify how the learning space is appropriated by the learners. 2. Connecting information, transformation, acquisition and participation When I first began to explore the relationship between these concepts, I was unsure whether information and acquisition were interchangeable terms. However, after consideration of these concepts in the context of my DPHs I suggest that although they are similar in the process that they describe, the use of acquisition is more helpful in a design for learning context as it considers the activity of the learner rather than any epistemological outcome. This is significant because it emphasises the affordances of particular pedagogical approaches. The relationship between transformation and participation is similar (although arguably much more complex). Looking back at my DPHs in the previous chapter I can see an emerging correlation between the degree of participation and potential for transformative learning. Again, this distinction stresses the impact a particular pedagogical approach may afford for learning outcomes. I suggest rather than seeing these relationships as discrete dichotomies, they are more usefully conceptualised as being on competing ends of a spectrum, as illustrated in Fig.10 below. This is clearly manifest when considering, for example: the role of identity performance in this study.
PDFmyURL.com

Fig.10 The information, transformation, acquisition and participation spectrum Where does my learning during this inquiry sit on the above spectrum? This is a relevant question to address if I am to enact the participatory model of learning that I espouse. In short, I would say that I have encountered a wide range of learning experiences, with their relevant epistemological consequences. What might be more interesting to explore is how my capacity for agency has developed, and to what extent I may be re-appropriating the facilitative structures that have catalysed these changes. However, despite being an important and interesting question, this lies beyond the scope of this study, and shall have to be left for another time.

Recontextualisation
In this section I will reflect on my analyses, and consider how they fit with ideas discussed in the earlier context chapters. I will attempt to address the following question: how do my analyses help us to understand the role HLEs (Hybrid Learning Environments) such as MATHAGOGY might
PDFmyURL.com

play in the unfolding of our turbulent educational landscape over the next few years? To begin, it is worth clarifying whether we would wish for HLEs to play any role in higher education at all. Is the impact of MATHAGOGY as hypothesised in the DPHs (Design Principle Hypotheses) consistent with the values of the sector? Despite the lack of clear consensus concerning the purpose of higher education (Schwartz, 2003) I suggest that the facilitation of learning is one of its less disputed activities. Based on the DPHs, MATHAGOGY appears to provide opportunities for a wide range of higher learning activities (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004), including (based on an amended design) transformative learning which I suggest offers a rich value proposition for students and the wider stakeholders of higher education (employers, society etc.). Despite their promise, the literature suggests that HLEs are more likely to enhance education by being integrated with traditional facet0-face experiences rather than replacing them (Haythornwaite & Andrews, 2011). In addition to enhancing the provision of learning experiences, I propose that HLEs like MATHAGOGY have the potential to impact on higher education in two other significant yet argulably less visible ways. Firstly, by enhancing learner digital autonomy. As students practice learning in a hybid safe yet pubic space over a period of time (see DPH3), they become increasingly exposed to the potential of PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) as tools that can facilitate greater self-direction in their learning (Kop, 2011). In effect, well designed HLEs can scaffold the learner in understanding both the how and the why of their own life-long learning. Secondly, in their ability to disrupt pedagogy and practice, HLEs have the potential to transform some aspects of higher education (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). Technology has often been cited as a catalyst for change (Veletsianos, no date), and in this instance the vehicle is increased pedagogical awareness (realised through the explication of design decisions) and innovation. This is in stark contrast to the impact of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) on institutions, where innovations have often sustained existing pedagogies rather than disrupting them (Laurillard, 2007).
PDFmyURL.com

One further potential consequence of the development of HLEs is contingent on who in involved in their design. If academic staff are part of (or lead) the design initiative for online spaces for learning, then the institutional capacity for digital literacies is likely to increase (McLoughlin & Lee, no date). Again, this is in contrast to institutions that operate and rely on centralised VLEs, where the opposite can happen: academic staff can become deskilled, both in their digital literacy and aspects of their pedagogical practice, by being offered (and sometimes encouraged) to utilise off-the-shelf digital tools for facilitating learning. In summary, HLEs have the potential to be transformative for both the learner, the institution, and the sector, but only where academic staff take responsibility for and are participant in the design process (Ravenscroft, 2007). Ultimately, this could lead towards new foci for pedagogical practice (design specialists, content curators etc.), whist continuing to recognise the role of teacher as expert (McLoughlin & Lee, no date).

Looking back: limitations


In this section I will explore the major ontological, epistemological, methodological and axiological limitations and inconsistencies inherent in this study, in terms of research design and/or implementation as appropriate. One of the major problems of this research design has arisen from either: an inherent conflict between the realist ontology and constructivist epistemology within the critical realist metaframework, or my interpretation, understanding and implementation of these components. This is most apparent when considering how learning was evaluated throughout the project, and in particular the difference between actual learning and perceived learning. My realist ontology suggests that there is one true way that each of the participants this study
PDFmyURL.com

learned via MATHAGOGY. My constructivist epistemology suggests that the best way to find out is by analysing their representations of their experience. However, this is problematic because participants may not be aware, or be able to explicate what or how they learned. This is not to criticise the respondents in any way they are a highly intelligent and articulate group of people but rather to recognize that all humans have cognitive biases. For example, in a study of Standford MBA students, 87% of them rated their academic performance as above the median (Zukerman & John, 2001)! This dissonance between the aims and processes of this study means that it could be seen as lacking in coherence, and that even the tentative and hypothetical nature of my claims may be over-ambitious. Setting this inherent conflict to one side, I believe that my general approach to researching learning during this study has been inadequate. After working through the process, I now understand the extent to which research exploring the hugely messy human activity of technology mediated learning, should be required to consider complexity theory (Morrison, 2006). Despite the abundance of empirical inquiry that has explored the effect of technology on learning, the evidence is overwhelmingly inconsistent (Selwyn, 2011). Notions such as chaos, emergence, and complex adaptive systems are increasingly being harnessed to help explain social activity, allowing us to generate more holistic, rigorous, and ecologically sound theories of learning (Davis & Sumara, 2008). Another aspect of this study which is a major weakness is the lack of clear position of the role of theory in design. I do not yet have a clear understanding of what this might look like, and as a result the outcomes of this study are somewhat confused. Burkhardt (2006) suggests we should be asking how far current theory is an adequate basis for design. Is a set of design principles for learning as valid as a socio-cultural theory of learning? And how and who should decide? This is something I am keen to pick up in the next stage of my EdD: an exploration of the role of theory in design, design as research, and how these ideas fit with notions of research impact. I believe the concept of design as research is particularly relevant in our current times.
PDFmyURL.com

Haythornthwaite & Andrews (2011) argue that the pace of change, not only of technology, but in the ecology of education , means that a different kind of research is required: for blended learning as well as about blended earning. They suggest that research which runs hand-in-hand with (rather than behind) development, which contributes to the design of new products, networks and models of learning will have significant impact and currency over the coming years. This idea aligns pleasingly with my hacker axiology: valuing making as knowing, with tools as concepts: to be understood through use (Collins et al., in Mayes and Freitas 2007).

Looking forward: possibilities


In this section I will talk about the impact and potential of this study: on the field, my local context, and my practice. Despite the limitations discussed in the previous section, there are several aspects of this research which may be seen as value-generating. In the main, these are more a consequence of the process engaged in, rather than any resulting findings. This is not necessarily a detriment of the study emerging models of connected learning (Belshaw, 2012) suggest that in our information abundant context (Weller, 2012) learning experiences are at least as important as learning outcomes: something which, from my perspective, the EdD lends itself neatly to (certainly in the first phase). Firstly, this study has highlighted the potential of online spaces to enable learners in higher education to practice their voice, identity, and being part of a community. It has: described and enacted a set of design principles, which have not to my knowledge previously been identified and/or described; and highlighted the challenges of figuring out and theorising online learning. In particular, it has demonstrated how hybird learning environments can offer new avenues for pedagogical practice whilst continuing to recognize the role of the teacher as expert (McLoughlin & Lee, no date), for example as: designers for learning, curators of content, and choreographers of reflexivity.
PDFmyURL.com

It has already been an interesting case for discussion amongst colleagues in my institution: helping us to challenge dominant face-to-face pedagogies, and probe the liminal boundaries of institutional policy. The power of this study lies in the combination of a tangible artefact (MATHAGOGY), together with an analysis of that artefact. People can see the webspace: its form, and how it has played out (all the comments are still there). These, along with my analyses, may allow people to begin to envision how modifications in practice might lead to an impact on student learning in new ways. It provides a lens for understanding how theory can be translated into practice in complex educational settings (DBcollective, 2003). Above everything else, this study has had an invaluable impact on my own thinking and practice. In addition to the ideas discussed above, it has enabled me to understand and redefine the balance and scope of my pedagogical practice. I now view the creation of online spaces for learning as an option available to me as a designer of learning. And this is particularly significant as the locus of influence I have over the online environment is much greater than that of the physical. I cannot move the walls of a classroom, but online I can bend both time and space. In realising all this I have developed greater agency as an educator. I now have the capacity to harness particular tools for particular purposes, rather than picking a stock tool off the VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) shelf. This subtle difference mitigates against design blindness, making me painfully aware of some of the structural and environmental aspects of the experiences my learners encounter, over which I have less influence. However, it also mitigates against design deskilling, as I practice making online learning environments and experiences, rather than utilizing pre-engineered solutions. This is how Amiel & Reeves (2008) describe technology: as a process of tool creation, rather than as a product . But as a process, technology is not value-free. And so this design activity has also helped shine a light on my values. It has helped me to explicate my preferences for participatory models of learning, which in turn have, inevitably influenced my face-to-face learning encounters.
PDFmyURL.com

Postscript: musings on authority


Two questions have been guiding my reflexive thinking throughout this study (courtesy of Professor Avril Loveless ). They are: What story do I have the authority to tell? What is the it in whats it all about? These questions are closely knit, and have helped me to keep one eye on what Stephens (2009) argues is a central purpose of social research: to interrogate connections between the subject of inquiry, the research process, and the researcher. One of the things that I have noticed as I have progressed through my EdD is an increasing convergence between my research and practice. What I do is becoming more and more central to the direction of my inquiry, as well as being shaped by it. I have realised that my authority comes from my position as a practitioner-researcher. I live and love teaching and learning. I have vast opportunities to feel out the relationship between theory and practice. And so what I do must be the story of my inquiry: otherwise I am not leveraging my position to best advantage, and I would not meeting the responsibilities afforded by my position as an educational researcher. As my understanding of the hacker ethos has grown, I have become mindful of a further responsibility of my position, which is best articulated by a modified version of the above question: What actions do I have the authority to take? Hacker epistemologies value making as knowing. And so one of the habits that I am working
PDFmyURL.com

towards enacting as a practitioner-researcher is making for social good. This is where Lovelesss second question comes in. The it is design. More specifically: design for learning . It i s not technology, as I had thought at the start of this project. I have realised that for me, technology is my excuse. A lever to shift the locus of educational discourse towards design, and a catalyst to foster innovation. And so I end this study with some meaty questions to move forward with, which I am feeling the need to have an authority to tackle. These surround epistemological notions of making as knowing and design as research. Instead of generating and analysing data, could a designed artefact (together with capturing the design process) represent an original contribution to knowledge? What might this look like? How might it differ in terms of impact ? Suiter (2010) currently sums up our challenge better than I could. Ill leave you with his knowing call, which I hope someday soon to begin to answer: Weve quickly gone from computers in the classroom to classrooms inside computers. We can see two highly complex systemscomputer technology and the academy, one complex by nature and one deeply complex by force of history colliding and hybridizing. And as this happens, we are faced with a situation where even the very clever people on the cutting edge who have working knowledge of both systems cannot fully synthesize them and predict outcomes. We dont know what this hybridization will amount to. So all we can do is steer it by getting out there and learning more by creative experimentation. You have to make the tools that steer the future of academia, or that future will be steered by whomever has the best sales pitch to the administrators. We have to create tools and efficiencies that improve the way we do things, because only by so doing can we fully understand the new world we inhabit ( Suiter, 2010).

PDFmyURL.com

CAPT URING LEARNING

Proudly powered by WordPress.

PDFmyURL.com

You might also like