Ethical Influences

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

  This summary aims to provide a synopsis of my research interest as it currently exists.  The work takes the reader through three topics to summarize my own experience and current understanding: 1. background context, 2. research problem, and 3. theoretical grounding. The paper will conclude with an overview of how three readings from the course have drawn my interest and will inform my work as I progress through this journey.

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

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).

Influence of Bazzul

This author’s current role in the field of educational technology is continually influenced by the ubiquitous and expansive realm of ethics.  The introduction in Bazzul’s recent work, An intensive calling: How ethics is essential to education, has provided a foundation to look at ethics bidirectionally and allowed for personal focus on three significant aspects.  A component of ethics that attracted personal interest focuses on ethics as a result of individual folds.  The process of folding sees the external world, comprised of both social and material elements, being internalized in a way that results in the individual becoming increasingly self-aware and with a different understanding of their reality (Bazzul, p. 116)  Matebekwane (2022) summarizes the role of folds on one’s ethical subjectivity as, “among the folds the subject is given shape and instructed how to be, at the same time a subject has potential acts of resistance or innovation.”  The impact of folds on one’s personal ethics draws parallels to interpretivism and this author’s ability to effectively provide coaching in the area of educational technology. 

Crotty (1998) shares that the interpretivism epistemology is one that, “looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world.”  The role of an educational coach depends on one’s ability to operate within this context as our students’ [educators, administrators, and support positions] programming requires an understanding of symbolic interactionism.  A primary indicator of sustainable educational coaching is the individual’s ability to understand who they are working with, their interests, their motives, and their starting point; their folds (Juarez & Goyette, 2020).  In our quest to deepen participant understanding, coaches employ interactionist research techniques to find appropriate entry points for learning with the end goal to be student independence.  It is important to note, however, that Bazzul reminds us that this process is, “continually reintegrated through interaction with others and the world” (p. 120).  As such, our participants (as well as ourselves) are in a process of constant evolution in which a full understanding of their motives may be a moot point.  However, this awareness can still provide valuable context in understanding the journey that both your participant, and yourself, are on.

Symbolic interactionism holds three primary assumptions that hold true in the educational coaching relationship (Blumer, 1969, p. 2).  The first of which states that participants interact with things based on the meaning those items have for them.  The meaning that object holds, the second assumption, is crafted from the interactions the participant has with those around them.  Lastly, the perspective the participant aligns with when engaging with the object evolves based on the interactions they experience.  With these assumptions in mind, effective coaches need to evaluate not only their participant, but those around them.  What is their perspective towards educational technology such as the Office 365 software suite?  How is the program utilized within their building?  What language is used when introducing or interacting with the program?  From there, coaches can work to better understand their participants unique folds and prepare appropriate experiences that are purposefully designed so that their perspective evolves in a way that allows them to see the value the program in question can bring to their practice.  This shift in perception is then able to cause a shift in the meaning the participant assigns to the program and thus, changes the way in which they interact with the program; an individualized act of dissensus within their personalized fold of subjectivity.

Influence of Olberding – Etiquette: A Confucian Contribution to Moral Philosophy

When it comes to analyzing the ethical implications of this work as it applies to educational research, I echo the author’s stance that the conscious and unconscious ways in which we conduct ourselves reflect our personal interpretations of values (manners) and the etiquette rules of the environment we are familiar with.  When differentiating between etiquette and manners, which are sometimes used interchangeably, Olberding argues that etiquette rules are specific to a time and social setting whereas manners are the deeper values behind etiquette.  While etiquette rules tell someone what to do, manners explain why we do something (p. 425).  For example, serving those older than you first at a meal could be an example of an etiquette rule that is representing the manner value of showing respect to your elders.  Both etiquette and manners, or lack thereof, can play a role in creating microinequities; communications that cut toward encoding messages regarding social deprivilege (p. 446).  Microinequities have the potential to cause potent moral harms to those affected, especially when they become a regular occurrence.  An example of this is an individual of colour encountering people who visibly tense up and change their body language as they enter an elevator. 

  My newfound awareness of micro-inequities has caused me to self-reflect on how I interact with those around me, including my research participants and colleagues.  While my mannerisms can sometimes be unconscious practices, these actions impact those around us, potentially contributing to microinequities, and affecting research results. Olberding provides several examples of how our communication with others spans across vectors and the way in which we hold our body, inflect our voice, and use our gaze can all contribute to how the moral wellbeing of our participant is upheld during the vulnerable act of storytelling (p. 443).  These subtle variations, while small, are not trivial and can contribute to microinequities, especially as our participants are entering into the interaction in a vulnerable state; like storytelling.  This respect and attention to values needs to extend beyond the data collection stage.  Despite our best efforts to abide by ethical practices throughout out research, are we mindful of the ethical imbalance awarded to researchers who are receiving accolades at the expense of their participants’ life stories?  Olberding echoes this importance by reminding readers that, “we can unconsciously harm others in ways we would not mindfully sanction” (p. 446).

As shared previously, 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”.  The way in which I conduct myself socially will have an impact on my research participants and shape perceptions on the role of educational technology in classroom instruction.  As a researcher, Olberding has reminded me that the social environment and context in which the information is shared can influence the knowledge that is constructed between myself and the participants.  It is my hope that this chapter will continue to encourage me to be reflexive in my research journeys and help to reduce instances of microinequities.

Influence of Leddy

When it comes to analyzing the ethical implications of this work as it applies to educational research, I echo the author’s stance that humour can provide the framework for authentic relationship building.  As both a coach, and a researcher, the relationships that I establish and maintain are essential in both the data collection that I organize but also the practical application of my results in the classroom.  Leddy (2018) shares that humour is not only humanizing, which can help smooth the sometimes-present rift between coach and coachee, but it is also culturally relevant and can assist in facilitating difficult conversations (pg. 10).  In my personal employment situation, approximately 34% of our community has self-declared as First Nations, Metis, or Inuit and I can think of many colleagues who I recognize use humour in their workplace interactions; specifically during difficult conversations.  This is different from my cultural familiarity with humour which has been more reserved for private scenarios.  I benefit from Leddy’s reminder that laughter is a critical component of the healing process and situations that I had previously interpreted as inappropriate were a cultural response to the ongoing effects of colonialism in Canada (p. 14-16). 

My colleagues not only represent a diverse FNMI background but a wide range of cultural blends that span from international staff on term positions to newcomers to multi-generational settlers.   Our experiences, cultural upbringing, and home languages often lead to drastically different interpretations of divisional and provincial policies.  It has illustrated how the norms and values of one culture can vary dramatically from one another.  This was also touched on by Leddy (2018, 2022) who shared the struggle of extending humour across cultures and the fact that what is considered funny in one culture is not funny in another.  While this can pose a challenge in our attempts to convey appropriate etiquette that is accepted across cultures, Leddy reminds us that jokes (like stories) are impacted by the time we spend reflecting on them (p. 18).  This reminder not only assists in my understanding of my colleagues, but it also provides a stronger foundation to avoid microinequities that may erode the relationship-building process.

As shared previously, 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 my interactions with colleagues and research participants, each individual is subject to the unique cultural background in which they draw influence from.  These factors, and how individuals are impacted by them, create a specific reality that differs from person to person 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 how I share myself with others does not always include the use of humour in the workplace.  However, an understanding of personal reality is essential to help understand the perspective of the participants that I will be working with.

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 am thankful for the opportunities awarded through this course as they have challenged my self-reflexivity not only as a researcher, but also as an individual member of society.  The works shared throughout this course have challenged me to reframe my understanding of ethics and develop a stronger understanding of the unconscious ways in which ethics informs my daily interactions and future plans.  This learning journey is very much focused on impacting educators in a positive manner and I feel as if I have an increased awareness of self in order to better serve my colleagues.  It is my hope that I can move forward in life with a better understanding of those around me and an awareness of the way in which I impact others.

References

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

Bazzul, J. (in press). An intensive calling: How ethics is essential to education. Unpublished manuscript.

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. International 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

Leddy, S. (2018). In a good way: Reflecting on humour in indigenous education. Journal of the Canadian association for curriculum studies, 16(2), 10-20.

Lewis, P., & Hildebrandt, K. (2019). Storytelling as qualitative research. SAGE Publications.

Matebekwane, K. (2022). Chapter 5: The subject of ethics and its many folds by Jesse Bazzul (in press). URCourses.

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

Olberding, A. (2016). Etiquette: A Confucian Contribution to Moral Philosophy. Ethics 126, (January 2016), 422-446.

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

Triggs, V. (2022). [Lecture notes and assignment feedback]. Department of Graduate Studies, University of Regina.

Tuck, E., & Wang, W.K. (2014). Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811-818.