Changing Technologies and Changing Ecologies: Pedagogical Technologists in Schools
This storify contains milestones and reflections of my postgraduate research journey.
- Without constant meeting with my supervisor, my research would not have progressed to this point. I'm thankful to have a good working relationship with my supervisor: we have met regularly, weekly, to discuss my research. This case is special I believe, my having heard from my peers that their student-supervisor relationships take on different qualities. Suffice it to say, without a good working relationship with a supervisor, a student's research can become all the more difficult.
Supervisor Meetings
Resend Conceptual Framework to Bob; and send methodology section Kill forum and forum special menu on frontpage; get Facebook special menu to redirect only to the Facebook group and not the page. Do I have the Liz Stacey dissertation?- I had been reading broadly the educational technology literature for several months before attempting to formulate research questions. At that point, I toiled week after week to develop a question worthy of research -- indeed, I met much invaluable resistance from my supervisor at every new question; I'm thankful that he didn't go easy on me for this is one of the most important decisions that I must make in the research. Several weeks and six attempts later, I sat down and worked methodically, systematically, to deduce a worthwhile research question. This was a crucial moment, when I lay down my frustration and carefully went from question to question, until I, at last, found the form of the question which would, ultimately, become my research question!
Research Questions - Version 6
A Progression of Research Questions How are teachers contributing to school learning with their information technology (IT) teaching and learning practices? This is an interesting, post-conference question to answer. All these educators have gathered together to discuss pedagogical change with information technology (IT) and, more generally, school change.- On May 14, 2011, I presented my research proposal for the first time at the HKU postgraduate research conference. At the time, my proposal was still in its infancy. The shape of the proposal hadn't been firmed and my nomenclature, likewise, hadn't been set. Nonetheless, I went forward in presenting and receiving insightful feedback into my research. For example, from the audience I had two points to consider: my definitions; and my purpose in studying people in a particular geographic location.
- I reflected on my presentation, and received feedback from both my supervisor and peers. In sum, first of all, I could be more concise in presenting since, it seemed, I took 25 minutes to explain lots -- perhaps I need to cut out all the literature and focus only on the most important theories from the literature in my presentation. In addition, I could be more coherent since, though I provided an introduction, I presented without defining clearly for my audience the research units. The flow, furthermore, didn't follow a coherent trajectory. What's more, I shook my hands a lot, I noticed while watching the video. These, among other things, can be improved for next time.
I presented my research proposal again at CITERS2011 on June 30th, 2011. A month and a half later, I hit the mark more confidently and accurately: there were fewer clarification questions as I had clarified much more in this presentation than in my last. Not only that, but my presentation was more coherent, flowing systematically from research question to definitions to research problem and so on. Furthermore, I was more concise this time, having finished explained the research in 15 minutes. All in all, this second presentation was superior to the first -- I also paid careful attention to not shake my hands as much.
Below is an even more concise research proposal walkthrough -- I took five minutes to explain my proposal to one of my cases. The prezi follows this video.
Could I present my research in one minute? I tried at a networking event at the International Research Skills Development program 2011. I tried several times.
I found that presenting my work in five minutes was preferable to presenting it in one; likewise, presenting my work in fifteen minutes is preferable to presenting it in one. Presenting my work in one-minute requires such a concise lexicon, such a mastery of words, simple ones, that I currently do not possess. I can explain my ideas clearly in five minutes; but I will need more practice if I can even come close to delivering my research in one, fleeting minute.
- I followed up that one-minute performance two days later with a 50 word blurb on my research. I find a written delivery preferable to a spoken delivery not least because with words, I can take my time to formulate a concise explanation, as clear as glass. As the YouTube video attests, though I had more repetitions to practice my delivery, the wording never reached such a level as to be the same of this 50 word blurb. I stumbled through my delivery; I did not stumble once in constructing this 50 word blurb.I study special people in schools. These special people are called pedagogical technologists. Pedagogical technologists are neither teachers nor technicians. They influence how schools work with and through technology. The pedagogical technologist is an emergent role. Not every school has one. I will write four case studies about four technologists.
- In September 2011, I was explaining my research again, this time for my GRSC6020A - introduction to thesis writing course.This was the task:Explain what your research is about to other students in your group. If you find this difficult, get someone to ask you the questions below one after another. If you are a listener and the speaker seems to be having difficulty, help out by asking one or two of these questions.
When you are listening to other students, pay close attention to anything you do not understand. Help each other out by asking for further explanation: "Can you explain..." or "What exactly do you mean by..."This was my reflection:I recorded my research explanation and my partner"s research explanation. We can compare the two. I explained my research sufficiently for my partner in four minutes; he explained his research sufficiently for my understanding in 15 minutes. He took more time, by a multiple of three; and I find that significant. In an absolute sense, he took a longer time to explain clearly his research -- the task was to explain clearly our research to our partner; we cannot assume that either of us were either withholding questions or overzealous in asking questions because we are all emic, outsiders, to these participants minds if we were only to view this video. Our best assumption is that the participants were following the task aim. I consider this an exercise of the skill of explaining complex ideas in simple terms. In that case, if success in explaining complex ideas in simple terms can be timed, then in this instance I can explain my research more clearly than my partner. That is a pleasing result given my practice in explaining my research concisely to everyone these days. Maybe my practice is improving my conciseness. - The ultimate formality is obtaining consent to research the pedagogical technologist and those who work with the pedagogical technologist. This plain language statement-cum-informed consent form went through several significant changes over several months before arriving, finally, at a stable, acceptable version. In developing this form, I learned how to write concisely and simply, not least because I didn't have much room to explain my ideas and I had to explain them such that a layman could understand them.
Ethical Approval Informed Consent - Pedagogical Technologist
Changing Practices and Changing Perspectives: Pedagogical Technologists in Schools Changing Practices and Changing Perspectives: Pedagogical Technologists in Schools You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by David Woo, a PhD student in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong. Pedagogical technologists are full-time para-coordinators of pedagogy and technology.- Indeed, my writing has improved markedly in a year. In September 2011, I still wrote papers as if I were writing a Victorian novel. After several months of reading, concentrating and toiling, I have reached a point where I feel comfortable and adept at writing concise sentences. Just as my speaking has become simpler and clearer, so my writing has become simpler and clearer. For example, this is the abstract that I have written for my presentation at the 21st Century Learning Conference @ Hong Kong in February 2012:
Pedagogical technologists are people who work in schools. In a traditional sense, they are neither teachers nor technicians. Their primary duty is to support the pedagogical aspect of teaching through IT and to help teachers and other school stakeholders to use technology to best support student learning. Many people are not familiar with the pedagogical technologist role because this role is emergent, and rare. Most schools do not employ one because most schools lack such a mature presence of IT in their curriculum where the pedagogical technologist can be supported and sustained. This presentation showcases five cases of pedagogical technologists in schools. Preliminary findings on how pedagogical technologists influence their schools’ ways of working with and through technology will be presented. Some general principles about what make pedagogical technologists successful in today’s schools will be delivered.
And this is the abstract for my presentation at the HKU Faculty of Education Postgraduate Research Conference in December 2011:
Pedagogical technologists are full-time para-coordinators of pedagogy and technology in schools. They are not teachers in a traditional sense and they do not focus predominantly on supporting the technical aspects of teaching with information technology (IT). Their primary duty is to support the pedagogical aspect of teaching through IT and to help teachers and other school stakeholders use technology to best support student learning, taking into account technological, pedagogical, content knowledge. The pedagogical technologist in schools may be emergent, due in part to the increasing presence of IT in schools and changes to the specific ways that schools think about IT in education; in addition, only a number of schools have appointed pedagogical technologists. This study explores the role of selected pedagogical technologists and examines what they do to influence schools’ ways of working with and through technology. This study examines five cases of pedagogical technologists in primary schools in Hong Kong, and develops some general principles about what makes pedagogical technologists successful in schools. Data was collected by observing, interviewing and interacting with pedagogical technologists, principals and teachers. Documents were collected and photographs were taken. The particularistic contexts for each pedagogical technologist and general contexts between pedagogical technologists are described. Emergent topics and themes from the cases were developed and are presented. Context-bound generalizations and recommendations for pedagogical technologist policy and practice are made. - I had been collecting data for about two months and after lunch on September 29th, I envisaged this conceptual framework to answer, in part, a research sub-question: what makes a pedgagogical technologist successful in today's schools?I developed the framework and then pitched it to a friend who provided a few suggestions for this illustration's improvement. Those suggestions are the addition of arrows and the merging of the two, red, concentric circles to illustrate the relationship between the two.
- As the data collection and analysis continues, I plan ahead to improve my thesis. I need feedback, lots of it. For this reason I am presenting initial findings at the HKU Faculty of Education Postgraduate Research Conference in December 2011 and the 21st Century Learning Conference @ Hong Kong in February 2012. The abstracts for those conference presentations are in the Teaching and Research Blog below.
I will complete my PhD thesis within three years. In fact, originally, I had received four years to complete the research project. My supervisor and I agree that a good career strategy would be to complete the research with speed and quality in mind. We believe that impressing upon employers my ability to deliver high-quality research fast is important. In addition, we believe that an MPhil from Cambridge would bolster my chances for professional success from the start not because of an additional degree but because of the quality of the institution where I will produce quality research. Nevertheless, as quantity is still a concern, we believe that this MPhil research will yield data for several subsequent publications. Below is part of my application for a HKU scholarship to study for an MPhil at Cambridge, and, ultimately, my research proposal:
