thesisthoughts

Yesterday afternoon I set off for my long drive to Z. I was very excited to meet my new group, and hoped that we would get off to a good start. There were supposed to be 28 in the group but only 22 turned up for the first session.

The staff at the centre were waiting for me and the room and the technology were all fine. As soon as I had my computer set up, teachers started arriving.

This group is different from others I have worked with in that 90% of the teachers are from a very religious backgrounds and they teach in very religious schools. It will be interesting to see how they bring their school experiences to the sessions and to learn from them about their environment. I must ask them about their Internet access – often these families have limited Internet experience and facilities.

The room was set up with tables and chairs all facing the front in a horseshoe and I didn’t move them yesterday. I will definitely set them up differently next time, in order to promote small group discussion. As a result, the first meeting was more lecture style than I would have liked.

One of the conclusions I reached after last year was that I have to be more direct in explaining to the teachers what hey can take to the classroom and what my expectations are of them between sessions. Last year I encouraged them to take as much of their learning as possible to the classroom, but not all of the teachers understood the links. Those that did understand and tried the big and the little strategies and tools in the classroom, got a lot more from the learning experience. Yesterday I was very specific: “This is an important question to ask your students”, “Did you notice that I gave you all very small pieces of paper? This is so… In the classroom…”, “In the next two weeks, until we meet again, fill in this table which will help you examine what is happening in your classroom…”.

I am extremely frustrated that the Department of Education decided to cut all courses down from the compulsory 60 hours from last year to 30 hours this year. Instead of all teachers learning one 60 hour course, they are required to choose two different 30 hour courses. What can you do and learn in 30 hours? It isn’t enough to form any kind of learning community, especially when there are 25-30 teachers in the group. In my mind I have made a decision: rather than complain about it all the time, I will see this course as part A in a series. If it’s good they’ll come back for more.

It is frustrating that the desicion makers ”up above” don’t listen to the teachers’ feedback (which said that the 60 hours facilitates deeper, more relevant learning) or current research on professional learning (sustained, ongoing…)

I suppose I shouldn’t complain, I believe that in the US, 16 hours is considered a long course.

Next week I will do the same program with another new group, they are located at K.

This week, school holidays for Passover,  I met with the teachers from N for a full day seminar. As we couldn’t meet at the teachers’ center, we met at my school. There are many benefits in this, including the use of our wonderfully equipped computer room and the friendly, educational environment (which we certainly don’t have this year at the center which is always “just about to be done up”). There is much to discuss about where external PL meetings take place and how the surroundings can contribute or hinder learning. An interesting comparison I should make is the experience I have this year at the two teachers’ centers, K and N.

Anyway, this time we met at my school, we began with hot coffee and cakes I brought with me. With 100% attendance (very rare, especially in school holidays) we began the seminar.

The day was divided into two parts – the first dealing with the digital text and the effect of the Internet on writing and the second on connections between reading and writing.

We began with a brilliant piece from You-tube, one I was introduced to by Ilana Snyder in the course I studied with her at Monash.

This piece has so much in it that I could have based a whole two hour workshop / lecture on it and still not touch all of the information and messages contained. The workshop was successful with very lively participation from all the participants (including those closer to the web and those that are barely computer literate).

My frustration with the Hebrew language surfaced again. Why aren’t there materials such as these being developed here daily? Why isn’t more material being translated?  When I bring something in English (even a cartoon), there is always tension in the air. Israeli teachers as a rule are threatened by the English language and would prefer not to use their knowledge in their learning, despite the fact that most have a fairly good grasp of the language.

Together we explored what our curriculum has to say about digital texts. I was surprised that most of the participants had not noticed these pages before. Then we moved on to a document that none of the participants knew existed, the standards booklet for  learning in an ICT environment. The necessary link between literacy teachers and the digital world out there is just not being formed. I got the impression that even the teachers who are technologically independent and do use computers and the Web in their teaching, have never dealt with the changes occurring in written language.

They were all interested and active and one of the senior teachers from my school commented that I must do the seminar (or at least part of it, with all the teachers at our school). I was satisfied that the questions were raised and that the topic is now “on the table”.

Two questions that need to be addressed, and of course were raised in the group are 1. the digital divide: “It’s not such a big deal at a school like this which teaches children from well off homes…” or “At our school there are no computers in the classroom and we don’t have lessons in the computer room…”   and 2. The expectation that teachers become more computer literate: “We have many teacher at our school that don’t know anything about computers, they are scared of them. How can they be expected to teach these things to the kids?”.

We then moved on to discuss the positive impact technology can have on student motivation to write. When I discussed blogs (explaining from the beginning as most had no idea what I was talking about) they were shocked by the possibilities. I could see that some of the teachers began racing in their minds what they can do with this new option, but others concentrated on the “why nots”: “My class is too big”‘, “I don’t have time to read all the writing and comment before it is posted”, “Who has time to check a blog every day and run it?”

I proudly presented the blog I am running for my students, I can’t wait to use blogging in other groups and classes next year.  

The second part of the day was dedicated to the connections between reading and writing. For a moment I was disappointed that I couldn’t show the powerpoint presentation I had prepared and then I realized that I didn’t need it. As a result the teachers talked more and I talked less – always a better situation.

As a starter they worked in pairs and prepared a venn diagram to present how reading and writing are similar and different. The discussion was very fruitful and the diagrams were very varied. I will scan them and post them on the virtual campus. We then opened up the discussion in the whole group. Later on I presented the research that has been done in the field and presented examples of work that can be done in the classroom, every day, to strengthen the connections between reading and writing. The aim is of course  to reinforce both writing and reading, and of course, thinking.

The most disturbing part of the discussion for me was when teachers who know how to combine the two spoke of how after “The Reading Wars”, they believed (or were specifically told) that everything they did in their Whole Language classrooms must be disregarded. As a result, they have been teaching reading very differently and writing has been totally separate. Some of the teachers in grades 1 & 2 commented that they thought that they weren’t allowed to ask the children to write until they “finished teaching reading” (Is that ever completed?). As the pendulum swings backwards and forwards, it seems that the more teachers are confused, and the less time is spent in real teacher learning, the results in the classroom are more destructive.  

 That’s it for today…

An interesting article from the States:

Teacher Training Goes in Virtual Directions

This afternoon I was introduced to a new blog set up by a teacher for her students and colleagues and also to a new term “concept scrapbook”.

http://www.mycontextfile.blogspot.com/

In her blog, Mrs H. invites her pupils to explore the various images she has chosen to present on her site and to read the accompanying texts she has composed. She urges others to begin collecting “imaginary landscapes” which interest them. Mrs H’s opening paragraph is both explanatory and invitational:

“Here’s my ’scrapbook’ of images and materials related to the VCE English Context of “Imaginative Landscapes”, along with some thoughts about the materials I’ve chosen to include … I hope this inspires you to start pulling together your own Context Scrapbook, either in hardcopy or online – Mrs H from Waverley Christian College, Victoria”.

I imagine this invitation was also extended in classroom activities and discussion.

My first reaction to the blog was simply to enjoy the incredibly clever visual and multimodal texts featured on the page. I was especially  fascinated by the sidewalk chalk creations as they were done by hand. I can’t believe anyone has the talent to compose such intricate 3D images on such a harsh “canvas” with the simplest of materials. Maybe this is one of the connections between landscape and imagination – the idea/dream/illusion far exceeds what can usually be created by man.

This blog is meant to be a showcase for work done by the teacher (as a model for her students) and as venue for generating discussion.  I will be following the development of the blog to see whether this written conversation does eventuate, I hope it does! 

Teachers writing for their students, with their students and in front of them has interested me since I wrote my diary/story about the 2nd Israel-Lebanon war as an assignment in Graham Parr’s course. At that time I read quite a few articles on whether teachers who write make better literacy / writing teachers – the answers to this question aren’t hard and fast.

For most of my teaching years I have felt very self conscious about my writing skills and until recently hadn’t dared to bring any of my texts to the classroom. I admire Mrs H and her initiative, what better way is there for a teacher to explain what a “context scrapbook” is and to set her pupils off exploring landscapes of their own?

In chapter 1 of ”Learning how to teach writing”, Atwell (1998) writes about the importance of presenting her own writing in the classroom, she also relates to the difficulty in doing this.

“I have almost overcome my anxiety about revealing to the world how hard and slow writing is for me, and how wildly off-base my first attempts can be. I learned that I only have to write a little bit better than my students for them to learn from my demonstrations…I can only become their mentor, someone whose advice carries weight and truth, because I know writing from the inside, and I’ve shown them I do” (p. 26).

Atwell encourages teachers to write composition tasks they give to their students. From my own experience I know that this is the best way of really knowing what I am demanding of my pupils, discovering where different pupils are likely to experience difficulty and determining what kind of instructions and explicit instruction are neccessary. I am sure that Mrs H will be well prepared to support her students in their journey if she maintains her personal blog along the way.

I’ll try my hand too:

An imaginary landscape which accompanies me in my teaching and in my personal life while facing challenges (like now starting my thesis), appears in Dr Seuss’s brilliant book  Oh, the places you’ll go!

 There are so many inspiring quotes in this little book which can be particularly motivating for students daunted by a big project or challenge. Each page presents a different colourful imaginary landscape as the reader joins the main character who is simply (and cleverly) called “you” on the way to realizing personal aspirations. On You-Tube some of the landscapes have been animated.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading and learning.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

In the new online journal International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, there is an article on online interviewing – Small Talk by Annette Markham.

The article can be accessed free at:

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire/issue_1.1.html

I heard about it on Mary Helen Ward’s blog “Faultlines”.

A comprehensive list of all Markham’s publications can be found on her website:

http://markham.internetinquiry.org/writing/index.html

Yesterday I read a fantastic paper presented by Nicole Shepherd at the AQR conference in 2003. She discusses her experience of online interviewing as part of her PhD research.

Shepherd interviewed participants face to face, via telephone, via email and through private chat rooms. She allowed participants to choose their preferred interview mode.

Online interviews all took far longer than other interviews.

Online communication allows participants a feeling of “control over their self-presentation” (p. 10). Physical characteristics do not influence the communication.

It is difficult for the researcher to remember all the details of the various participants because he or she doesn’t see them physically. This means that large amounts of text must be reread over and over again in order to place participants.

E-mail:

• useful in obtaining “rich” responses
• sending 1-2 questions at a time stimulates fuller answers
• more “intimate feeling” (p. 9)
• “Most of the participants I interviewed via e-mail give rich and full answers to my questions, equivalent to, and in some cases more in-depth than voice-based interviews” (p. 10)
• Interview process which is spread over a longer period allows the researcher to see more of the participant’s life.
• people  were willing to share private thoughts and stories “It seemed as though communicating via e-mail lent itself to personal disclosure” (p. 10). 
• time to reflect and compose an answer.

• at times it is hard to identify the mental state of the writer
• sometimes the researcher can miss the emotions going on at the time of writing.

 Chat room:

• graphic  tools help the writer convey emotions as in speech
•   technical problems hinder the drawing out of narratives
• “slow and frustrating” (p. 7)
• Reader must wait for the writer to press “send” before they can begin reading
• overlapping of responses
• It is hard to know what to make of the waiting period between responses .
• Text boxes are limited in their content – narratives must be broken up and sent in pieces 
• Need to type quickly

Issues to consider:

• “The digital divide” – issues of access and also the fact that not everyone can communicate  efficiently and easily with ICT
• “Communicating online does enhance the ability of participants to lie about their embodied identities” (p. 14).

Shepherd, N. (2003). Interviewing online: Qualitative research in the network(ed) society. Proceedings of the Association of Qualitative research Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 17-19, 2003. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00001436/01/ns_qrc_03.pdf   

Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online (New Technologies for Social Research series) by Chris Mann (Author), Fiona Stewart (Author)

 Yesterday I started looking into the ethical aspects of doing research through the Internet. Sveningsson (2004)  explains that this is a relatively new area and that as yet there is no agreement on which guidelines are suitable and relevant for virtual communication. Each type of Internet environment is very different from another. Doing research on a chatroom is very different from examining email correspondence, for example.

In ethnography questions relating to culture are in the forefront. The researcher examines the way a group of people live their lives. He or she is “studying members’ thoughts and conceptions of the world, norms and values, as well as the practices that are attached to them” (p. 46). In a previous article, Sveningsson (2003) explains that ethnography is not a single research method, rather it is an approach to research.

Paccagnella (1997) writes of “online ethnography” and Hines (2000) writes of “virtual ethnography”.  

In this article, Sveningsson (2004) examines present ethical guidelines in the light of Internet research.

The Informational Requirement:

Sveningsson (2004) notes the different roles of the researcher in ethnographic research:

1. participant observer
2. reporter – open observation without participation
3. undercover participant observer
4. hidden nonparticipant observer

If I embark on this kind of research I will have to choose between the first two groups.

Questions relating to how to inform participants in the study must be answered. The article deals mainly with participants in a chatroom situation and less with participants chosen ahead of time. I imagine that in my study, as in the PhD study being done by Ward, participants will enter the Internet environment intentionally as part of the research process.  In cases like these questions of consent appear to be similar to those in traditional research methods. 

Questions of confidentiality are extremely relevant. The first issue deals with the need for personal or sensitive material to be managed without unauthoirzed access. The second issue is that individuals must not be recognized.

Weblogs can be fully open to the public or closed to an authorized group. Sveningsson points out that one of the problems with the Internet is that people feel they are in a private environment when if fact they are exposing themselves in a public arena.

The third issue is that on the Internet it is often diffficult to know whether a person is who they say they are. The article deals with pseudonyms and the problem of choosing pseudonyms for chosen usernames. Usernames usually contain elements a person is using to portray a particular identity, “the nickname thus works as a ‘face’…” (p. 52).

 The requirement that data be collected only for the purpose of a particular research project is not at all problematic.

The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) was set up in 2000 to develop international ethical guidelines. http://aoir.org/  This organization found that 2 variables are useful for examining materials from the Internet: (Ess, 2002, as cited in Sveningsson, 2004, p. 55)

1. “How public the medium is”
2. “How sensitive the shared information is”.

An important question posed by Sveningsson is “Can we really do ethnographic study of a culture tht we ourselves have created?” (p. 56).

How relevant is this in the kind of research I am planning? Again I am returning to the question of the interaction between the participants. How important is it to me to have a conversation going on? This is the group interview vs individual interview debate.

Sveningsson, M. (2004). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed), Reading in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 45-61). Sweden: Information Science Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.igi-online.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/downloadPDF/pdf/ITB9489_NdB67QZEZJ.pdf