Prompt Make a presentation of their own study and write an abstract of their study and a critical selfevaluation after the presentation (a total of about 3000 words) (70%) The aim of my presentation was to test some of the weaker aspects of my methodology with the audience. I had already finished data collection and passed my confirmation seminar. My supervisors and I had already discussed the weak areas of my proposal, in particular, the methodology. We had planned opportunities for me to share my methodology and this EDUR8060 presentation was a prime opportunity. I hoped the audience would provide some challenging questions which would expose gaps in my understanding. The first question I received did not make sense at all. I have listened to it again and verbatim, the question is, “In technology, thinking, what do you think?” “What is more important...for students.” Ultimately, after class, the classmate who asked this question successfully conveyed an aspect of it, “How necessary is thinking in technology.” Per my understanding of technology, I answered, thinking was vital: since technology is pre-disposed practice with a tool, thinking is involved in the practice; after all, people are not machines, which are, in effect tools; people make choices with their tools, however aware they are of this. Curiously, this classmate disagreed although his reasons for disagreeing were not clear. Regardless, I liked answering this question because this made me think about my understanding of what technology is. I am confident in my understanding of technology. I am not confident in understanding this classmate’s thinking in English. A classmate attempted to translate the first question but, in fact, this classmate’s question of why I am interested in pedagogical technologists is not the same question as the first. Regardless, I did explain why I became interested in pedagogical technologists and implicated myself in my research. I have already included this explicit implication section in my thesis. In hindsight, I can see how political the selection of my research phenomenon was. The next question was about the significance of my study. I enumerated some of the stakeholders in this research: pedagogical technologists and their schools; people transitioning into the pedagogical role and their schools; people and schools that ultimately, in their technology-infusion journey, may consider developing a pedagogical technologist role. These people stand to benefit from my research not least because it provides ideas about what pedagogical technologists are doing inside and outside their schools. This research can be used in developing clear job descriptions and performance indicators for pedagogical technologists, as well as clear ways to value the role financially. Additionally, the research provides fodder for these stakeholders to reflect, on their practice and other people’s technological pedagogical practice. There was a follow up question after my presentation. My neighbor asked me about the term pedagogical technologist. I shared with her, as she had expected, that I had created the term pedagogical technologist. I added that, in terms of concept validity, in my study I also had to ensure that the people I had selected as pedagogical technologists were, in fact, pedagogical technologists according my student’s definition. After all, I had selected these people without studying them: I could only assume they were pedagogical technologists from the start; in my research, I also had to ensure that they were. Although several members of the audience later told me how my presentation had impressed them greatly, I still could have improved my presentation. First, I should have rehearsed. Unlike for my confirmation seminar a month earlier, when I had rehearsed meticulously, for this final presentation I more or less did not prepare. The lack of polish
showed. Like my confirmation seminar, I went over my time limit: the torrent of questions contributed to that, but I also wonder if my using Popplet is to blame again. At this rate, I may need a manager with a timer for future presentations. I also should have made more use of the technology at my disposal. The Popplet did impress, my audience told me later, but I had also wanted to stream my presentation live and to make a video recording of it. I was too rushed at the time of my presentation to remember to turn on my video stream. At the very least, I recorded the question and answer session and can use that data for reflection. Ultimately, what I could have most improved was the original focus of my presentation -my methodology. The result of not rehearsing and also paring down my presentation to ten minutes were significant gaps in my methodology. The methodological coherence could be improved greatly. The second and last questions I received bespoke the incoherence of my methodology presentation. If I were to present again, this is how I would present how my research design aligns with my research questions: first I would present the research question and the research objectives, and then the conceptual framework which illustrates how I view the research phenomenon. Next, I would share how I explained my research at the initial interviews and how the pedagogical technologist research participants and I brainstormed and agreed upon opportunities for learning: episodes to observe and people to interview. We wanted many interviews with many species and observations of pedagogical technologists’ interacting with many species. After selecting for some species, interactions and qualities from the initial interviews, I would then illustrate how snowball effects ensued: this is where grounding the data collection and analysis becomes significant: the more data I collected, the more my research methods were informed by the primacy and validity of species and interaction qualities from the data: as data collection progressed, I would know which species, interactions and qualities I wanted to observe, which species I would want to interview, and which questions about species, interactions and qualities I would want to ask. A flow chart aligning my research methods and my research question would take this form: Research question → Research objectives → Conceptual framework → Initial interviews → Initial opportunities for learning through observations and interviews, selecting for a variety of species, interactions and qualities → Snowball effects for further opportunities for learning through research methods (e.g. observations; interviews), selecting for a variety of species, interactions and qualities → Grounded data collection and analysis: primacy and validity of species, interactions and their qualities inform research methods and selection of more opportunities for learning, selecting for a variety of species, interactions and their qualities. One thing I did very well was articulate how grounded data collection and analysis is not grounded theory, and why the I felt the former was enough and the latter unsuitable for my study. This is where my ruminations on the purpose of my research, its political nature, and the origins of grounded theory bore fruit. I felt people understood why I chose not to call my grounding data collection and analysis grounded theory, and why I didn’t have to. The other presentations provided more fodder for my methodology and my findings. I found the mention of Wolcott’s D-A-I (1994) curious: ● ● ●
Description: what is going on here? Analysis: how things work? Interpretation: What is to be made of it all?
This is because I could easily adopt it for my analytical framework but in the same way I don’t see a point in saying my methodology is grounded theory, I don’t see a point in saying my methodology is D-A-I. I am secure in not needing to declaring a “theory” for my analysis not least because I have already declared my beliefs about the nature of research and the nature of theories in research. By the same token, Descombe’s (2003) book The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Research Projects provides good technical guidelines on validity and reliability. I could include them and adopt them, yet I already have included validity and reliability guidelines from such case study authors as Yin and Stake. Adding Descombe’s would either be absolutely superfluous or superfluous triangulation: indeed, I have to be consider carefully to what extent I want to “legitimize” my research by citing Descombe and, even, molding my methodology to a particular worldview on validity and reliability. In the same vein, I am reconsidering my mentioning of member coding in my methodology. Member coding should be a way to prove greater validity in findings yet I feel I already do that, to a great degree, in my grounding data collection and analysis. I present my findings from a data collection instance to those research participants from that data collection instance. They can read the transcripts and notes and comment on the appropriateness of my codes, conclusions or generalizations. I also feel I member code whenever I discuss my research findings with anyone. Nonetheless, I may still carry out member coding, if only to get another perspective which I can reconcile with other perspectives. Indeed, my research is democratic and inclusive and I welcome even those who may be unfamiliar with my research to interpret findings in view of my interpretation. Finally, I definitely will include a matrix to present my findings. I have been impressed with the simple ways by which to present invaluable data: I have been trying out new technologies and therefore will include some characteristics along an X axis and a Y axis to demonstrate the degrees of these characteristics. This is an intuitive way to visualize certain data: the challenge now is to think about which data is most appropriate, and defensible to visualize in this way. I have not arrived at that point yet. I have only resolved to include a matrix.
Prompt One or two pieces of reflection (total number of words: ~ 1000) on the methodological issues of either the categories of research or projects discussed in the course. (30%) Reflection I view methodology not as a discrete section in a journal article but as how the research phenomenon is approached. Based on this understanding I approach the article In search of exemplary mathematics lesson in Hong Kong: an algebra lesson on factorization of polynomials (Mok, 2009). In this reflection, I mention which statements troubled me, and I suggest ways to clarify the more dubious assumptions in this article. I also offer several implications of the methodological issues on social change. Before I review the article, I provide my background information to provide context for my perspective. I was not born in Hong Kong, but I have been a teacher in four Hong Kong secondary schools and two universities -- of a high standard -- since 2003. I have not taught mathematics but I have taught English language at the university level and English, computer studies and history at the secondary level in Hong Kong. I learnt Cantonese in Hong Kong and speak it fluently -- without employing words from another language when speaking; I read about 1,300 traditional Chinese characters and am familiar with several Putonghua and Cantonese romanization systems. I tell people I do not speak Putonghua but I do speak English, Korean and Spanish alongside Cantonese. My grandparents were born in China. It is hard to tell whether I am an insider or an outsider to this research phenomenon of a mathematics lesson in a Hong Kong classroom, but that is important to determine, for which reason I share this background: to highlight the facets of my perspective, or voice. Likewise, I feel the researcher should have provided more context for her perspective. In other words, I do not think the researcher implicated herself enough in the research. If she did, some of the assumptions implicit in this article could have been clarified and rendered more palatable. I felt the author’s first person voice in the introduction and the reference to a Chinese cultural identity was appropriate at first blush. But then I began to question whether, for the author, Chinese as an adjective refers to a national cultural identity or trans-national racial cultural identity. I felt the ground shaking underneath me all the more as the Hong Kong education system, the culture of Hong Kong classrooms and Hong Kong’s teachers were implicated as part of this Chinese cultural identity. The extent to which the Hong Kong education system, Hong Kong classrooms and Hong Kong teachers should be considered typical of this Chinese cultural identity was not explained. Whatever the extent is, I wonder if I would be considered a Chinese teacher per the author’s perspective. A consequence of not clarifying what Chinese is and how Hong Kong and Chinese are coupled may be disparate views on what constitutes Chinese after reading this article: some, outsiders, for example, may imagine a rigidly cohesive impression, that Hong Kong people are Chinese -- whatever that means -- and Chinese are Hong Kong people. Some, insiders, for example, may imagine Chinese being wildly diverse, with Hong Kong people being one variety of a dubious whole. Later, Chinese was referred to as a noun, the medium of instruction in the school, and then clarified to a degree as Cantonese, which the author assumes is Chinese. Yet to what extent Cantonese language is Chinese language is not explained. I wondered if the author assumes Chinese encompasses spoken Cantonese or Putonghua or both, traditional or simplified Chinese characters, or pinyin. Then I thought carefully about my own experience in Hong Kong and wondered to what extent research participants were using one identifiable
language and not a Cantonese language perversion. For example, on page 324, I wonder if students and teachers were speaking exclusively in Cantonese, articulating “factoring polynomials,” “factors” and “factorization” in Cantonese. I wondered if students were also using Cantonese to express numbers and variables in equations. If not, I wonder to what extent the lesson can be characterized as Chinese medium of instruction, Cantonese language, when the most critical words in the mathematics and pedagogical discourse are expressed in English. This goes without mentioning the language of the textbooks and worksheets that were presumably used in the lesson. If the written language of these texts were English, I find it even harder to characterize anything as Cantonese, or Chinese in that classroom. In general, like Chinese as an adjective, Chinese as a noun stimulates myriad possibilities of how it can be used as the medium of teaching. Unsurprisingly, the word Cantonese in the insider context of Hong Kong can convey many meanings. To not address the details of Chinese and Cantonese and the possibility of a unique linguistic landscape may deceive people, particularly outsiders who rarely touch the concept of “Chinese” to imagine a linguistically coherent model in spoken and written language in the classroom. Besides, the inclusion of all these specific language details is important because it illustrates the uniqueness of Hong Kong and how it cannot necessarily be easily labeled, "Chinese." That Chinglish and mixed languages may be used may also make this lesson's features typical for Hong Kong mathematics lessons and increase the validity of this lesson being exemplary. The term “local” was dubiously used several times in the article. Although the researcher identified her perspective as local, it was hard to tell the scope of local: this term could have a geographic reference: classroom; school; district; state; nation; East Asia, even. In Hong Kong, however, I notice that this adjective has a curious, racial cultural identity reference as well (e.g. people living in Hong Kong refer to other people living in Hong Kong as ‘local,’ which surely isn’t a geographic reference since everyone in Hong Kong would be ‘local’) which raises many more questions such as whether Hong Kong teachers are local teachers and Chinese teachers, and whether more broadly locals are Chinese people and Hong Kong people. The loose mixing of these words are comprehensible to a degree to people, like the author and me, who are within the context of Hong Kong and understand the ambiguity of and loose coupling of the terms, Hong Kong, Chinese and local. To outsiders, however, this loose mixing of words could be too curious. I wonder if I could say that New York teachers are representative of American teachers and local teachers. By the same token, using the adjective local to describe the mathematics curriculum is opaque, at best, on page 323: if local can be used instead of Hong Kong, I wonder if I could describe the state of New York's curriculum as the local curriculum when I am researching in New York state as well as New York City. Overall, I feel that leaving the loaded terms, Chinese and local, out of this article improves the article’s clarity greatly and makes the scope of this article’s effect more reasonable. Referring to Hong Kong as a state entity, with a clear delineation, may be more comprehensible to an outsider audience. Additionally, providing more information on the author’s background improves the article’s clarity greatly. Understanding the author’s perspective renders the entire premise of the article, and its jargon, more comprehensible. I feel leaving the author's voice out of this article leaves outsiders at a loss to explain the loose jargon. It is important for the author to acknowledge the roots of her words in the discourse. For
example, I believe the dichotomous discourse of local, non-local, Chinese and non-Chinese and Cantonese and non-Cantonese are endemic to Hong Kong and I only know about this curious discourse because I have been in Hong Kong since 2003 and these terms have impacted me and my thinking. This brings me to my final point: the political nature of the research and the methodology. I believe research is about social change since ultimately, research impacts people to varying degrees at many levels. This research impacts people’s understanding of the world, and therefore, since the research represents the author’s understanding of the phenomenon, the extent to which the researcher’s understanding impacts people’s understanding should be acknowledged. When assumptions are not challenged, they reinforce certain worldviews, and therefore social change. I feel the assumptions of the research are politically appropriate and advantageous for what I know about the author and the context. For example, an exemplary lesson in Hong Kong is important because it suggests social coherence within people of a state: there is a particular reason why an exemplary lesson was sought not at a department level, district level, geographic level (e.g. Hong Kong island) or a a greater regional level (e.g. East Asia), although researching at those levels was possible. That an exemplary lesson in mathematics, and not English language, history, or computer studies, for example, was the research phenomenon may have been because Hong Kong state has performed “well,” in TIMSS. Perhaps an exemplary mathematics lesson in Hong Kong would not have been sought had there not been a TIMSS or had Hong Kong performed “poorly” in TIMSS. The coupling, however loose, of Chinese, Cantonese, Hong Kong, and local are also significant in reinforcing, or reflecting state and university agendas. I see this research being used in the the same way that Sun Yat Sen has been used at the University of Hong Kong and in Hong Kong state to link, if not unify, Chinese, China, Cantonese, Hong Kong and local since the British handover of Hong Kong in 1997 and particularly since 2011. References Mok, I. (2009). In search of an exemplary mathematics lesson in Hong Kong: an algebra lesson on factorization of polynomials. ZDM, 41(3), 319-332. doi: 10.1007/s11858-0090166-8