Sunday, 20 December 2009
Monday, 22 June 2009
Perspectives on Professionalism and Professional Practice (essay)
I recently interviewed Andy Hargreaves on the subject of teacher professionalism. He has written prolifically on this, particularly in relation to leadership and change, and his contribution to ‘Change Wars’ (Fullan and Hargreaves, 2008); ‘The Fourth Way of Change: Towards an Age of Inspiration and Sustainability’ (Hargreaves, 2008) has ensured that he continues to be sought after as a keynote speaker by those within the network of influence in Scottish local authority schooling. ‘The Fourth Way’ and its “Five Pillars of Purpose and Partnership” (Hargreaves, 2008:22), are rooted in the history of managerialism and attempts to advance and elevate conceptions of leadership in education. It appeals to those who manage the system of public schooling (General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2009) and the many classroom teachers who have ‘bought into’ recent policies which encourage performativity; witnessed by the maintaining of ‘standards’, for example the Chartered Teacher qualification and standard (Kennedy, 2008). Although influential on professionalism discourse, Hargreaves’ work does not deal with the disruption to spaces and knowledge being facilitated by new forms of information and communication technology (ICT).
This paper draws on concepts around knowledge, professionalism, professional development, managerialism and communication to make sense of the apparent disruption to public discourse resulting from these new forms, and from changes to the professional dimensions of educators who regularly interact on the open, ‘social’ web. Assuming that professionalism consists of a set of resources, when one considers the possibility of real-time research into what these resources consist of, via online tools such as mass emailing of questions and online surveys, it is evident that the set can be updated or reviewed at a particular period in time, and therefore any claim on current, agreed professionals’ attributes or toolkit would be temporal, historical and fundamentally unsatisfactory. One might assume that the continual claims and challenges around those professional resources with intrinsic or extrinsic value result from ‘flattened’, constructivist dialogue potentially accessible by, and open to contribution from, the parent, probationer teacher, and classroom assistant; in addition to those within or close to networks with power in education who have previously drafted formal definitions and exemplification of professionalism and practice. I will interrogate this possible democratic enhancement of professionalism; what it means to be professional, and the consequences for ‘improvement’ and social justice. To begin, I show that the ability to interact through web-based communication tools has implications for traditional spaces, for the creation of knowledge and operation of power, and for discourse and professional development.
Until recently, public professional spaces and knowledge within Scottish schooling were created and populated, bounded and managed, by individuals and networks woven between: the Scottish political parties and Government, the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (of Education) (HMI(e)), the Colleges of Education, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), and the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) (Gillies, 2008). Discourse on teacher professionalism would occur through peer-reviewed academic journals and other professional periodicals. As part of the management of the profession, there has been a move to a linear, standards-based structure, where consultation with stakeholders has facilitated wider discourse (Scottish Government, 2009). Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has been central to the interface between the teaching professional and local, national and self-managerialism (from internalising standards), and CPD activities have followed traditional approaches to education in Scotland; namely they have been didactic, one-size-fits-all, policy–related, and performative.
Teacher professionalism and practice continues to have a distant relationship to ‘the academy’ (Kennedy, 1997). The GTCS promote a teacher researcher programme, and small-scale classroom-based research is advanced by the literature on action research, formative assessment, and more recently individual critical reflection and organisation-wide self-evaluation. However, the prevalent evidence-based research (often deriving from national policy and with implications for practice) is not initiated by practitioners and does not develop from ‘communities of inquiry’ and suchlike. Knowledge is transferred primarily through time-limited, face-to-face spaces such as the Scottish Learning Festival.
As most teachers are not within ‘the academy’, they do not have, for example, an Athens login. Therefore, engagement with policy, practice and theory, other than through official channels such as national consultations and Non Departmental Public Bodies’ (NDPB) web portals, may be with colleagues through moderated discussion boards maintained by some of the organisations within the present consensus, or via the, at-first-glance, anarchic and ‘exploded’ ‘social web’. Web searches for key phrases and concepts used in discourse often result in high rankings for stories, views, discussions and constructivist activities posted on the web by education professionals, which are not peer-reviewed in the traditional, academic sense. Knowledge, such as ‘good practice’, solutions, and individual voice, exists permanently online. There is no process towards a claim of knowledge other than through an individual’s self-censorship and consideration of audience.
For most, the main intersection between professionalism and practice is around CPD. CPD is a recent idea which originated and resides even now, as its change accelerates, in top-down implementation of national policy (Kennedy, 2008). Technology is part of the reason for the explosion in what is formally recognised or claimed as a mode of CPD by those who are from management and personnel disciplines (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2008). The widespread support for CPD and the present contractual requirement of 35 hours per annum may suggest that teachers are intrinsically life-long learners and recognise that they are trusted with improving learning and the competitiveness of society. Choice in CPD, often restricted by non-teaching managers, can be used to claim that we have ‘autonomous professionals’. In practice, restricted choice is likely to channel ideas into those which match up to, or interpret, active policy, with the decisions revolving around how to learn and which media to choose. CPD faces cynicism and rejection, not fundamental challenge to its function or presence. Having illustrated the present landscape, widely recognised by those within Scottish education, I now examine some professional spaces and activities which appear to be situated on the boundary between valid, purposeful action; conversation, and social interaction.
What is developing at a significant rate due to the advanced, widely available online media and communication tools, is continuous, ‘always on’ professional development or learning, which is more likely to be available at a time and place of one’s choosing. This approach sits outside of the workplace, with learning taking place in varied ways, across time zones and between individuals and organisations outside of the policy mix. This might be recognised as inter-subject or -discipline discourse, however it is not manipulable and sits beyond local emphasis, priorities and management, and educational definitions and paradigms of improvement, development and success.
Significant numbers of participants in the edonis research (Noble, 2009) describe themselves as being immersed in continual professional conversation. They describe a ‘personal learning network’ (PLN) (Siemens, 2004) where value is attached to connecting with those who: a) publicly engage in similar discourse within an aspect or aspects of teaching and learning, b) share artefacts for no charge, and c) engage in professional dialogue in an authentic, open, manageable, agenda-free social space (Noble, in press). The PLN may be relied-upon to support development and discharge of duties and be interacted with at a time and place of one’s choosing. Teachers are able to grow their PLN beyond those individuals who are employed by the same school, authority or organisation. Each network is different, with limitless variations in expectation, value, values and roles. Democratic, constructivist activity can take place, though it may be difficult to find agreement on concepts normally associated with democratic professionalism such as moral purpose and activism (Sachs, 2000). The PLN is a seductive metaphor which places the educator at the heart of their own online activity. Next, I refer to my comfortable, familiar participation in online activities and begin to question the potential privileging of digital artefacts arising from these types of activities.
An example of the shift in the generation and transfer of some professional knowledge is found in the digital artefacts and relations, including new hierarchies, formed and emerging since the burgeoning of ‘social web’ activities and possibilities. I have used the ‘social web’ for teaching, learning, and peer-to-peer professional development for four years, including: writing to weblogs, publishing podcasts, contributing to web conferences, and conversing through social (professional) networks. Such activity has led myself and others in the edonis research group to consider themselves as being ‘always on’ educationalists: filtering, consuming, ‘crowd sourcing’, and producing education-related online content. The disposition of this example of the transformative intellectual (Giroux, 2003) makes such educationalists comfortable with disruptive notions of ‘cloud’ activity (Christensen, Horn and Johnson, 2008); that which, public or private, is self-directed, carried out online, and occurs in new public spaces with new rules. This activity is unconstrained by the state and is outside of recent conceptions of social capital and the process of constructing it (Hargreaves, 2003). It also encompasses the idea of the knowledge worker in a knowledge economy (Blackler, 1995), in this case, prima facie, one of social entrepreneurship, eschewing ‘personal learning communities’ steered ‘from the top’ and economic accountability (Hargreaves, 2009).
In Scotland, there are around two hundred education professionals who regularly blog (Scotedublogs, 2009), with many times this number micro-blogging. Considering that a core of similar taxonomies and folksonomies exist across Western education systems, one must consider how many ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1983), national policy staff, civil servants, commercial learning organisations, clients, and stakeholders are referring to fluid learning and teaching concepts when publishing online. As soon as an individual searches for digitised, web-based data, they are presented with choices which will have been influenced by the unlimited and ongoing connections among education professionals who understand how to use aspects of the web to either promote themselves, or to collaborate, communicate and share with others they feel a connection with beyond previous boundaries of space, time, and discipline. The globalised development of web-based technologies, which allow educators who may not be expert in ICT to communicate freely online in numerous ways in unlimited spaces has implications for: the ways in which individual teachers will now conceive of their contractual and other CPD; the nature and extent to which guarantors of quality and improvement in schooling act; the ontology and epistemology of the profession; and changes in the nature of the teacher and their relationships with others involved in nurturing the child.
Why are education professionals sharing their work and communicating publicly; done in addition to their paid work? Publicly, the term “sharing” is often used, however it may be more akin to trading. This draws on the notion of ‘commodifiable knowledge’ (Knight, 2002). If networks grow around those who, whether or not they have ever had their work verified, tell stories with wide appeal and their creations are utilisable in current form by ‘street-level bureaucrats’, then web spaces associated with them will be closer to the top of popular education web searches.
When comparing with writing in ‘the academy’, it is important to recognise the forms of self-censorship evident in the writer. The teacher who blogs or who attempts to stimulate collaboration in spaces outside the boundaries of their familiar networks and workplaces, is starting with a blank sheet. Although such a creator will likely be influenced by perceptions of their intended audience or collaborators, and ‘footfall’ and reputation, there may be a need for some grounding in education theory and research, even if, say, the activity is constructivist and is based within networked activity. Universities, employers, NDPBs and the press have the resources (financial, personnel and through their presence in networks-with-power) to facilitate engagement and engage in discourse online themselves. Having established that public professional activity can and does occur in remote spaces; that the artefact is available for consumption by anyone with access to the web; and that there are implications for what is valued as good knowledge, I go on to critically examine, in particular, online activity which takes place beyond traditional conceptions of work in education.
I feel that there is an absence of reflexivity in what is written online. My intention is that this paper opens up free comment and discussion between those involved in disparate modes of discourse. The often narrative style of writing on an educator’s blog will be appealing to some readers who are not looking for more objective academic studies. However critical reading of self-published content may reveal that the writer has not attempted to be reflective, to triangulate evidence, or to consider alternative perspectives or explanations. Managerialist notions of professionalism are strong in relation to this type of activity by public sector educationalists, as across most of Scotland, guidelines, disciplinary action, absence of capacity-building and information restrictions communicate concerns around powerful groups being unable to control messages from education professionals who are conceived only as employees; implicitly too far down the hierarchy to be permitted to make any comment which may be perceived as being an official one.
One further factor which suggests that, in particular, online professional dialogue may not function directly as purposeful discourse is its nature. Traditionally in public spaces, disagreement, debate, criticism and revealing an adversary’s standpoint would be considered ethical as they would be used to advance an alternative theory or suggested course of action. Online, the network from which such activity originates or is situated may constrain such opportunity for discourse. The micro-community may use silo-ed language and discussions within the ‘echo-chamber’, which may draw out a widely-agreed standpoint, though one which hasn’t been exposed to others and which may already be too entrenched to encourage other networks, organisations and individuals to examine the development or issue. In relation to the classroom, with younger students ‘protected’ and unable to derive learning benefits through online, synchronous, constructivist spaces, and with questions over the potential for adding-value from investing time in building relationships with and then conversing online; panning nuggets of transferable practice and then implementing; there will be internal and external pressure to value very local knowledge and face-to-face relationships, ironically further undermining the value of national and international educational research to the individual classroom or school.
Professional codes and standards emphasise respect for all. This is partly related to social justice; however it is also to maintain collegiality and an outwardly consistent and consensual profession. The permanence of opinions made online multiply the potential for offending the person at whom a statement was directed. Others in that person’s micro-community, often with similar standpoints, may object by proxy, with either party having the power to cut-off public communication at a convenient time. Such potential for visible damage will not appeal to the many who have clearly considered this and who do not engage online, possibly using private back-channels and one-to-one physical encounters.
There are three further counterbalances to the perceived shift which appears to enable some teachers to find their voice on their own terms and to operate as an autonomous professional at times during the majority of their waking life away from the workplace. Firstly, the ‘social web’ does not appear to systematically enhance teaching, learning, and productivity (Luckin and BECTA, 2008). Multiple open desktop windows and multi-tasking elicit discomfort and work paralysis in many (Wallis, 2006). With this in mind, and a high degree of managerialism present in education, the ‘street-level bureaucrat’ will tend not to choose to work or learn in new or more productive ways; primarily as they have no desire to increase their workload or engage in social though purposeful conversation outside of their collegiate, but often highly engaged workplace (Lipsky, 1983).
There are claims that professional development can occur or exist and be transformative via online activity (Harwell, 2003). It may be helpful to consider the key concept of reflection and ask, when does the development or transformation take place? Is it the critical incident, which could occur within or during an online space? Is it following solitary reflection on the critical incident, or could it be as the theory, story or skills are deployed as part of the educator’s toolkit? This raises issues around not only when is professional development said or agreed to exist, but also what is its relation to the established aims of the enhancement of teaching and learning; and is the term CPD now too contested, broad and outside of the control of local authorities and the GTCS? Participants in, and consumers of, online activity and artefacts may be influenced by them, however at this point the professional is not coming up against individuals, institutions and networks with significant resources and power. However frustrating it may be to those who are now more informed than ever due to the ease of pulling information, comment and research from whichever strands of human existence, policy will still be finalised in time-limited, face-to-face and private, invitation only, meetings. It is this return to the as-yet-unchallenged power within Scottish schooling which leads me to consider where professionals’ use of the ‘social web’ might impact upon, or disrupt, policy and practice; in particular the Glow initiative.
In Scotland, analysis is required of such action by publicly-employed education professionals, as conversation, associations, creation of artefacts, and disturbance of hierarchical and moral authority presently buffets against: Governmentality (Foucault, 1991), national policies, Glow, codes of practice, prominent fears around use of the Web (General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2008), and the Leadership agenda (MacBeath, 1998). With the “annihilation of distance” by broadband connectivity (Peters, 2001:3), the notion of the ‘cloud professional’ as normative is developing, that is: socially-based, visible, and concerned for the advancement of learning, and benefits for their new communities, places and events. Free-choice over whom to partner, how to construct one’s online self, to whom to bestow leadership, and how to use time and space in a de-territorialised, information-soaked web (Tomlinson, 1999), places the educator and not the child at the centre; flying free of the homogenous conception of educators by policy-makers and systems by using personal communication and tools to nest projects.
Inherent tensions now exist if we consider how this neo-liberalism is extending into professionals’ choices around, for example, CPD. With the possibility of the state being irrelevant to many educators following publication of A Curriculum for Excellence (CfE); a Scottish Government document which emphasises teacher autonomy over the planning of learning which takes place in their setting (Scottish Government, 2008:11); a retreat to online peer groups and a reliance on their collective judgements and expertise may occur, with the network-as-market moderating and bounding behaviour and thought, and with participants feeling responsibility for meeting the needs of their communities or PLN.
This aspect of the ‘second modernity’ (Nowicka, 2006) reveals some further tensions. In their workplace, the professional is trusted by the state to: work towards outcomes and experiences; perform basic tasks without emotion and with the ‘child at the centre’; and ensure care, equality and equitable access to learning opportunities (General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2006, 2008). Self-surveillance is promoted through the internalisation of abundant centrally-written regulation and constant moving of targets (Ball, 2003). Such managerialism betrays a lack of confidence in the notion of the virtuous, moral professional and suggests that Lipsky’s ‘street-level bureaucrat’ will now be seen not only in the classroom, but also through the online actions of education professionals. Contrasting with the above, such activity will avoid the setting of targets, therefore online conversations and activity may be authentic but will not be measurable, as desired outcomes won’t have been defined. There may be dissolution of basic tasks whilst online, where, say, already undeveloped conscientisation around core values such as social justice may manifest itself in little effort to create, and make work, pluralist civic online spaces, with no barriers to entry, beyond educators’ ‘communities of practice’ or PLNs. It appears that, for some, externally set or assumed roles such as advancing social justice and widening participation can be fulfilled with inter-disciplinary discourse. However, several factors reveal that this approach could be seen as ‘street-level’ performativity (Ollin, 2005), with implications for the co-construction of knowledge and official efforts to promote online activities. ICT use beyond that for core work purposes is predominantly for entertainment (Livingstone and Bober, 2004). Also, like the evaluation of a curriculum initiative in a different local authority with different demographics, online artefacts can be seen as distant and irrelevant. Educators finding such a resource would be faced with similar questions about replicability, assumptions and trust.
The new work model or CPD of the interactive or hyperactive professional is: constructivist, without workplace walls; self-directed within standards and codes; blurs work, learning and entertainment; and is synonymous with relationships which are started, ended, or put into abeyance by the person, not the manager. Networks overlap with spikes of activity. Such focus might draw on the expertise or interest of a few individuals and may be followed by others. Codes such as language, social behaviour and procedures have needed to be learnt in order to contribute, therefore many educators choose not to take part and validate such practices. This can lead to the prominence of rhetoric-laden pronouncements from education agencies and educationists, possibly inducing cynicism from teachers, learners and others. Relevant here is the question of whether participating in the co-construction of artefacts online, using free- and open-to-access resources and spaces removes prior barriers to participation, creating new, possibly technological codes and converging or conflicting with definitions of professionalism, as stated by those with power in Scottish schooling. Finally, it is unclear whether there is a direct link between differentiated online activity and acquired or constructed knowledge of the educator, and the local knowledge that has always been used by the ‘street-level bureaucrat’ when allocating schooling resources (Lipsky, 1983: 77).
As described above, if one has been collaborating with one’s PLN, this is a type of professional action which may exclude those within one’s own organisation. Having earlier introduced the idea of how activity in the ‘social web’ has implications for educational knowledge, I now critically examine some particular spaces and activities, looking at the elevation of different skills and capacities within education professionals. It becomes possible that only knowledge which is searchable, tagable and quantifiable (ranked) will be ascribed value, and yet it is knowledge which does not have its basis in local or classroom activity and outcomes. Partly, this is due to the classroom, school and its actors being protected from the web and remaining invisible. One implication is that education professionals are able to bring truth claims to discourse despite limited methods of illustrating and validating them. The learners’ voice is not heard and the personalisation of pupils’ education is not extended to partnership in action research.
Glow is a managed environment where artefacts can be created by one or more people. Weblogs can be posted to, drawing on for example, experiences and inspiring stories from elsewhere. Chat conversations can be contributed to, followed and retained, and knowledge can be stored in a Glow Group and, to some extent, multimedia data can be uploaded onto the Glow server for limited access and publication. Those with a Glow log-in can, in principle, read widely and collaborate with anyone else who is logged in. There are a number of factors which may mean that useful data and knowledge won’t be transferred. Glow is a branded space that often contains prominent self-referential material. Managed by Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS), it retains a linear, structured, institutional, and pedagogic look and operation. For two groupings within Glow to link, for example science teachers and an environmental group providing CPD, a shared space, unaffected by power-relations, historically influenced mind-sets and taxonomies, would be required. The taxonomies and folksonomies seen within and around Glow are familiar, however. Language and codes will be traditional ones for entry into any existing educational space. As Glow is run by an NDPB at the heart of the policy mix in Scottish education, there may in the future be issues of trust over the use and ownership of data and artefacts. Online collaboration through official channels may provide those with power in Scottish education with data which can be used for research and consultation purposes. Questions arise from teachers over ownership of materials and ideas (Winton, 2009), and commercial, public and social enterprise organisations may consider the possible additional non-financial costs of, say, a web conference within Glow. Both will naturally compare such expectations and experiences with those from using free, ‘open-source’ tools commonly found on the web.
As different professionals inside Glow are working in a ‘walled garden’, any creation of text, audio or video which is published within Glow cannot be worked upon, discovered, questioned, ‘mashed up’, tagged, ranked or shared by almost the entire population of the world with online access. It appears that those with the skills and networks to publish material relevant to education professionals will remain attracted to the internationalist idea of the pursuit and elevation of global conversations and free movement of digitised resources. Many are aware that CPD with significant non-financial investment but no capital outlay is now established, enjoyed, and appears sustainable due to the ubiquity of new ICT.
Connections are made with those who have an interest in the tagged discipline, debate, or institution (Kamel Boulos and Wheeler, 2007). This is what can be seen or foreseen with the taxonomies and folksonomies within Glow. The ‘tabula rasa’ of a new weblog, online document or media creation, suggests possibilities for inter-authority, -agency, or -disciplinary work, however the ‘driver’ requires important capacities: the ability to convert complex, situated terminology and concepts into a common language and framework; critical understanding of Web 2.0, enabling the selection of tools which match the intended colleagues’ capacities; and personal ethics and morals which empathise with and respect the remote individuals and often never-known restrictions on participation, and which respects privacy, confidentiality and respect for voice.
Peer-reviewing of online artefacts presently sits outside of ‘the academy’ and network of powerful organisations. It can be done anytime, anywhere, by any party, providing they are online. The ‘open source’ ethic supports public discourse, however with the exception of some constructivist activity on wikis, almost all peer-reviewing follows publication; often in the form of leaving ‘comments’. There is an absence of public critical (discourse) analysis, which results in little rigour, contention and depth (De Moor and Efimova, 2004). Finally, I turn to managerialist conceptions of professionalism, which I earlier illustrated as remaining strong within Scottish schooling. Like autonomy and accountability, these new professional activities and managerial professionalism may be mutually exclusive.
The web allows for the unlimited, free sharing of ideas and resources. This is facilitating a further disruption. As with the act of blogging or use of online video as a pedagogic tool, such activity is creating a visible tension between notions of democratic and managerial professionalism. Full-time teachers (and learners) may only be within the confines of a school for around 27.5 hours per week (Scottish Government, 2001). Their employer has little way of influencing their professional activity outside of this. They cannot log, influence relationships, and monitor behaviour and performance in terms of national standards and the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2008). The 7.5 hours of ‘preparation and correction’ may need to be accounted for, though this would tend to be by outcome rather than process. Self-directed professionals are able to freely choose face-to-face, blended or online CPD; the last of which, due to the encroaching possibilities of ‘anytime, anywhere learning’, raises the idea, already relevant to many, of the ‘always on’ professional accessing continual professional development. As employers consider how to manage, rein-in, or benefit from such commitment and growth, as seen in attempted changes to Chartered Teacher and their role, the potential for conflict increases. One reason for this is that much professional action, recognised as such by other education professionals, may not derive any benefit to students and colleagues at the establishment in which one is employed.
Presently, such professional action may not satisfy performative criteria around academic notions of ‘reflection in action’ (Schön, 1983). However, what appears to be being satisfied is the other, managerialist notion of enhanced practice; including the sharing of ‘good practice’. These are claims of ‘good practice’, however, partly because of web restrictions and child and data protection, learners’ stories, voices or interpretations are rarely evident. Knowledge claims are open to falsification and fabrication and there is no stated methodology or supervision. Value collides with numbers, as is evident in scholarly work with the prominence of citation numbers in Google Scholar. Those with good digital literacy will consult numbers on sites such as Twitter, Technorati, Google Analytics and Rankings, iTunes, and Delicious to ‘crowd source’ the value of the individual, organisation or network behind the artefact. The democratic principle here that everyone can register their (dis)interest is seductive.
Presently, those textual and image creations by educators, acting independent of employers, in the form of blog posts, ‘updates’ and other artefacts, tend to reference and place value upon education technology. This is expected where associated tools and pedagogy fit globalised, heterogeneous approaches to schooling; where practice and access can be similar across the world due to the use of common ICT. A dichotomy exists here. It appears that online professional action of this nature may soon significantly expand as ICT use in classrooms and online learning grows due to the stretching of societies and networks, and the costs of operating physical spaces for learning-related activities rises, relative to that for online spaces. Any moves of this nature will be mirrored in changes to CPD. Possibly, more education professionals will choose to reflect, share, engage and promote their work online, either through creating their own spaces or by joining with similar, helpful others. Of course, they may write within a pre-fabricated and performative reflective tool designed to draw out data of use to national agencies and to assist the writer in evidencing their claim to professional status, in terms of exemplifying standards.
To conclude, several questions need to be considered if significant online activity continues or increases:
1) Where will those who manage teaching and learning position themselves? Will they move within or between networks and conversations; will they lurk, contribute by pseudonym or name their organisation; and act in a manner which validates the activity or artefact, and critically engages with it?
2) If teachers organise collectively, through democratic online processes, how will groups of them, a) handle web-based data which may elevate the voice and writings of those who promote, in particular, educational technology, and b) ensure that processes remain democratic and are socially-just, in terms of being in numerous spaces on- and off-line, including those of the contemporarily and traditionally excluded?
3) To what extent do education bloggers (unwittingly) align or value concepts, theories and terminology used by those with power, as they become more referred to, noticed, and commodifiable?
4) As public servants in a time of fragmented society, suspicion and antipathy towards work-related web access for the ‘street-level bureaucrat’, will the self-taught and -directed education professionals, a) be attracted to performative moves in relation to ICT use within the frameworks and publications of those agencies with power, possibly to the extent of referencing online activity for career progression, and b) move to protect their status as stakeholders emphasise the need for a direct return on education investment?
And finally,
5) What is meant by the term ‘learning space’? As it, like ‘capacity’, suggests vacuity and the need for something to be filled, are there more helpful, differentiating metaphors which take into account power, artefacts, relationships, and variety of contemporary settings?
Bibliography
Ball, S. J. 2003. The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity Journal of Education Policy. 18(2), p215–228
Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation. Organization Studies. 16(6), p1021-1046
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. 2008. Disrupting Class: Howe Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. McGraw-Hill: New York
De Moor A., and Efimova, L. 2004. An Argumentation Analysis of Weblog Conversations. In Rutgers University, 9th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling. New Brunswick, NJ June 2-3 2004. Rutgers University: New Jersey [Online] Available at http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aakhus/lap/Moor_Efimova.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2009]
Foucault, M. 1991. 'Governmentality', trans. R. Braidotti and revised by C. Gordon, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, eds The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, p87–104. University of Chicago Press: Chicago
General Teaching Council for Scotland. 2006. Standard for Full Registration [Online] GTCS: Edinburgh (published December 2006) Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47063/0023829.pdf[Accessed 23 May 2009]
General Teaching Council for Scotland. 2008. Code of Professionalism and Conduct [Online] GTCS: Edinburgh (published 2008) Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47063/0023829.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2009]
General Teaching Council for Scotland. 2009. Two major conferences promote teacher professionalism [Online] GTCS: Edinburgh (published Available at http://tinyurl.com/hargreaves01 [Accessed 13 May 2009]
Gillies D. 2008 The Politics of Scottish Education. In T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, eds Scottish Education – 3rd Edition – Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University: Edinburgh. Ch.8
Giroux, H. 2003. Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals. In A. S. Canestrari, B. A. Marlowe, eds Educational foundations: an anthology of critical readings. SAGE Ch 21. [Online] Available at http://tinyurl.com/kvdr3k [Accessed 1 June 2009]
Hargreaves, A. 2003. Teaching in the knowledge society: education in the age of insecurity [Online] Teachers College Press Available at http://tinyurl.com/hargreaves02 [Accessed 20 May 2009]
Hargreaves, A. 2008. The Fourth Way of Change: Towards an Age of Inspiration and Sustainability. In A. Hargreaves and M. Fullan, eds Change Wars. Solution Tree: Bloomington Ch.1
Hargreaves, A. 2009. Professional Culture in the Teaching Profession in Scotland. GTC Scotland and the Scottish Government National Education Conference. Presentation 28th May 2009 Stirling Management Centre [Online] GTCS: Edinburgh Available at http://tinyurl.com/hargreaves03 [Accessed 14th June 2009]
Harwell, S. H. 2003. Teacher Professional Development: It’s Not an Event, It’s a Process [Online] CORD Available at http://tinyurl.com/harwell [Accessed 1 May 2009]
Kamel Boulos, M. N. and Wheeler, S. 2007. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 24(1), p2–23
Kennedy A. 2008 The Professional Development of Teachers. In T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, eds Scottish Education – 3rd Edition – Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University: Edinburgh. Ch.93
Knight, P. 2002. A systemic approach to professional development: learning as practice Teaching and Teacher Education. 18(3), p229-241
Learning and Teaching Scotland. 2008. What is a Mode? [Online] LTS: Glasgow (Updated 5 October 2008) Available at
http://ltsblogs.org.uk/cpdanswers/2008/10/05/what-is-a-mode [Accessed 13 June 2009]
Lipsky, M. 1983. Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York
Livingstone, S. and Bober, M. 2004. UK children go online: surveying the experiences of young people and their parents [Online]. LSE Research: London [Online] (Updated 1 September 2008) Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000395 [Accessed 2 June 2009]
Luckin, R. and BECTA. 2008. Learners' use of Web 2.0 technologies in and out of school in Key Stages 3 and 4 [Online] BECTA (Updated July 2008) Available at http://tinyurl.com/becta01 [Accessed 30 May 2009]
MacBeath, J. 1998. Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change. SAGE
Noble, D. 2009 edonis project interviews [Online] Ning (Updated 15 June 2009) Available at http://edonis.ning.com/ [Accessed 3 June 2009]
Noble, D. (in press) How are those learning professionals participating in the edonis project using the social web for professional development and to enhance teaching and learning?
Nowicka, M. 2006. Mobility, Space and Social Structuration in the Second Modernity and Beyond. Mobilities. 1(3), p411–435
Ollin, R. 2005. Professionals, Poachers or ‘street-level’ bureaucrats: government policy, teaching identities and constructive subversions. In J. Satterthwaite and E. Atkinson eds Discourses of education in the age of new imperialism. Trentham Books
Peters, M. 2001. National education policy constructions of the ‘knowledge economy’: towards a critique. Journal of Educational Enquiry. 2(1), p1-22
Sachs, J. 2000. The Activist Professional. Journal of Educational Change 1(1), p77-95
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. Temple Smith: London
Scotedublogs. 2009. Scotedublogs Statistics [Online] Available at http://www.scotedublogs.org.uk/stats [Accessed 10 May 2009]
Scottish Government. 2001. A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century: Agreement reached following recommendations made in the McCrone Report. [Online] Scottish Government: Edinburgh (Updated 4 December 2006) Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/01/7959/File-1 [Accessed 29 April 2009]
Scottish Government. 2008. Curriculum for Excellence: Building the Curriculum 3 – a framework for teaching and learning. [Online] Scottish Government: Edinburgh Available at http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/Images/building_the_curriculum_3_jms3_tcm4-489454.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2009]
Scottish Government. 2009. Towards an Independent General Teaching Council for Scotland: Consultation on the future status of the GTCS. [Online] Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/01102731 [Accessed 5 June 2009]
Siemens, G. 2004. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. elearnspace. [Online] Scottish Government: Edinburgh (Updated 2 April 2009) Available at http://tinyurl.com/siemens2004 [Accessed 4 June 2009]
Tomlinson, J. 1999. Globalization and Culture. Polity Press: Cambridge
Wallis, C. 2006. The Multitasking Generation. [Online] Time.com (Updated 19 March 2006) Available at http://tinyurl.com/timemulti [Accessed 3 May 2009]
Winton, N. 2009. Is the glow dimming? [Online] (Updated 8 April 2009) Available at http://nwinton.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/is-the-glow-dimming [Accessed 12 May 2009]
Monday, 20 April 2009
edonis project - research ethics (1 of 3)
The edonis project commenced in November 2008, during the taught phase of my professional doctorate (EdD) at the
- Encouraged to sign-up and engage with the research networking site (http://edonis.ning.com). Around three-quarters have done so
- asked to partly plan (and in 10 instances have already recorded and even published) a single interview to be carried out by me before late-2011
- sent Parts 1-6 of a ten-part block of online surveys which will draw to a close before November 2009.
Due to the methodology and timing of commencement of the research, and iterative developments to the research question and approaches to engagement with participants and data collections, I will be publishing updates every six months following meetings with my thesis supervisor (as yet unappointed) and engagement with edonis participants.
Having recently read SERA (2005), BERA (2004, 2008), and ESRC (2006) publications on research ethics for Professor Morwenna Griffiths' course on Qualitative Analysis on the EdD, it is fundamental (despite there being no present compulsion or threat of sanctions) for me to critically understand and where necessary respond to in terms of my future actions and attitudes within the edonis project, to ensure that, a) participants are generally happy to continue to take part, and b) I am upholding the professionalism of the educational researcher.
In additional to the outline, above, of the series of online surveys and the seventy or so research interviews, which span Years 1-3, Year 2 will comprise: a) a hypermedia ethnographical study and critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the content of blog posts by those edonis participants who have indicated that they blog within education and learning, and b) a literature review. The plan for Year 3 is to: interrogate contemporary concepts, theories and paradigms from my literature review by exposing them to the research participants; survey, to gather some late data on general changes in participants’ engagement (or not) with the social web; a focus group (on-, and off-line) to discuss the findings of the edonis project and possible implications.
Some relevant issues have been brought to attention through my reading and interpretation of these three prominent ethical guidelines. However, as no children or vulnerable adults are involved in my research, and the research is not medically-related, the edonis project should not require detailed, higher-level consideration with an ethics committee. However, I must exhibit and maintain research and ethics competence, and due to the iterative development of my methodology, I will need to regularly reflect on the nature of my research, the operation of the online network site, and my conduct.
I will need to maintain integrity through professional relationships and, or particular interest and consideration, my published thesis should make “a worthwhile contribution to the quality of education in our society.” (SERA, 2005: i) My expectations are that this work will a) benefit the individual learning professional by providing them with knowledge and experiences which will help them to make more efficient use of their online professional activities, and b) benefit those who are involved in the provision of traditional and new approaches to CPD.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Glow and education policy (an EdD paper)
This paper assumes that as Glow is a ‘travelling’ policy (Alexiadou and Jones, 2001) within Scotland and internationally, it will remain a ‘going concern’ for some time. Alexiadou and Jones partly define ‘travelling’ policy in terms of common agendas. Due to international interest, the idea of Glow (as a national intranet) will travel. In contrast, within Scotland Glow is an embedded policy, as it is a national policy moving into local (authority) spaces, colliding with existing policy and practice. Therefore many people and numerous organisations will wish to see, and be involved in, the development of it. These include: The Scottish Government, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla), LTS, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMiE), Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES).
Through this paper, I will show the ways in which ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1980) such as LTS staff and teachers are, or might be, conceived of in the processes and networks which implement the policy. Lipsky defines ‘street-level bureaucrats’ as those individuals working in:
"schools, police and welfare departments, lower courts, legal services offices, and other agencies … (who) have wide discretion over the dispensation of benefits or the allocation of public sanctions." (Lipsky, 1980:xi).
I include in this definition those staff at LTS who work daily with education service users, for example teachers and pupils, rather than engaging with civil servants and others within traditional policy networks. I work with this split throughout this paper, accepting that the division of LTS in this way is contestable. I will explore the capacity of teacher researchers to lead the research and dialogue around future versions of our national education intranet, based upon experiences of Glow users and non-users. This would offer alternatives to normative consultation processes deemed by the Scottish Government, LTS and other non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to be an acceptable, efficient method of informing and developing a policy and resource. This is important as Glow will be a tool for changing teaching and learning in classrooms, schools, virtual and others spaces; and for social justice and equality in all service provision, including in other areas of the public sector.
As a Chartered Teacher and emerging researcher who is passionate about exploring the potential, boundaries, limitations and futures of new technologies and means of communication, I am drawn to spaces and activities which are intended to foster networks beyond past restrictions of time, cost and distance (Berry et al, 2007). I am aware that there remain hierarchies within the management of Scottish education, all of which ‘look up’; that is they focus on relationships with the Scottish Government and the implementation of its education policies (Humes, 2008). Humes, while illustrating this point throughout, does at the same time develop an alternative perspective. This partially explains policy making through “policy communities”, with a broad membership, including implementers of policy such as Lipsky’s ‘street level bureaucrats’. I will argue that this conception of policy making needs to be better recognised by those managing Glow.
I use Glow to explore the ‘implementation gap’ in policy which exists across Scottish schooling and which threaten the expected benefits arising from a period of consensus across those bodies and organisations which, prior to the globalising effects of new communications, were key to policy development and implementation. Dale (1999:1) develops and compares eight mechanisms associated with “globalization effects on national policy”: “borrowing, learning, teaching, harmonization, dissemination, standardization, installing interdependence and imposition”; all of which will change the relationship of LTS staff to policy implementation and their relationship with other learning professionals. I now outline what presently pre-occupies the Scottish Government when formulating policy and ensuring openness and democracy.
Scotland has been autonomous since 1707 and Patterson (1997) shows how it has constructed itself, through for example its permanent public bodies, as an enlightened, rational, pragmatic, and homogenous nation and state. The state is pluralist and conveys values of egalitarianism, social justice and meritocracy in the interests of Scotland (Patterson, 1997:141). The technocratic, nation-centred networks which have traditionally governed reveal where the power lies in what has become a corporatist state, (Patterson, 1997:143) where democratic rights and processes are evident, though popular participation in directing the advancement of society is not. Patterson writes of a “silent nationalism” for which he sees little basis or reason to continue (Patterson, 1997:139). The national education project, which centres on the improvement of teaching and learning, has been guided by permanent public bodies such as: Scottish Education Board (SEB), Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum (SCCC), and HMiE. Latterly, as Western nations moved from Government to governance (Rhodes, 1997) and Scotland chose to develop its own legislature, policies of elected administrations are implemented by ‘arms-length’ agencies; in Scotland often by NDPBs such as LTS. Rhodes writes about the relevance of policy networks and their relationship with the “core executive”. His work develops the metaphor of the “hollowed-out” state (Rhodes, 1997: 17) and of “differentiated polity” (Rhodes, 1997: 7). He states that the term “governance’ has too many meanings to be useful, though he himself attempts a definition:
"(G)overnance refers to self-organizing, interorganizational networks characterized by interdependence, resource exchange, rules of the game and significant autonomy from the state." (Rhodes, 1997: 15)
Adding to this conception of ‘policy community’ is Trowler’s shifting, multiple networks of individuals and organisations; informal and formal; from the civil service to the ‘street level’; which are embedded in ‘policy mess’ (Trowler, 2002). This helps by moving us away from the normative, non-existent ‘policy cycle’ referred to as a framework for policy formulation and implementation; claimed to be open and democratic and which draws upon devices such as public sector consultations and National Debates. Formal policy networks consist mainly of public sector organisations which are directly funded by the Scottish Government or have long become familiar, with members crossing between or being members of other network constituents (Humes, 2008). An administration will: attempt to act on their manifesto; be influenced by dominant ideologies within their party; set course based upon international comparators compiled by the Office for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and in education, the Timms and Pisa reports; and work with and towards the National Performance Framework (NPF), comprising national outcomes, indicators and targets. Within the present globalist trend and in particular with European integration, the principle of subsidiarity has helped to validate a conservative consensual polity which maintains the ‘Scottish interest’ (Humes, 1986). Wenger (2000:228) provides an interesting explanation of why the notion of ‘national interest’ may endure:
"(T)hinking of ourselves as a member of a community such as a nation requires an act of imagination because we cannot engage with all our fellow citizens. These images of the world are essential to our sense of self and to our interpretation of our participation in the social world."
LTS, funded directly by the Scottish Government and run by a proxy, the Advisory Board, are charged with implementing policies such as ‘A Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE) and previously ‘Assessment is for Learning’ (AifL) (Roebuck, 2008:173). Humes (1986:71) suggests (predating LTS, of course) that senior officers in such organisations are part of the “’assumptive world’ of officialdom”, that is they have formalised relationships with other bodies close to the Scottish Government and who exist to improve Scottish education. LTS promote new curricula, technology and pedagogy, and in carrying out research, they, like other NDPBs, are pre-occupied with evidence-based policy and practice with some international comparison and future-gazing. Thomas and Pring (2004) criticise the idea that advancing one policy rather than another, based on this approach, will improve teaching and learning, and outcomes. They show that knowledge produced systematically and scientifically is more likely to count as knowledge than evidence from, say, a staff room. The challenge, they say, is how to synthesise personal, craft, and scientific knowledge, reflexively. This is a challenge which I will later argue can be tackled by teacher researchers.
I intend to draw upon forces which I will argue are strong enough to disrupt the dominant social construction of policy cycle within education. Possible futures will be interrogated, accepting the following assumptions: Scotland retains political control over education; LTS continues as the main body for implementing government policy on 3-18 teaching and learning; and that Scotland’s education intranet (presently Glow) continues to be operational. Central government, the civil service, and national bodies have tried to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity refers to Scotland rather than the UK in relation to European Union law and policy. However, Rhodes (1997) writes of post-bureaucratic governance in a centre-less society. The state retains the legitimate monopoly on coercive power over a performance framework based on outcomes. However there is a recent further shift in local governance. Across the NPF, local authorities have discretion over how to meet Scottish Government targets following the 2007 concordat between the Scottish Government and local government (Scottish Government, 2007). Less funding from the centre is ‘ring fenced’ and we may see thirty-two variations in timescales and approaches to the implementation of national education policies. It is possible that non-mandated policies such as Glow will not be seen as a priority by some within Cosla. LTS are presently going through a Public Sector Review, following which their relationships with local authorities may continue to refocus. Restrictions on their welfarist system of support, with blanket coverage, may lead to an increase in service agreements with individual authorities, disseminating evidence-based practice and supporting implementation of those aspects of policies which the local authority have decided will support the meeting of outcomes, and which are now set across departments and functions.
We need to study the contemporary and shifting conception of those within Scottish education, whom Lipsky would refer to as ‘street level bureaucrats’. This is necessary during the present period of perceived great change, with CfE and what I expect will be moves towards a requirement of teachers to use the Glow portal. The recent Consultation on the Revised Standard for Chartered Teacher; the professions new Code of Professionalism and Conduct; and HMiE’s How Good Is Our School? The Journey to Excellence: Part 3, each refer to significant national education policies, developments and initiatives in the main body of the document or exemplification within. I foresee that as Glow use becomes more prevalent and therefore necessary within the public sector, there will be moves to refer to Glow in such standards and performance management documents, alongside existing references to, for example CfE, formative assessment and citizenship. Discourse, language and codes may appear inauthentic (Rhodes, 1997) and a policy gap between the expectations and rhetoric of LTS and continuing school practices may open up.
There are many recent and seconded teachers working for LTS and on the Glow project. They work with teachers, pupils, Implementation Officers, Quality Improvement Officers (QiOs) and others, and like them, contribute to informal policy networks and therefore policy implementation. ‘Street level’ learning professionals, as individuals, are relatively free to deploy, distort, ignore or ameliorate government or workplace policy (Lipsky, 1980). Lipsky characterises such bureaucrats as retaining a public sector ideal though with limited time, information and resources. Their interest in initiatives like Glow will not, by coincidence, match those of management within LTS or other bodies with national power or interest, and as such these professionals “allocate social values but don’t define objectives” (Lipsky, 1980:81). They are not invited to engage with long-standing approaches to policy development and implementation therefore there is little incentive, at a time of budgetary freeze, to make clients’ needs primary or improve the product or service (which would result in an increase in workload (Lipsky, 1980:100)). Therefore, the service ideal is aspirational and we see the use of rhetorical language such as “Excellence” and a reliance on positive studies of implementation. Formal language around education policy is not neutral and is used for capturing discourse (Humes, 2008:74). Normative arguments appear on education websites and in print, and change is bounded by direction, imagined futures and possibilities (Clarke and Newman, 1997).
Taking Lipsky’s (1980) assertion that ‘street level bureaucrats’ possess only a local consciousness, learning professionals can be seen as individuals, each of whom has the power to make discretionary judgements. These may be based upon individuals’ notions of professionalism and professional action. This discretion is possible because of relatively little surveillance of action and that traditionally,
"Public sector bureaucracies are organised so that clients have little knowledge of others in the same position." (Lipsky, 1980:117)
One increasingly prevalent managerialist shift, which curtails the individual and collective power of the ‘street level bureaucrat’ and, prima facie, should ensure the internalising of policy, is that to a standards-based profession. Recently revised standards by the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), now formally independent of the Scottish Government, are illustrated by acts of implementation of national education and wider social policy. This move exemplifies the place of, in particular, teachers in the constructed policy cycle. Teachers, whether as individuals or groups, are invited to respond to a formulated consultation process, with the same access to spaces and time as individuals or groups in wider society. The questions and stimuli, as well as the performativity which bounds everyday professional action, values and knowledge (Ozga, 2008), guide responses to present contours within routinised spaces (Lipsky, 1980). Teachers and ‘street level’ LTS staff will be privileged in, for example, the impending consultation of Glow version 2, insofar as they will be more likely to have access to codes, networks, language and histories than other stakeholders in, and users of, Glow. This advantage will shortly be lost. Global information and communication technologies which allow broadband access to the World Wide Web; the application and admission of significant numbers of public, private and voluntary organisations to Glow; and national and local government internal re-organisation which has integrated education with often two or more functions, means that traditional educators, challenged to improve teaching and learning, attainment, and ultimately comparative performance, will not be privileged or be allowed to formally develop policy. However, there is a significant concomitant shift in notions of teacher professionalism.
Significant numbers of teachers are engaged in post-registration study at Masters level and above, often as part of Standards–focused professional development (Scottish Executive 2002, 2006). I will develop how teachers might work with LTS, and how authentic collegiality and collaboration may become more prevalent, visible and influential. Teaching is publicly regarded and spoken of as a profession, and in Scotland all of our teachers are graduates. With A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century, the ‘McCrone Agreement’, teachers have committed themselves to continuing professional development (CPD) and this has invigorated, for example, provision of post-graduate and professional qualifications. If we assume that increasingly the profession will be engaging with theory and research, and will be writing about education and learning, then there is dynamism and a dynamic that could be more widely recognised and engaged with. Additionally, it is widely recognised that classroom practitioners have adopted many of the principles of AifL, possibly as the benefits to teachers and learners can be more intrinsic and meaningful than summative assessment (Hayward, 2007). Action research is a key component of AifL. Later, I will develop how this experience and expertise might be drawn upon.
LTS could reconceptualise the teaching profession and other ‘street level bureaucrats’ within education. A key reason for doing so would be to improve and extend policy which: raises attainment; is recognised as improving teaching and learning; supports LTS’s vision and international visibility as ‘change agents’ and their desire for legitimacy through a more ‘arms length’ relationship with the civil service and Scottish Government (Roebuck, 2008:182); and continues the move from rationist to incrementalist policy development, leading to ‘network policy making’. This will be shown to be attractive to LTS when considering the impact of the concordat.
Firstly here I will interrogate the idea of the teaching profession becoming central researchers on or for policy. At this stage, I will introduce my forecast of what may develop should the nature of discourse, and wider communication between the state and ‘street level’ remain unchanged. To begin, I look at what is known about Glow and how it has been implemented as we move towards version 2. Glow is a non-mandated national education policy initiative. The idea was conceived of early in the life of LTS and has developed through many formal and informal networks, including those involving key, charismatic LTS staff. The innovation stage overlapped with the forming relationship with commercial IT company, RM. Like AifL and CfE, Glow has not been born from national consultation, popular demand or from those in the education system, or from users. LTS are supporting those local authorities who have chosen to ‘roll out’ access to the portal and to support their employers, service users and others to use some or all of the learning environment. Through live and online events such as the Scottish Learning Festival, LTS are at the forefront of administrative implementation. Traditional policy networks have not engaged with Glow to the same extent as other policies coming direct from the Scottish Government. Therefore we have a time-lag in terms of its uptake by HMiE, SQA and the wider civil service, in addition to piecemeal implementation across local authorities. The programmatic approach to Glow can be seen through: it being the focus of this year’s Scottish Learning Festival; through consultation with users, agencies and RM on how the portal can better meet needs and wants; by the utilisation of some of the latest ICT; and the granting of permissions to, and facilitation of, Glow Groups. It is possible that it will become a public good with all public bodies providing direct access to each other and each user. Spaces may be granted which may lead to inter-agency discourse and services. Adults and children may enjoy personalised learning and service. However this packaged and managed proxy of the World Wide Web is being engineered into place, with an ongoing debate as to the uses and benefits of Glow. This is inevitable if we think in post-modern terms of multiple realities and divergent interpretations with respect to all public policy and how such a way of enabling potentially millions of connections might meet the needs of a heterogeneous schooling system.
In their support role, LTS staff need to be aware of how their activities and circumstances can affect the policy, however it will be difficult to establish methodologies for recognising and validating impact on attitudes, system, practices and outcomes. Unless part of the research ‘for’ or ‘on’ policy, they may not have a legitimate role or voice in assisting implementation. There exists the possibility of using or generating social data through Glow which could be aggregated; of recognising social exclusion and acting upon it; and of avoiding user costs (Lipsky, 1980) by providing continuous real-time support up and down hierarchies. However present LTS Glow activity matches the working conditions of LTS staff, many of whom have well established work patterns. Such ‘street level bureaucrats’ have some discretion over which individuals and organisations are provided with log-in and other administrator rights. There is an absence of advocacy on behalf of many children who are ‘look after and accommodated’, and their teachers and other key adults who are in publicly funded provision but who do not have access to Glow, despite this cohort being privileged within the NPF. That this anomaly was not spotted during contract negotiations and remains unaddressed deep into formal implementation and the establishment of multiple, varied networks around the policy, is deeply concerning. Equitable access to Glow is something to which I will return.
How might future policy processes involving LTS utilise Glow? Firstly, LTS have formed a number of Glow Groups along existing taxonomies. This mirrors the long-standing segregation and categorising of educators, and imitates existing power relations and networks. This may interfere with other policies and projects with objectives to remove traditional and unnecessary barriers. National Glow Groups, many of which are discipline-specific, have been set up by LTS staff, though it is doubtful that resources will exist to facilitate them to the extent that participants sustain the group, as successfully occurred with the well-resourced Heads Together online community. Next, I examine to what extent individuals within Glow Groups might make or advise policy. If LTS can attract a range of learning stakeholders and Glow users into Glow Groups, there will be seams of data to be harvested either directly by LTS staff as participant observers or as a result of asserting rights over data generated through discussions, surveys, or class work within the portal.
Globalisation leads to a collapse in time, space and distance (Giddens, 1994). We will see more ‘mode 2’ knowledge; that which is produced in everyday social interactions and practices, as opposed to ‘mode 1’ knowledge which is more formal, research-based knowledge, often set within a discipline. This move is necessary if we recognise that the policy cycle and linearity from policy to practice does not exist nowadays, and especially so several years after broadband internet access has became widely available to homes and education establishments, and the first 'social web' tools were developed. Learning professionals around the world are creating and consuming content and engaging in conversations, often with many peers at the same time. Spaces exist, or are created, for education issues, national policies, pedagogy, research, resources, ideas and tools. Wenger's 'communities of practice' exist in private and public online spaces; some facilitated by state education agencies, some by learning professionals who have identified an often micro focus. Gillies (2008:80) wrote of education being subject to debate and dispute. Traditional hierarchies, networks and policy processes are disrupted, along with notions of how policy 'travels'. One recent international focus of LTS, following from relative positions in the OECD's league tables, has been to examine what makes Finland's education system perform so well. A significant reason for this focus is that the main aim of national education systems and formal policy changes within, have always been and continue to be, an increase in comparative GDP. There is an incompatibility between a government's conception of teachers, pupils and others as a key component in economic performance, and the way that technologies enable those within an education system to subvert, be creative with, restrict, and act upon policy. Case studies about Finnish education on the LTS website and workshops at the Scottish Learning Festival enable the transfer of policy, though predominantly in one direction. However, a learning professional in Scotland who is inspired to implement aspects of the Finnish system are able to network, collaborate with, influence and construct with others; Finnish, Scottish and from elsewhere, through free technologies such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, web conferencing, discussion boards, and some of the communication tools within Glow such as Glow Meet and Glow Groups. Extending this, we can state that all citizens are now able to share views and discuss government policy in many more ways than government facilitated or informal face-to-face encounters.
What I have outlined above indicates that in public spaces there is unlikely to be consensus on what policy looks like, how it can be utilised, and where it is heading. Individuals, children and adults, will be discussing their experiences of Glow within the portal and in many other spaces. I will now detail how this environment provides an opportunity for LTS to show that they are innovative and promote innovation, ensuring their legitimacy among a burgeoning number and variety of users and stakeholders. LTS should consider one primary policy function to be the creation, ongoing facilitation, situation within, and promotion of spaces, time periods and networks. There needs to be an awareness that those within a formal education system live and communicate mostly outside of it. I am turning to a conception of individuals who, while often grounded in traditional organisations, shift at will from multiple temporary networks to others (Scheer and Nüttgens, 1999:14). These individuals are also actors, involved in negotiating spaces, language and other codes. The 'street level bureaucrats' within LTS should focus on developing tools and spaces which minimise the barriers to participation, and encourage discourse between individuals. Such a change in role could result in the creation of more negotiated knowledge, sharing of multiple realities, and accumulation of knowledge. Users of Glow would be better able to communicate with others when sharing or requiring knowledge, skills and help. There would always be someone 'on', at any time of the day or week. Therefore individuals' use of Glow would fit with the prevalent desire for 'anytime, anywhere' activity. This occurs beyond traditional work patterns in the public sector and personalises the potential teaching and learning benefits, moving away from the limits imposed by the 'street level bureaucrat's' tendency for routine and simplification. The costs to the user of seeking assistance are reduced, and there is less of a limit on time and information (Lipsky, 1980:29). There is a movement away from local knowledge and rhetoric will dissolve, replaced by new objectives and applications of the original, central vision; observable by LTS if they are present in the new spaces. For LTS, consultation changes to observation.
One earlier concern was the conventional use of data and technologies for political arithmetic and monitoring and control, such as highlighting the number of ‘hits’ on the Glow portal. Policy measures “tend to lag innovation” (Power, 2004:777) as measurement functions to “classify, represent and intervene in organisational activity” (Power, 2004:767). They don’t reveal things as they are. Opening the ‘black box’ of the portal and seeing the day-to-day innovation, learning new metaphors and even deprofessionalised language, and exposing themselves to tacit knowledge and judgements, could undoubtedly be transformative, however the qualitative data collected will be more difficult to aggregate.
This benefit leads me to expand upon my conception of teachers as a collection of individuals who are more likely to be committed to social justice and research, influenced by their earlier career choice and freely-chosen continuing professional and academic journey, in addition to professional standards and codes through which they are managed by their peers, employers and the state. What I have outlined so far has the potential to strengthen participative democracy, with Glow offering an approach for wider government. As I have shown, teachers cannot be privileged within traditional consultation. However, they could be vital to transforming LTS into a social learning system within a broader learning system (Wenger, 2000:226). I identify three changes which would enable competence and experience to converge (Wenger, 2000:233), fostering belonging, a deep sense of community, and joint enterprise where “perspectives meet and new opportunities arise” (Wenger, 2000:233). Firstly, it requires the civil service to recognise the research skills and capacities of teachers who have a Masters qualification. Secondly, that teachers are close to the ideology of social justice and equality, and that capacity can be built to ensure that citizens, including children are able to use new spaces and technologies, and that their knowledge and codes are visible. Finally, the constellation of ‘personal learning networks’ (Fisch, 2008) individually managed by significant numbers of Scottish-based learning professionals and which includes trustful relationships with peers across the world, should be recognised and connected with. In a post-concordat system we may find thirty-two diverging schooling systems. There will be pressure on LTS’s in-house research team to work across new boundaries, where there is a focus on national outcomes rather than programme evaluation. There is a code of conduct for social researchers, though as Glow is not presently a key Scottish Government policy there is an opportunity for Masters graduates to produce research which is timely, relevant, high quality, credible, and user-friendly. We are recognising the research capacity of teacher practitioners who have experience of carrying out small-scale research. Being trusted, motivated and objective, they could build relationships with Glow users and others. The focus would be negotiated between LTS and the teacher researcher. They might interpret evidence, undertake research, disseminate findings, and engage with experts. It would require such teachers: to be supervised and have their capacity further developed; receive further professional or academic credit; and to be conceived of as strategic participants in. Based on recent publications, I believe that HMiE and GTCS would welcome this, although teaching unions may feel that their influence is threatened. Returning to the lack of a code of conduct for such researchers, Griffiths argues that educational research must be primarily for social justice (Griffiths, 1998). There is a history of teachers and researchers in Scotland acting as agents for social justice, such as ensuring minimum guarantees to education, mobility and access. Presently, with LTS’s focus on programme implementation, there is yet to emerge a critique of Glow on social justice or equity grounds, other than in terms of until recently, perceived disadvantages faced by pupils and staff in local authorities which had not ‘signed-up’. As education and policy merge with other state provision and discourse, and Glow implementation timescales continue to vary, there will be issues around, for example, access to public resources to which Glow users or certain Glow Groups have more direct access compared to those who cannot or do not access the portal.
My final point relates to the place of new networks, partly facilitated by new online technologies. Ewan McIntosh, former National Adviser for Learning and Technology Futures, inspired hundreds of teachers to engage with colleagues beyond traditional boundaries. Many teachers are taking responsibility for their own professional development and some are creating and participating in online spaces and networks using free online tools and often without the support of national education organisations. LTS employees, sometimes in a work capacity, post on their own or others educators’ blogs, wikis and online documents, and participate in virtual or live discussions and events. There is exposure to international developments, presently often relating to education technology. Although there is great diversity in discipline, setting and stage of career of these educators, there are codes, tools, ways of learning, and histories which need to be revealed to someone wishing to join these associated communities, spaces and personal learning networks. There is open-source discourse (Van den Booman and Schafer, 2005) with no stated hierarchy and an emphasis on sharing, informality, innovation, technological advancement and support. Many non-Scottish educators know about and regularly interrogate Glow through these channels. There is an ethos of expertise and goodwill. The participants in these fluid, temporal spaces are comfortable with the nature of many educational technologies and the impact on pedagogy and professionalism. They want to see Glow succeed. With trust, truth, openness and reciprocity, LTS could ask of and support such people to build success criteria, compare similar portals around the world, and continue to roam at the outposts, “making connections, moving knowledge, bringing back news, and explaining” (Wenger, 2000:233).
"To deliver street-level policy through bureaucracy is a contradiction." (Lipsky, 1980: 71)
In education technology terms, Glow is unique and is internationally acclaimed as innovative. LTS and its staff have a window of opportunity to work with all of us involved in Scottish education to show how public policy implementation and development can be further democratised. How long this window remains open is primarily dependent upon the relevance, responsiveness and ownership of Glow to teachers.
Bibliography
Alexiadou, N. and Jones, K., 2001. Travelling Policy/Local Spaces, Congrés Marx International 111, Paris, September 2001.
Berry, B., Norton, J. and Byrd, A., 2007. Lessons from Networking. Leadership, 65(1) p48-52, ASCD: Alexandria
Connell, J. 2009. Glow Reaches 32/32 [Online] (Updated 27 Feb 2009). Available at http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=2040 [Accessed 1 Mar 2009]
Dale, R. 1999. Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy. 14(1), p1-17
Fisch, K. 2008. My Personal Learning Network. Learning and Leading with Technology. 35(6), p17
Giddens, A. 1994. Beyond Left and Right. Polity: Cambridge
Gillies, D. 2008 The Politics of Scottish Education. In T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, eds Scottish Education – 3rd Edition – Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University: Edinburgh. Ch.8
Glow Scotland. 2009. About Glow [Online]. Available at http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/glowscotland [Accessed 15 Feb 2009]
Griffiths, M. 1998 Educational Research for Social Justice: Getting Off the Fence. Open University Press: Buckingham
Hayward, L. 2007. Curriculum, pedagogies and assessment in Scotland: the quest for social justice. 'Ah kent yir faither’, in Assessment in Education. 14(2), p251-268
Humes, W. 1986. The Leadership Class in Scottish Education. John Donald: Edinburgh
Humes, W. M. 2008 Policy Making in Scottish Education. In T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, eds Scottish Education – 3rd Edition – Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University: Edinburgh. Ch.7
Lawn, M. 2008. Hidden Internationalisms: The International Examinations Inquiry and the flow of research technologies across Europe. In Bildung und Erziehung, 2008(1), p31-52. Böhlau Cologne: Weimar
Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York
Ozga, J. 2008 Teacher professionalism, QAE and performativity: issues for debate. ECER, Gothenburg, September 2008
Paterson, L. 1997. Policy making in Scottish education: a case of pragmatic nationalism. In M. Clarke and P. Munn eds, Education in Scotland: policy and practice from pre-school to secondary. Routledge: London
Power, M. 2004. Counting, Control and Calculation: Reflections on Measuring and Management. Human Relations 57. p765 – 783
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press: Buckingham
Roebuck, M. 2008 Learning and Teacher Scotland. In T. G. K. Bryce and W. M. Humes, eds Scottish Education – 3rd Edition – Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University: Edinburgh. Ch.17.
Scheer, A.-W. and Nüttgens, M. 1999 Electronic Business Engineering. Physica: Heidelberg
Scottish Executive. 2002. Standard for Chartered Teacher [Online] Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46932/0023989.pdf [Accessed 12 Nov 2008]
Scottish Executive. 2006. Scottish Qualification for Headship: Programme Outline [Online] Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47063/0023829.pdf [Accessed 12 Nov 2008]
Scottish Government. 2007. Concordat between the Scottish Government and local government. [Online]. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/923/0054147.pdf. [Accessed 4 Mar 2009]
Trowler, P. 2002. (Second Edition) Education Policy: a policy sociology approach. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Van den Booman, M. and Schafer, M. T. 2005. Will the revolution be open-sourced? How open source travels through society. In M. Wynants and J. Cornelis, (eds) How Open is the Future? Economic, Social & Cultural Scenarios inspired by Free & Open-Source Software. VUB Brussels University Press: Brussels. p31-68
Monday, 19 January 2009
Project idea for supporting academically-motivated 'looked after and accommodated children'
I work with children who are ‘looked after and accommodated’ away from home by the state (‘in care’). From a social justice perspective, I will show how web-based technologies can be used to support vulnerable pupils who may be motivated by academic qualifications not available within their present education setting. I can be contacted at dafc1885@hotmail.com.
In this article, I will show that, presently, new technologies are connecting learners with each other and their tutors beyond traditional physical spaces, and that some ideas of Clayton Christensen’s, in his book ‘Disrupting Class’, can be applied to the prevailing underachievement of children who are looked after away from home in residential education establishments.
Increasingly, learning establishments possess and make use of a broadband connection. They also have technology which is able to make use of the many browser-based communication tools in ‘the cloud’, making use of online instead of hard-drive space. The main technical restriction which many learning professionals are finding difficult to influence, is centralised management of web access (‘blocking’).
Despite this, significant numbers of educators are making use of web tools to communicate. Many do so within their workplace and other physical spaces such the home personal computer or mobile device. The use of 3G technology for ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning and communication can be seen with the popularity of the iPhone 3G and ‘dongles’ for laptops, amongst other products. Many educators have skills and experience in participating in online learning opportunities such as live webcasts, web conferences and streamed conferences; utilising audio, visual and web-based technology, all of which continues to fall in price.
Before outlining one way of drawing on these developments, I will provide some background on why educational use of such ‘web 2.0’ technologies should be made in pursuit of social justice for motivated ‘looked after and accommodated’ children.
Children who are 'looked after' in the
A child who is intrinsically motivated to study and to progress academically, but who has had to deal with prolonged crisis in their family life, is likely to have their needs unmet by the current system of care and education for children who are 'looked after'. Residential schools are at the heart of the Scottish Government’s commitment to ensure that vulnerable children and young people aspire and achieve. However current difficulties in the sector see reductions in education staff and wider deployment of generic teachers instead of subject specialists. Broadly, teachers are not encouraged to work directly with children who are ‘looked after and accommodated’.
Working with a geographically diverse group of 15-16 year old children who are close to leaving care, the project would help them to enhance their skills, qualifications and ability to make positive choices, and assist them in making a smoother transition into post-16 education, training and employment. Residential schools and units would work with 'children’s rights' organisations to encourage 15-16 year old children to become involved in the project. Initially, around sixteen children who are 'looked after' would be supported in their study for subjects which are not traditionally offered and are increasing in relevance; courses with currency which are rarely available in residential settings, for example advanced qualifications in Spanish, Mandarin, Digital Media, Care, and literacy and numeracy. Employability skills and mentoring could also be offered.
Tutors (practicing, subject specialist teachers, each with extensive web 2.0 experience) would be recruited to facilitate 3-4 one hour web conference sessions per week, and continue study support via, for example, Ning sites which can support tasks, multimedia resources, synchronous/asynchronous chat, and links. Two-three web conference slots would run each day or evening from Sunday to Thursday for almost two years. There would be 1-2 tutors per subject (not necessarily based in the same country as the tutees), with one acting as lead tutor. The project would need to be accredited by the examination board to deliver and assess each of these courses. Each participating school or unit would be provided with one laptop, with 3G web access if need be. Use and storage of this resource by the child and their place of residency would be strictly monitored following the signing of an acceptable-use contract. I have costed such a project and believe it would require initial 2-year funding of around $130,000. This compares favourably with the average salary of one Scottish teacher over the same period.
The project idea has been inspired by The School of Everything, which uses the web to connect those who have ‘something to teach’ with those who want to learn, along with Clayton Christensen’s argument that new technologies can effectively meet non-consumption within schooling/learning; that online learning can meet learners’ needs where there is no immediate, viable alternative in their physical learning space.
Such a project would break down barriers around content delivery, teacher location, and the use of online multimedia, to offer opportunities to those who are ready to push themselves academically, but who are currently away from home and mainstream education, often through no fault of their own. The use of commercial, publicly-funded Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) has not yet led to increased attainment. Smaller-scale, web-networked projects, which nonetheless keep the tutors and tutees in regular, direct contact, appear to offer more likelihood of tangible impact on attainment, with its established link to later opportunities and quality of life.
Thursday, 25 December 2008
edonis research interview II
Gillham states that probes should be "simple, clear, direct and potent" for them to effectively direct and focus the conversation (p46). The interviewer must appreciate that the interviewee is helping them to understand. To this end, clarification shouldn't be used as a device, though reflecting what has been said and asking for justification when a judgment is made can be very effective in gaining deeper understanding (p47). Extending the narrative, by saying "Give me an example" or "Tell me a bit more", can help to contextualise a word and query the internal consistency of what the person is saying (p44). Reflecting can indicate the emotional state behind what has been said and may result in the interviewee developing and linking elements of what they have been thinking or saying (p51). This is a significant difference from the questionnaire where there is an assumption of ready-formed, accessible opinions, which may in fact be vague and ill-defined at that point (p52).
By using Pamela for Skype to automatically save each telephone interview, and storing face-to-face ones on an mp3 recorder, I am not as pressured into transcribing as-I-go. However there is a requirement to back-up and safely store such data. By storing the mp3 files for future transcription, I am missing out on systematically and regularly informing my methodology etc based on what has aired during the interviews, as well as reflection and action which would have resulted during the transcription and categorisation process. Presently, there is no time for me to transcribe and content analyse even one of the pilot interviews. To pay for transcription at this stage would be a waste of funds. The interim solution is to listen-again to each interview and to reflect and implement improvements prior to the January interviews.
Gillham states that content analysis is "about organising the substantive content of the interview" (p59). I will identify the substantive points and then subjectively put them into categories. The derived categories will need to be exclusive and exhaustive; each statement fitting into one category. Gillham suggests transcribing around 350 words per page, using a different typeface for distinct parts.
In the medium-term, I will immerse myself in the detail of the substantive content of the initial series of interviews. I will then begin to see the significance of what people have said, although I need to be aware that while categorising, I am also interpreting (p73). As I publish findings, a purpose of some of the interview content will be to illustrate the narrative being woven through the three years of the study. I will be selective and may need to discard some very relevant quotes. Discrepant quotes, which I have already noticed, will be added to give a qualifying insight. Again subjectively, I will need to reflect general points being made, including contradictions. I am unlikely to quantify patterns of interview statements in tabular form.
When writing-up findings, I should use the introductory paragraph to reinforce a framework for holding the quotations together, then allow the interviewees to 'take over' (p77). If they have made a common point, this should be illustrated by several quotations (p78). This helps to construct an audit trail, should any of my conclusions be inspected or challenged. How I arrived at my conclusions will directly affect the peoples’ perceptions of my judgment and justification (p79).
I am attempting (and in many cases been fortuitous) to keep the study broad in terms of: gender, education sector, experience, location and age. I have not spent time on identifying a sample and there may be some justification needed later on my decision to work with 'learning professionals', which may be considered too broad in relation to the research questions.
One other phenomenon to be aware of, if it exists or comes to exist, is the elite group or elite interview (p81). Where an interviewee has authority in one or more areas of the 'social web' in learning, they have a privileged position; a wide grasp. Their perspective will be different. These participants, many of whom will have signed-up to the edonis Ning site as opposed to those without expertise or prior experience and who predominantly participate via email, possess greater knowledge about the areas, topics and settings (p82). They may have higher expectations about the interview questioning and will be used to being in control when talking about the 'social web'. I will be more likely to get distinctive views and perspectives, with insights into hidden agendas, sensibilities, key documents and records, and formal/informal relationships within the system. The interviewee will need to be carefully consulted beforehand. The evidence will have authority and the respondent may need to be listened to in future directing of the research. However, Gillham warns of respondents becoming too close an ally, which may put distance between myself and others, including those who choose to participate, for example via email, and do not currently possess significant knowledge or experience of the ‘social web’. Gillham values even-handedness (p83), which is a challenge to me, particularly when I find that since November I have been investing great effort in the edonis Ning site and methodology blog, which of course some or many participants will have no interest in utilising during the study.
Monday, 22 December 2008
edonis research interview I
In advance of the first edonis interviews (four took place during December, of which the edited versions of three will be released at http://edonis.ning.com during January and February) and the Qualitative Analysis course which starts in January, I read ‘The Research Interview’ by Bill Gillham, published by Continuum in 2000.
Gillham is clear that, although an interview is a conversation, there is a controlling relationship which needs to be managed (p1). I will be seeking responses for a purpose; one which may not be for the interviewees benefit, although in committing to my three-year study many participants have already stated desired outcomes for themselves. Having arranged and carried out fifteen interviews over the last three years for my Booruch podcast, I feel experienced enough and competent in managing a weighted conversation.
The research interview is one way for me to obtain information and understanding around the aims and questions of the edonis project (p2). Of the six draft research questions, I chose to use the single interview as part of my research into questions 2, 3 and 4. As I prepared for the first interview (with an ASN teacher in the West of Scotland), I examined striking a balance between the structured and unstructured interviews. In the former, I would know in advance what I wanted to find out (and I could quantify responses) (p2), however I had previously decided that methods such as the now established monthly online survey would be most appropriate for collecting data. There were aspects of each of these questions which I felt could best or only be opened-up by talking to participants (p5).
In advance of the first edonis interviews (four took place during December, of which the edited versions of three will be released at http://edonis.ning.com during January and February) and the Qualitative Analysis course which starts in January, I read ‘The Research Interview’ by Bill Gillham, published by Continuum in 2000.
By moving into the, inadequately termed, semi-structured interview, Gillham suggests an increased likelihood of unexpected discoveries and the creation of new knowledge. This latter consequence becomes more likely if participants listen to edited interviews on the Ning site and are given, make use of, or create their own space to engage with myself, the interviewee and/or other participants; deconstructing, ‘mashing-up’, re-conceptualising, or building-upon interview content. This space may be extended through the yearly group face-to-face or web conference.
Following participants’ responses to Part 1a of the project, I identified those who would be interviewed during December (the pilot period). These participants had given a response to various questions regarding permission and most had responded to my initial open approach (optional question) (p3) of asking them to suggest a couple of examples of interesting, good, or innovative practice that they had been involved in and would be willing to share. This flexible approach to the planning stage would be extended by examining their responses to Parts 1b and 2. I would be able to better explore or understand some of the earlier responses. Although contested, I would be able to back-up study findings (interim and final) with direct quotations (p9). During December, a ‘bank’ of interview questions built-up, comprising at least two versions of questions relating to each substantive area/research question. This ‘bank’ as at 31st December, can be found in Appendix A. The differentiated list (agenda, as such) for each interview was sent to interviewees as part of a longer email regarding arrangements (see Appendix B). This email allows interviewees to respond to my broad, open questions and proposed examples of practice, with deletions, alteration or additions.
At each stage of planning and conducting the interview, I need to be aware of control and power; ensuring that the focus remains on the interviewee (p3). With an eye on the three research questions, I am nonetheless drawing out what matters to the interviewee (p4). This must be kept in mind right through to the conclusion. I am confident that my earlier study of ‘person-centred’ approaches (Carl Rogers), high degree of interview organisation, and at least a degree of familiarity with each interviewee helped to minimize negative connotations around being the subject of an interview. Informal conversations with each person since (including the tail-end of the interview telephone call) did not highlight any issues with my conduct, though I did, on two occasions, apologise for the lack of clarity in the way I asked each of them a particular question.
By necessity, interviews within this international study must take into account the convenience of each interviewee. It is a special occasion, where people will talk more freely in their own setting (p6). They were given the choice of: face-to-face interviews at a negotiated venue, using an mp3 recorder; face-to-face interview at the participants’ workplace; telephone interview at a time of their choosing, recording using Pamela for Skype; or a negotiated alternative.
Gillham writes this at a time when there would be a significant cost involved in arranging to record a telephone conversation. He adds that too much is lost from not sitting in the same room as the interviewee, as well as difficulties around timing, length and responsiveness of the interviewer. Therefore only a short section is dedicated to telephone interviews, and this is largely out-of-date. Due to the international nature of edonis, the ability to efficiently conduct interviews at low-cost and with minimum intrusion is vital. Skype is a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) application, downloadable for free from http://skype.com, which allows users to make calls from their computer or mobile phone. Free calls can be made to other Skype users’ computers (several participants have indicated that they have, or will have, an account and would like to be interviewed via this method), and by buying Skype Out credits, low cost calls to landlines and mobile phones around the world can be made. I have experimented with many call recording applications (both free and premium), such as Pretty May, Hot Recorder and Pamela for Skype. Immediately prior to the first interview, upon realizing that Pamela (free version) records only in 15 minute slots, I purchased Pamela for Skype Premium. This allows unlimited, uninterrupted recording of calls (permission having been sought by email well in advance of placing the call). Both sides of the conversation are recorded in a single mp3 file. This can be edited and tidied-up for publication on the Ning site, if required, using Audacity sound editing software and The Levelator (both free, open-source software). The unedited recording is used within my own research.
Gillham states that interviews offer far more hope of a 100% response rate than a questionnaire (p14). One challenge has been to encourage all participants to indicate a period in one of the following three years when they may be available for interview. Inviting interviewees to use part of the conversation to talk about their involvement in a relevant area of practice is one way of allowing the process to fulfill a human need; that is to: share, receive recognition, and have space to talk and reflect. Offering to host the edited interview (with agreement) on the Ning site should communicate my own interest, concern, and desire to learn from, and with, participants. In placing myself within the study I will be responsive and familiar. Gillham argues that the easier it is to get data, the less valuable they are (p10). With around six broad, open questions, and a commitment from myself and the interviewee, they would be aware, beforehand, that I was expecting extended responses, with my natural prompts and probes (p10). To ensure insight and understanding, there must be trust.
Trust is essential for this to be comfortable and rewarding, as new, public disclosures may be made (p15). Building trust has been given priority from the first emails, so that interviewees are aware of purposes, questions, storage and usage. Mixing methods helps to include the (unknown) participants who are not as comfortable with extended written responses to, for example, emailed questions. However, the interview areas do not replicate any of the questionnaires. Although in first draft, the research questions (and the focus on questions 2, 3 and 4) informed the expanding ‘bank’ of substantive areas covered in the interview. Elaborate, reflective, in-depth responses have been made during the four pilot, semi-structured interviews. During each call, I have logged things said and followed-up insights and hunches at the time. Later, as I systematically log each part of the interview, in relation to my enquiry, there will be need for further elaboration, though this was not made explicit during the signing-up and therefore cannot be guaranteed to happen. During this short pilot phase, I am crafting questions which are distinct, refined, ordered and sensitive, and place me as the reflexive research instrument (p23). I have been economical with my presence during each interview, asking short questions (though not always asked clearly) and have, drawing on my experience, never put words ‘into their mouth’. With respect to future analysis, my lack of developed methodology means that I am unable to state, at this stage, in what ways much of the interview data will be used.
As I moved through the pilot phase, I became more confident in the type of questions I was asking, reducing the chances of anxiety within and around the conversation. I have built-up a prompt list each time; based on points, topics, documents, links and observations stated by the interviewee. I need to be aware of common components as a variation from standard themes will make comparison between interviews during content analysis more difficult (p45). Interviewees have been given time to answer, with ‘pregnant’ pauses condoned on my part. The time and space, or acceptance or promotion of a change of direction leading from a silence, shows a focus on the interviewee. I am comfortable managing this in a virtual space due to my participation in, and occasional facilitation of, a weekly web conference where the technology allows only one person to speak at a time, with extended periods of text-only chat (audio is silent).
Each conversation could be said to have had an “introductory phase, opening development, central core, and closure”, in social and research content terms (p37). Gillham talks of unobtrusive control, ensuring that the key points are covered (p45). Partly due to length, I have missed out reviewing what has been said and allowing further space for additional information to emerge. The social aspect of the call is managed like the rest of the interview. Behaving naturally conveys purpose and respect for the interviewee during their working day and avoids the start and end being more contrived than it need be. Prior to making the call, I make sure that Skype and Pamela are working and communicating with each other. I have, close-at-hand, a copy of the interview schedule (shared with the interviewee), recent emails, and significant responses from them to previous parts of the study. My open, ordered, logical questions and management of the interview allow for later questions to adapt, and for supplementary ones to be asked. Despite the need to develop the ways in which I start and close the interview, I do make use of devices such as, “Now the last thing I want to ask you about…”.
Part II to follow
Appendix A
- Brief background about you and your career in education
- your experiences of ICT-related /training/professional development: as a student teacher; during INSET; and as part of CPD
- your experiences of ICT-related training/professional development
- your understanding of (and if you are comfortable, thoughts on) web access for learning professionals provided within your authority
- your understanding of, and thoughts on, web access for learning professionals provided by your employer
- how you use email and the extent to which this supports your professional development
- your notion of 'learning network'
- uses of the 'social web' that you have been attracted to
- the extent to which you see your use of ICT as a learning professional changing over the next 3 years.
Appendix B
- X
- X
- X
Blog Archive
Link to edonis Ning
