The design of blended environments for second language learning (Part B - continued from Part A) ªDon Hinkelman ªHorwood Language Centre ªUniversity of Melbourne ªPhD Confirmation Report, 22/9/2005 Actor Network Theory ªBackground ªEmergent from sociological fields, especially STS (Science, Technology and Society) ªPhilosophical roots in general constructivism, not social constructivism ªAlso called ‘materialist semiotics’ ª ªUnit of ontology: “actor network” ªany collection of human, non-human, hybrid actors participating in collective action ª ª Actor Network Theory ªExample of L2 classroom network ªHuman: teacher, local students, email correspondent students, visitors who speak target language ªNon-human: desks, chairs, classroom, blackboard, chime, photocopier, mobile phones, notebooks, computer lab ªHybrid: textbooks, handouts, daily schedule, syllabus, curriculum requirements, grading requirements, target language, native language ª ªExample of L2 curriculum network ªHuman: School president, Ministry of Education officials, Curriculum committee members, teachers, students, parents, Departmental committees, Teacher associations, Textbook writers ªNon-human: committee meeting room, internet, books ªHybrid: School catalog, Accreditation rules, Curriculum conferences, Newspaper opinion articles, Student course choices, ª Actor Network Theory ªAttributes ªPost-structural & non-categorical ªRelational & non-essentialistic ªFocuses on actions, not entities ªLooks at circulations, not territories ªHeterogenity & complexity ªAvoids simplicity, purification of notions ªSymmetry & agnosticism ªAll actors treated neutrally, human or non-human ªNo actor is given particular attention ª Actor Network Theory ªAnalytic Framework ªActions ªTranslations: the invisible work of maintaining a network ªInscriptions: convincing/aligning actors using semiotic instruments ªDelegations: substitutions of human >> << non-human actors ªFlows ªBoundaries/Passage Points: contracts, memberships, rules ªInstruments: a device giving visual display to a text ªScale ªMicro actor networks, macro actor networks ªBlack boxes: stable networks considered a single thing ªOpened boxes: a thing entering instability, or needing change, that is ‘opened’ up and its internal actors analysed ª Actor Network Theory ªSuitability (for this research) ª‘Blended’ is hybrid, transitional, multifaceted ª‘Design’ is action, continuous ªPedagogical design is clearly translation, not invention (especially since photocopier) ªTranslation is active changes by participants ª‘Environment’ is network-like, both in physical and virtual venues. Fits with ecological metaphor. ªUnknown effects of non-human participants ªCares not about essential properties of computer or internet, but their actions and effects on other actors ª Actor Network Theory ªSuitability (over other methodologies, theories) ªActivity Theory: focuses more on roles, division of labor, rules of behavior. Relegates technology to artifact/mediator status. ªDiffusion Theory: a social-deterministic theory. Focuses on human actors, looks at design as invention, not continual translation ªSecond Language Acquisition Theory: an essentialist theory focusing on competencies--endstates. Does not account well for sociological aspects of learning communities. ª ª Actor Network Theory ªPast Research ªLarge-scale socio-technical systems ªTransportation systems: Paris Aramis ªIllness treatment: hospital/doctor/patient ªAircraft engine design ªEducation ªMulcahy (1997) ªBusch (1997) ªTatnell (2000) ªCampbell (2004) ªCALL and Language learning ªNone to date Actor Network Theory ªMethods and Procedures ªNo handbooks, blueprints available Perspectives emphasized over procedures ªEmphasis on holistic data collection, not data reduction ªAnalysis based illustrative narrative, vignette reporting, self-conscious reflection ª ª Actor Network Theory ªWeaknesses ªIgnores human volition ªMotivations, conciousness, meaning-making ªTends to follow ‘star’ actors ªSilenced actors may be ignored ªExample: focus on teacher-as-designer or cutting edge internet tools, rather than student-as-designer or minor technologies ªOften non-critical ªMay ignore power relations. Example: how are power patterns affected when low-cost photo copying is introduced. Publisher power down, teacher power up. Autoethnography ªPurpose: ªdebriefing experience, adding historical reflection, examine motivations of researcher, create identity ªFocus: ªmy thirty years of ethnography, blended learning experiments, educational inquiry ªAims: ªAcknowledge paradigmic change of author ªTechnique for improving research quality ªDevelops a minority discourse community ª ª Autoethnography ªData Collection: ªSelective, thematic writing ªTriggering tools: questions, snapshots, journey, artifacts ªEpiphanies: major, culmulative, problematic, reliving ªData Interpretation: ªPublished narratives, critical friend dialogue, cross-methodology comparison ªProblems: ªLies on boundaries of qualitative research ªDanger of naricissism and self-indulgence ªNo agreed upon verification criteria ª ª Autoethnography ªValidity Criteria (Richardson, 2000) ªSubstantive contribution: Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life? ªAesthetic merit: Is the text artistic, captivating and avoids simplification? ªReflexivity: Is it clear how author developed the text? ªImpactfulness: Does the text generate new questions or move the reader to action? ªExpresses a reality: Does the text express an embodied lived experience? ª ª Research Design ªMethodology Selection ªSite Selection ª Methodology Selection ªaction research ªto focus on the interventions of human actors ª ªactor network theory ªto discover material roles and power relationships from a realist perspective ª ªautoethnography ªto uncover past experiences relevant to confirm and illuminate the present studies. ª Site Selection ªCase study, not ‘study’ ªLocation irrelevent, or less immaterial to framework being studied ªSites chosen for convenience and relevance to theme ªTwo universities in Japan ªMy own courses, team courses at SGU ªA whole department, at KU Research Design I Units of Analysis: Themes of Interobjectivity Roles/actions of all actors Boundaries/responsibilities, negotiation spaces Size of actors Micro (self, teacher, task, course, classroom) and, Macro (curriculum, faculty, campus, environment) Units of Analysis: Themes of Intersubjectivity Community of practice Decisions and justifications of stakeholders Group aims and interests Conflicts, challenges, emergencies Research Design II ªSite Comparison—Cycles, Methodology, Participants, Data Collection, Data Analysis ª ª Site Cycles Methodology Participants Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Home/office 1970-2010 40 years continual Autoethnography Researcher diary, blog critical incidents innovations key issues SGU Cycle 1 2005-2006 2 semesters onsite Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod Research team Students Software engineers teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries SGU Cycle 2 2006-2007 2 semesters onsite Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod Research team Students Software engineers teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Same KU Cycle 1 2005-2006 1 week+ onsite Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers Research team Administrators Teachers, students observation interview materials/interface Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries KU Cycle 2 2006-2007 1 week+ onsite Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers Research team Administrators Teachers, students observation interview materials/interface Same Research Design III: Positionality Site Participants Positionality Level Positionality Description Home/office Researcher 1 Insider alone SGU-1 classroom Research team Students Software team 2 Insider team SGU-2 classroom Research team Students Software team 2 Insider team KU-1 campus Research team Administrators Teachers, students 5 Outsider working with insiders KU-2 campus Research team Administrators Teachers, students 5 Outsider working with insiders Research Design IV: Validity Type of Validity Site Questions of Validity Importance Outcome Validity KU Does the research identify a problem and does the agreed upon action move to resolve it? 5% SGU Can a low level English class benefit from blended learning? Low cost/student satisfaction/learning? Process Validity KU-SGU Does the cycle lead to further problem identification? Does triangulation work well? 15% Catalytic Validity KU-SGU Is the research recognized across the department, and to other departments, causing further change? 30% Democratic Validity KU-SGU Are silenced actors given voice in the process? Are teachers and students empowered? Are technophobic teachers/students represented? 20% Dialogic Validity KU-SGU Is the research accepted for publication, in-house, nationally, internationally? Does the research create a dialogue amongst researchers, practitioners? How? What degree? 30% Next Steps ª ªRegional Conference Keynote--October 2005 ªKU Field Visit--November 2005 ªSGU Classes Arrangement--April, 2006 ªRetrospective Journal Writing ªSupervisor/Colleague Meetings ªNational Conference/Publications ª Closing ª "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" ªDante