Preliminary Research Map

*This post has been written as part of my journey as a Ph.D student through University of Regina

Background

One unseen benefit of the Covid-19 pandemic is that the use of technology in education has increased at a far higher rate than if our traditional classroom model was still in place (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, p. 34). The switch to remote learning has placed all educators, students, and families in a position where they are required to modify their existing practices and learn how to use digital tools in new ways. However, an increase in the use of online tools has not always been accompanied by a switch in pedagogical practices; especially for educators who are teaching face-to-face and remote students simultaneously (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, p. 34). I argue that teaching online using face-to-face strategies can be equated to listening to the audio of a television show versus a podcast or audiobook. While the basic idea of the story is still communicated, there are many details that are lost without access to the visual elements scripted into the show. A podcast or audiobook, however, account for this medium and plan their descriptions and use of sound effects to provide a clear picture for the audience. As I support our local stakeholders in their use of technology it is imperative that their familiarity and navigation of digital tools is paired with an understanding of what makes for a high-quality resource and what strategies need to accompany it’s use that are appropriate for the age and stage of the children they work with.  My thesis will be used to develop a tool for educators to use in the evaluation of apps/software before implementation in the classroom.

Research Problem

Educators are ill-equipped to analyze educational softwares to determine suitability for their programming.  The Covid-19 pandemic, and its resulting influence on educational programming, has accelerated the rate at which educators integrate digital tools into their programming (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, p. 34) but Latchem (2013, p. 384) warns that, “educators need to resist the urge to jump at new ideas without thinking of how its implementation can be maximized, what problems may arise, and how sustainable the tool will be for students down the road”.  Johnson, Riel, and Froese-Germain (2016, p. 43.) found that 45% of surveyed Canadian educators felt that they lacked sufficient support when it came to learning how to use networked technologies in their teaching practice.  Survey results also communicated that 22% of teachers felt ill-prepared to, “teach students how to use networked technologies to support their learning” (2016, p. 61).  While Johnson, Riel, and Frose-Germain argued in 2016 that there, “needs to be support for teachers to apply their professional autonomy and judgement to determine, from a pedagogical perspective, the best use of new technologies to support learning” (p. 78) data from 2021 indicates that teachers continue to lack confidence in the area of educational technology and look to technology leaders to assist in the evaluation of software suitability (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, 34-35).

There are currently several well-known technology integration models with T-PACK, SAMR, and LoTI being among the most recognized (Arora & Chander, 2020, p. 84).  However, these models each operate under the assumption that participating educators are comfortable with selecting suitable softwares to implement and fail to address why integration may be unsuccessful based on ill-suited software selections.  For educators who do not feel confident in their personal evaluation of educational softwares their options include: 1. asking for support from technology leaders, 2. accessing crowd-sourced reviews online, 3. utilizing third-party review platforms, or 4. trial and error with their students.  None of these methods empower educators in their ability to make an informed decision independently.  Kolb (2017, p. 164) emphasizes that 77% of mobile apps included in the “education” category are unable to provide, “empirical research that the tool will have a positive effect on learning outcomes”.  Furthermore, these options run the risk of long turn-around times if technology leaders are not immediately available and ill-informed suggestions if reviews are not conducted by those with backgrounds in effective digital pedagogies.  The Triple E Framework by Kolb (2017, p. 5) builds on the integration methods previously mentioned but also strives to assist educators in their evaluation of digital tools.  While the Triple E Framework is a start, there continues to be gaps in the areas of accessibility [language choices, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, visual stimulation, fine motor requirements] and consumerism [initial and ongoing costs, ad exposure, data usage].  Further research into this area can assist in achieving social emancipation for educators who previously relied on third-party platforms or specialized staff to make programming recommendations outside of the contextual classroom understanding of the individual educator.

Theoretical Grounding

The role of teachers and schools has been redefined by the role of educational technology and this evolution has only been fast-tracked by the Covid-19 pandemic that has seen the use of technology in education increase at an accelerated rate (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, p. 34)(Sheninger, 2014, p. xv).  Research into the field of educational technology is one that requires flexibility and an acceptance that there cannot be, “any permanent standards by which truth can be universally known” (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2018, p. 128.)  Across the paradigm spectrum, this research will most closely align with the constructivism approach that Crotty (1998) identifies as being fundamentally shaped by the interactions between individuals and their environment and dependent on transmission within the context of unique societal norms.  Crotty (1998) sees a research paradigm as one’s way of understanding and studying the world and that this belief system operates within assumptions in the areas of: 1. ontology, 2. epistemology, 3. methodology, and 4. axiology

When looking at ontology, one must reflect on their personal worldview to determine, “what is the nature of reality?” (Creswell, 2007).  Guba and Lincoln (2005, p. 193) share that the concept of relativism includes, “local and specific constructed and co-constructed realities”.  When it comes to the practice of teaching, each educator is subject to the unique climate of their school building, which is dictated by factors including: administrative structure, collegial network, available resources, community placement, and existing infrastructure.  These factors, and how staff and students are impacted by them, create a specific reality that differs from other school buildings and must be considered when conducting research.  The concept of reality is also personal and, while environmentally and socially influenced, it is also self-created based on one’s experiences (Guba & Lincoln, 1985, p. 73).  As a researcher, my experiences and training within the educational technology realm results in a personal reality in which troubleshooting technology, piloting new advancements, and integrating tools into curricular programming is not a seen as a barrier.  However, an understanding of personal reality is essential to help understand the perspective of the educators that I will be working with.

As researchers dive further into their paradigm it becomes evident that there is a fundamental assumption in the area of defining knowledge.  Referred to as epistemology; this asks researchers to reflect on what are sources of knowledge, why is some knowledge perceived to be of higher value than others, and how can knowledge be transferred between individuals (Crotty, 1998).  This research will not only look at knowledge from the lens of researcher and participant, but also delve critically into the way(s) in which educators have gained knowledge in the area of educational technology [preservice training, professional development, personal exploration].  Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba (2018, p. 115.) share that a constructivist paradigm sees knowledge as being, “constructed intersubjectively through the meanings and understandings developed socially and experientially”.  Previous experiences in the area of educational technology can shape participant perceptions on the value that these tools bring to their practice.  As a researcher, I am cognizant that the environment and context in which the information is shared can influence the knowledge that is constructed between myself and the participants.

With an understanding of, “what is reality,” and “what is knowledge,” researchers are then tasked with determining a methodology that aligns with their established paradigm.  Defined by Schwandt (2007, p. 190) as, “the process of how we seek out new knowledge”, methodology can be considered the strategy, plan, or design that underpins one’s methods of knowledge collection.  An essential component of the research process is a shared understanding of associated terminology to ensure accurate co-construction of the participant’s reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1985, p. 71).  With the area of educational technology being ever evolving, the concept of consensual language between researcher and participant is necessary in order to effectively gather and interpret data.  For example, the term software may be used when describing school-provided programs, mobile apps, third-party programming, or any combination of these elements.  Angen (2000) argues that meaning can emerge from the research process, such as specific vocabulary being used based on the language choices included in school goals which can be division-specific, but attention must be paid to, “ensure adequate dialog between the researchers and those with whom they interact with”.

Once data has been collected and the researcher has constructed meaning they must reflect on axiology or, “what value does this work provide to the greater community” (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2018, p. 126.).  This research not only aims to determine how educational technology features can be used to effectively meet the programming needs of students at different developmental capabilities, but it will also summarize this knowledge as a practical tool that educators can use to self-evaluate technology programs to determine suitability for a particular set or subset of students.  This tool can assist in achieving social emancipation for educators who previously relied on third-party platforms or specialized staff to make programming recommendations outside of the contextual classroom understanding of the individual educator.  This effort to liberate educators from the barrier of programming legislation has been identified by Guba & Lincoln (2005, p. 198) as “intrinsically valuable”.  The inclusion of a tool for educators can also serve as a bridge between theory and practice so that readers are left with a catalyst for action that increases the quality of their experience (2005, p. 196).

 Purpose

My goal would be to develop a tool to assist educators in their evaluation of digital tools.  This would include a review of research to summarize what we know about developmental capabilities, how children learn, and effective pedagogical strategies at the elementary-, middle-, and high-school levels.  Research would be conducted to compile a list of commonly used digital tools by K-12 educators and how they are used in the classroom; small-group instruction, blended model, independent exploration.  These tools would be evaluated in areas such as accessibility, reading level, instructional support, and supporting pedagogies to group features by common themes.  The final product would allow end-users to evaluate a digital tool to determine its suitability for a particular set or subset of students.  It is important to note that, due to the ever-evolving nature of technology, this research would focus on features provided within digital tools; not specific tools themselves.  Existing research in this area leaves gaps in the areas of accessibility and does not account for the pedagogical shifts that are required by educators at different grade levels.  The role of consumerism [ad exposure] is also an area that if often overlooked in more robust evaluation tools.

Research Questions

Research questions are generalized into two categories: 1. teacher education in the area of educational technology and, 2. technology integration and classroom considerations.

Teacher education

• What education/training is provided to educators in the area of app/software evaluation?

• What factors impact educator use of educational technologies?

Technology integration

• How does pedagogy shift when implementing digital tools into classroom programming?

• What impact do program features have on a teacher’s decision to include them in classroom programming? [accessibility, consumerism, connection to digital literacy curriculum]

• How does digital programming advance student learning beyond traditional means?

Methodology

 Defined by Schwandt (2007, p. 190) as, “the process of how we seek out new knowledge”, methodology can be considered the strategy, plan, or design that underpins one’s methods of knowledge collection.  Recommended by Dr. Alec Couros, this research will follow the grounded theory methodology that aligns well with “practice professions,” including education, and provides opportunity for researchers to not only, “achieve a contribution to knowledge in their discipline but also to effectively offer a social value through enhanced practice” (Charmaz, 2019, p. 417).  The field of technology is changing rapidly and the use of technology within education is heavily dependent on the unique environment of individual classrooms.  As such, there cannot be, “any permanent standards by which truth can be universally known” (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2018, p. 128.) which aligns with Charmaz’ argument that researchers who undertake grounded theory need to be comfortable with discovery and not entrenched in pre-existing, “theoretical assumptions in a field” (2019, p. 417).  My position within Mountain View School Division will led me to seek out participants from outside the division as many of the interview questions would be operating in realms that I directly oversee (i.e.: software approval and device distribution).  Furthermore, as president of the Manitoba Association for Computing Educators (ManACE) and vice-president of the Manitoba Association of Educational Technology Leaders (MAETL) I want to ensure that participation would not be seen as a personal opportunity to gain insight into divisional practices that I could later influence. 

Data collection will follow a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative components.  Current plans include a survey of K-12 teachers to determine themes in tech integration as well as interviews and classroom observations regarding app/software introduction and student use.  This approach will yield results consistent with the constructivist paradigm where one, “approaches research with different styles and methods that can produce multiple forms of data” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 125).  With this in mind, flexibility will play a key component in data collection as Charmaz (2014) advocates for those participating in grounded theory to, “be as open as possible” in order for true discovery to take place.  Analysis of the data will make use of the NVivo platform in which I am scheduled to participate in a training seminar in the Winter 2022 semester.  My current plans for my Thesis Hours credit include detailed work with Dr. Couros to delve into Charmaz’ approach to coding using her 2014 work, “Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis”.

Conclusion

Despite Canadian data indicating there, “needs to be support for teachers to apply their professional autonomy and judgement to determine, from a pedagogical perspective, the best use of new technologies to support learning” (p. 78) data from 2021 indicates that teachers continue to lack confidence in the area of educational technology and look to technology leaders to assist in the evaluation of software suitability (Nantais, M. et al., 2021, 34-35).  While educators can utilize existing technology integration models like TPACK, SAMR, or LoTI they fall short when it comes to the evaluation of software and Kolb’s 2017 Triple-E Framework leaves gaps in the areas of accessibility and consumerism.  As I support our local stakeholders in their use of technology it is imperative that their familiarity and navigation of digital tools is paired with an understanding of what makes for a high-quality resource and what strategies need to accompany it’s use that are appropriate for the age and stage of the children they work with.  I look forward to an opportunity to develop my thesis and craft a tool for educators to use in the evaluation of apps/software before implementation in the classroom.

References

Arora, C., & Chander, S. (2020). Integrating technology into classroom learning. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 84-105.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. SAGE

Creswell, J.W. & Guetterman, T. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.

Johnson, M., Riel, R., & Froese-Germain, B. (2016). Connected to learn: Teachers’ experiences with networked technologies in the classroom. Ottawa, ON: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/ycwwiii_connected_to_learn.pdf

Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator’s guide to designing authentic lessons. Internation Society for Technology in Education.

Latchem, C. (2013). Whatever became of educational technology? The implications for teacher    education. World Journal of Educational Technology, 5(3), 371-388. Retrieved from http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/wjet/article/view/2873/pdf_219

Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,

and emerging confluences revisited. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 108-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Nantais, M., Dimuro, M., Kelly, W., Kirk, J., Lam, M., Ofwono, N., & Spence, S. (2021). Digital policy, infrastructure, procedures and practices of select rural and northern Manitoba school divisions. BU CARES. https://www.brandonu.ca/bu-cares/files/2021/08/Digital-Realities-in-Rural-Manitoba-July-2021.pdf

Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership changing paradigms for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press.