Monthly Archives: December 2011

State of the art of my Phd project

I was applying for one scholarship and therefore I had to prepare thorough research plan. It became as real as possible. What I was wondering when I was writing this is that what is the so-called subject of my PhD project. If someone asks, what is your project about, I usually answer: teacher professional development with e-portfolio, sometimes I add teachers’ knowledge building with e-portfolio or something that. But I was thinking that actually I am focusing a lot on learning organizations, workplace learning, knowledge conversion model and teacher development is like a context and e-portfolio like a medium.. What I mean is that I am emphasizing the implementation of knowledge conversion phases, provided by Nonaka and Takeuchi, in order to keep individual and organizational knowledge dynamically changing, that influences the development of organization and individuals. Just the context that I put this model and medium that supports the implementation of it, is teacher education and extended organization here is school-university partnership.

Anyway, I formulated following research questions and goals:
Goals and research questions
The aim of my thesis is to develop the technologically supported LKB model in cross- organizational settings for teacher education in order to support teacher professional development. In order to accomplish the aim of my thesis, I plan to find answers for the following research questions:
1. How does the LKB activities support the development of self-directive competences of teachers and influences their motivation to develop themselves professionally?
2. How do the members of extended professional community of educators perceive that their knowledge influences and is influenced by the development of organizational knowledge?
3. What kind of technologically supported LKB methods and scenarios would be used by the extended community members of educators?
4. Which aspects influence the implementation of technologically supported LKB model in teacher education context in individual level?

Methodology
Research design
In order to accomplish the aim and to answer the research questions, I will rely mainly on design- based research elements. Wang and Hannafin (2005) have defined design-based research as methodology aimed to improve educational practices through systematic, flexible, and iterative review, analysis, design, development and implementation, based upon collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings and leading to design principles or theories. The study has follwing phases:
a) Identifying the problem and mapping the current situation in teacher education field in the context of using technology for supporting teachers’ knowledge building activities. Teachers from school, pre-service teachers, novice teachers, school supervisors and university lecturers will be interviewed in this process. This phase gives an input for research question 3 and 4;
b) Together with stakeholders from teacher education field, developed LKB model will be validated. Model will be presented as scenarios in different teacher education context and stakeholders analyze them together with researchers. Phase gives an input for question 3 and 4;
c) Technologically supported LKB model will be tested with teachers in two phases: early prototypes of services and full prototypes of services. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews, questionnaire and analysis of the users’ log-information. Phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
d) LKB model will be implemented longitudinally in e-portfolio system with the pre-service teachers in school practice context. Scenarios and methodology for portfolio-based school practice will be developed together with university school-practice unit and researchers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured questionnaire, analysis of reflections in weblog and semi- structured interview in the end of the trial. Trials take place in spring 2010, 2011, 2012 and into process school supervisors, pre-service teachers and university will be involved. This phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
e) In collaboration with teachers, application of e-portfolio functionality will be designed to Koolielu environment. Scenarios and workflows will be designed by the researcher and evaluated by the teachers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews during the design-sessions. This phase gives an input for the research question 3.

Therefore my project has three methodological approaches. First I identify the problem and map the situation. Then with the design-based approach I’m developing together with stakeholders different scenarios and methodologies for interventions. The next approach involves different trials with teachers in different contexts like pre-service studies and accredidation, And finally my research tries to evaluate how does the theoretical model with technological application influences teacher’s professional development.

As the result of the doctoral thesis, I will provide a) theoretical LKB model for teacher training context; b) description of technology application that would support developed LKB model in teacher training context; c) implementation quidelines that would support the using of technology supported LKB model.
a) Development of theoretical LKB model (2009 – 2011):
i) Meta-analysis of the SECI model will be conducted in order to deepen the theoretical baseline of the research and to analyze what are the applications of SECI model. Article about it will be ready by the February 2012.
ii) Theoretical LKB model have been developed and validated with seven experts from teacher education field. Article “Implementing A Technology-Supported Model for Cross-Organisational Learning and Knowledge Building for Teachers” published by the European Journal of Teacher Education in winter 2012.
iii) heoretical LKB model validated in technology-supported accreditation context. Results presented at CSEDU11 and in ICWL11 conference
iv) Technology-supported LKB model in cross-organizational setting will be tested in Octo- ber 2011 -January 2012 with 20 Estonian teachers. The goal is to evaluate in what way the SECI phased related activity sequences are taking place in cross-organizational LKB model and how are different IntelLEO services supporting the activity sequences related with SECI phases. Article about the results will be ready by the spring 2012.
b) Description of technology application for supporting LKB model (2011-2013):
i) Aim is to study how implementing e-portfolio in teacher education context supports pro- fessional development. Longitudinal study with pre-service teachers has been conducted in spring 2010 and 2011 and another trial takes place in spring 2012. Some trials will be additionally designed for 2012. Article about trials will be ready by the autumn 2012.
c) Implementation guidelines of LKB model in technological settings (2011-2013):
i) Based on data of testing the technology-supported LKB model, I plan to analyze what in- fluences the implementation of the model in teacher education context. I would like to study through the motivational specter what is the need for training and by whom, what facilitation aspects are needed, what barriers might be faced. Article about implementa- tion process will be ready by the summer 2012

Sounds realistic 🙂 But what is even more important – sounds interesting, I am fond of my research and current experiment that has not been very successful, is really important to me and I have strong ownership with it. Feedback is welcome.

Advertisements

Tagasivaade kursusele Haridustehnoloogia praktika

Kirjutasin septembris oma ootustest õppejõuna kursusele “Haridustehnoloogia praktika“. Kümme nädalat kestnud praktika on läbi, üliõpilased teevad kokkuvõtteid ja mina ka.

Tundsin end sellel kursusel nagu sõitmas mäest üles – mäest alla. Kõigepealt olin ma elevil – nii enda, kursuse kui ka üliõpilaste pärast. Seejärel jõudsin ma arusaamale, et üliõpilased ei ole elevil, neile on see siiski kohustuslik õppetöö. Pisut valmistas mulle meelehärmi ka see, et mõned üliõpilased ei tulnud lõpuni minuga kaasa, nende praktikapäevikud sisaldasid vähest vajalikku. Kui meelehärmi-etapp mööda sai, kasvas jälle elevus, sest tajusin, kuidas paar üliõpilast hakkasid end haridustehnoloogina tundma ja sellena ka käituma. Vahepeal jäid sissekanded soiku ning aktiivselt oma tegevusi peegeldavaid üliõpilasi oli vähe. Seejärel aga tõusis huvi magistritööde ning praktika vahelise sose vastu ja see viis jälle emotsioonid üles. Ühesõnaga meeleolukas kursus.

Kindel on see, et oma ootuseid ma ei täitnud. Ma ei suutnud tekitada dialoogi üliõpilaste vahel, vaid üks üliõpilane hoidis silma peal teiste tegemistel, lisaks tuleb veel kaaslaste poolt partner-hinnangu andmine. Ma ei suutnud kaasata tagasisidestamise protsessi praktikakohapoolseid juhendajaid, kuigi ma korduvalt palusin seda. Tagasisidestamisesse polnud jooksvalt kaasatud ka eriti eksperte (va paaril korral), kuna sissekanded õppedisainist tulid suhteliselt kaootiliselt. Küll aga kaasan ma õppejõud tagasisidestamisse praktika lõpus, kui esitatakse aruanded. Ootus, et keegi ehk saab kasu magistritöö jaoks täitus osaliselt, sest mõned neist siiski teemad lõpuks registreerisid ja kes rohkem ning kes vähem asja siiski ettevõtsid. Ma ei oska hinnata, kas praktika tegevuste üle peegeldamine kuidagi mõjus tõhusamalt üliõpilastele, kuigi halvemaks see ilmselt ka midagi ei teinud. Lisaks ei oska ma hinnata, kas minu olemasolust oli neile kasu või kahju, sest eksperthinnaguid ma ei andnud, niisama lugesin neid ja küsisin juurde küsimusi, mis mind huvitasid.

Minu jaoks osutus kõige keerulisemaks muuta praktika efektiivseks nende jaoks, kes on aastaid sama tööd teinud, teevad seda suurepäraselt ning olid praktikal oma praeguses ametikohas. Järgmiseks korraks mõtlesime me rakendada eelpraktikat, mis tähendab, et ka kõige parem haridustehnoloog väljub korraks oma mugavustsoonist ja läheb vaatama teise asutusse, teise haridustehnoloogi juurde, millist tööd teeb ja kuidas teeb.

Teine asi oli tagasisidestamine. Algselt oli mõeldud, et lisaks minule annab tagasisidet ka magistritöö juhendaja ja praktika praktiline osa on seotud magistritööga. Esimesel seminaril sain ma üllatuse osaliseks, et keegi ei plaani kaitsta ja praktikat oma magistritööga siduda. See tähendas automaatselt, et magistritöö juhendaja kui kaastagasisidestaja kadus ära ja kuigi ma proovisin kaasata õppejõude tagasisidestamisse, siis reaalsuses oli see natuke keeruline sissekannete kaootilisuse tõttu. Seetõttu järgmine kord peaks tagasisidestamise jagama koordinaatori ja põhiõppejõudude vahel (siduma osad ained ja praktikaülesanded paremini) olgu see seotud magistritööga või mitte.

Kolmas asi oli praktikakoha poolsete juhendajate kaasamine, mis ebaõnnestus täielikult.

Mida ma ise saaksin paremini teha? Järgmine kord püüan kogu praktika teisti üles seada, et on eelpraktika ja põhipraktika ning süsteemselt läbi mõtlema ülesanded nii, et tagasisidestada saavad ka põhiõppejõud.