8 Conclusion and possible implications
8.4 Possible implications for DiDiAC and future design-based intervention studies
the early phases of the intervention project, and potentially be a part of a provisory analysis at this point. Educational researchers seek to develop new models for intervention and change, which are assumed to be a far more advantageous method than previous assumptions about the value of the research being a pure transfer or translation of results (Snow, 2015). The empirical findings in this thesis seem to support studies claiming that a teacher-researcher’s collaboration is complex and challenging (Engestrøm, 1999, Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1990). In light of the Activity Theory with emphasis on the unarticulated need state
(Engestrøm, 1999, Toiviainen, 2007), the teachers in my case seem to be exactly where they are expected to be; in the initial phase of problematizing their own practice, and it takes time to make the objects in each activity system harmonize (Engestrøm, 1999, Zimmerman, 2006).
I have not analyzed the workshop stage in this research project apart from participating in structured observations as a source of my interviews, but I support studies that argue that further research in the start-up phase of such collaborative projects is necessary (Sedova et al, 2016). This is especially since my interviews to an extent show an expressed uncertainty related to teachers’ understanding of what they are participating in. How is the implicit asymmetric relationship between teachers and researchers in such projects illuminated, and how are the coherent but also different agendas and orientations articulated?
The DiDiAC- project introduced essentially two simultaneous elements that
eventually seek to contribute to increase student talk and exploratory dialogues that based on research, promote critical thinking. Further research can also compare intervention projects where pedagogical methods and digital tools are implemented successively versus
simultaneous. It may be interesting to compare how they each affect the gradual change in teachers’ practices and what this means for students’ learning outcome.
Literature
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Freeman, A., & Rose, K. (2017). 2017 NMC Technology Outlook for Nordic Schools – A Horizon Project Regional Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Alexander, R. (2008) Essays on pedagogics. Routledge.
Bazeley, P. & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVIVO. SAGE Publications.
Blackler, F. (1995). ‘Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation’ in Organization Studies, Sage Journals Vol 16, issue 6. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600605
Brown, A. L. (1992). ‘Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings’. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Cochran-Smith, M., & L., Lytle, S. (1990). ‘Research on Teaching and Teacher research: The Issues That Devide’ in Educational Researcher.Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019002002
Derry, S., J, Pea, R., D, Barron, B., Engle, A., R., Ericson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J, L., Sherin, M, G., Sherin, B, L. (2010). ‘Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics’ in The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 19: 1, 3 – 53. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884
Donovan, S., M. & Pellegrino, J., W. (2004). Learning and instruction: a SERP research agenda : panel on learning and instruction Strategic Education Research Partnership.
Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Dysthe, O. (2012). ‘Teoretiske perspektiver på dialog og dialogbasert undervisning’ in Dysthe, O., Bernhardt, N., & Esbjørn, L. Dialogbasert undervisning: Kunstmuseet som læringsrom. Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: SAGE publications.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (2012). Common Knowledge (Routledge Revivals): The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., Kyngäs, H. (2014). ‘Qualitative Content Analysis. A Focus on Trustworthiness’. In SAGE Open. SAGE Publications.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Engestrøm, Y. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computional Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Engestrøm, Y. (2001). ‘Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization’, in Journal of Education and Work, 14:1, 133-156. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Engestrøm, Y. (2011). ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’ in Theory and Psycology 21(5) 598-628.SAGE Publications. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). An introduction to ‘The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance’, In Ericsson, K.A. et al.(Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-20.
Ertmer, P., A & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., T. (2010). ‘Teacher Technology Change’ in Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 32:3, 255-284. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
Flick, U. (2016). ‘Mantras and Myths: The Disenchantment of Mixed-Methods Research and Revisiting Triangulation as a Perspective’ in Qualitative Inquiry 2017, Vol. 23(1) 46–57.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416655827
Furberg, A. & Ludvigsen, S.(2008). ‘Students’ Meaning-making of Socio-scientific Issues in Computer Mediated Settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories’ in
International Journal of Science Education 30:13. 1775-1799. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.prg/10.1080/09500690701543617
Gillen, J., Staarman, Kleine, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. & Twiner, A. (2007). ‘A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms’ in Learning, Media and Technology, 32:3, 243-256. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511099
InqScribe (2016) digital media transcription software. Retrieved from https://www.inqscribe.com/
Jewitt, C. (2012). National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper 03/12: An
introduction to Using Video for Research. Institute of Education: London. Retrieved from:
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf
Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). ‘Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice’ in Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol 4, 1995, Issue 1
King, N. (1998). ‘Template analysis’ in Symon, Gillian (Ed); Cassell, Catherine (Ed).
(1998). Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide , (pp.
118-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications
Linell, P (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically, Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. A Volume in Advances in cultural
pshycology: constructing human development. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Linn, M. & Eylon, B-S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction. Taking Advantage of Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. New York: Routledge
Littleton, K. & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking. Putting talk to work. New York: Routledge Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). ‘Enhancing Classroom Learning Experience by Providing
Structures to Microblogging-based Activities’ in Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice Vol. 11. Retrieved from:
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_fac_pubs/2
Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge - Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2008). ‘The Value of Exploratory Talk’ in Exploring Talk in School. Edited by Mercer, N. & Hodgksinson, S. SAGE publications
Mercer, N. (2013). ‘The Social Brain, Language, and Goal-Directed Collective Thinking: A Social Conceptuan of Cognition and Its Implications for Understanding How We Think, Teach, and Learn’ in Eduactional Psychologist, 48 (3), 148-168.Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804394
Mercier, E., Rattray, J., & Lavery, J (2015). ‘Twitter in the collaborative classroom: micro-blogging for in-class collaborative discussions’ in International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, Vol 3, No. 2, 2015. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2015.070764
Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Leva, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The
Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London ChallengeSchool of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. Research
report No 816. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/22066/1/Moss2007whiteboardsRR816.pdf
Nassaji, N. & Wells, G. (2000).What’s the use of ‘Triadic Dialogue’: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: University of Toronto.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376
Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2015:8. The School of the Future — Renewal of subjects and competences. Retrieved from
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/da148fec8c4a4ab88daa8b677a700292/en-gb/pdfs/nou201520150008000engpdfs.pdf
OECD (2010). Inspired by Technology, Driven by Pedagogy: A Systemic Approach to Technology-Based School Innovations. OECD Publishing Paris. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9610121e.pdf?expires=1496056924&id=id&accname=id20 501&checksum=67F8050FFD470FBE4F444FC4E0A00A52
OECD (2016). Innovating for Education and Educating for innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. OECD Publishing Paris. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en
Patton, M., Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: SAGE publications.
Pea, R., D. (2004) ‘The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity’ in The journal of the learning sciences, 13 (3), 423-451. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
Polanyi, M. (2009). The Tacit Dimension. Foreword by Sen, A. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rasmussen, I. (2005). Project work and ICT. A study of learning as trajectories of participation. Phd, University of Oslo, Oslo. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239551967_Project_Work_and_ICT_Studying_Lea rning_as_Participation_Trajectories
Rasmussen, I. & Ludvigsen, S. (2010). ‘Learning with Computer Tools and Environments: A Sociocultural Perspective’ in International Handbook of psychology in Education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rasmussen, I. & Hagen, Å. (2015). ‘Facilitating students’ individual and collective knowledge construction through microblogs’ in International Journal of Educational Research 72, pp 149-161. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.014
Rasmussen, I., Rødnes, K., A., Ludvigsen, S., R., Smørdal, O & Frøytlog, J., I. (2016) Digitalised Dialogues Across the Curriculum (DiDiAC): Design-based interventions for developing 21st-century skills.
https://www.forskningsradet.no/prosjektbanken/#!/project/254761/no
Richardson, V. (1990). ‘Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice’ in Educational Researcher. Vol 19. Issue 7. SAGE Journals. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019007010
Rojas-Drummond, S., Pérez, V., Vélez, M., Gómez, L., & Mendoza, A. (2003). “Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children” in Learning and Instruction (13), 653-670. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00003-3
Rommetveit, R. (1992). ‘Outlines of a dialogically based social–cognitive approach to human cognition and communication’. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative:
Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 9–44). Oslo, Norway:Scandinavian University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (two volumes) Oxford: Blackwell
Sedova, Sedlacek and Svaricek (2016). ‘Teacher professional development as a means of transforming students classroom talk’ in Teaching and Teacher Education 57 (2016) 14-25.
Retrieved form: http://dx.doi.org/10.10.16/j.tate.2016.03.005
Segal, A. & Lefstein, A. (2016). ‘Exuberant, voiceless participation: an unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities?’ Contribution to a special issue on International perspectives on Dialogic Theory and Practice, edited by Sue Brindley, Mary Juzwik, and Alison Whitehurst. L1- Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, p. 1-19.
Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.02.06
Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., & Freitas, S. (2010). Rethinking learning for a digital age. How learners are shaping their own experiences. New York: Routledge
Shulman, L. (1986). ‘Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching’ in Educational Researcher. SAGE Publications. Retrived from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications.
Snow, C. (2015). 2014 Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture
‘Rigor and Realism: Doing Educational Science in the Real World’ in Educational Researcher, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 460-466. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15619166
Tabak (2004) Synergy: A Complemet to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding,
Journal of Learning Sciences. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3 TalkWall (n.d). How to use TalkWall. Detailed and illustrated instructions. Retreieved from:
http://digitaliseddialogues.no/how-to
Toiviainen, H. (2007). ‘Inter‐organizational learning across levels: an object‐oriented approach’, in Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 19 Issue: 6, pp.343-358, Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620710777093
Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L., H.,Vanderlinde, R. & Braak, J., van (2013). ‘Getting inside the black box of technology integration in eduaction: Teachers‘ stimulated recall of classroom observations’ in Australasian Jorunal of Educational Technology, 29 (3).Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.16
Twitter (2017). Twitter usage/Company facts. Retrieved from:
https://about.twitter.com/company
Verenikina, I., M. (2010). ‘Vygotsky in Twenty-First-Century research’ In J. Herrington &
B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 16-26). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/1022/
Vygotsky, L. (2001). Tenkning og tale. Revised and edited by Kozulin, A, translated by Bielenberg, T. J, and Roster, M.T. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Warwick, P., Hennesy, S. & Mercer, N. (2011). ‘Promoting teacher and School development through co-inquiry: developing interactive whiteboard use in a ‘dialogic classroom’’ in Teachers amd Teaching, 17:3, 303-324. Retrieved from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13540602.2011.554704
Warwick, P., Mercer, N. & Kershner, R. (2012). ‘‘Wait, let’s just think about this’: Using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities’ in Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2 (2013) 42-51.Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.004
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, Education and Technology: expanding the space of learning.
London: Springer Verlag.
Wells, G. (1993) ‘Reevaluating the IRF Sequence: A proposal for the Articulation of Theories of Activity and Discourse for the Analysis of Teaching and Learning’ in the Classroom in Linguistics and Education 5, 1-37. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). ‘Prerequisites’ (pp. 6-17) and ‘Mediation’ (pp. 28-46) in Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., S & Ross, G. (1976). ‘The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving’ in Child Psychol, Psychiat., Vol 17, pp.89 to 100. Britain: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from: doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yin, R., K. (1981). ‘The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy’ in Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 3 No. 1. Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708100300106
Yin, R., K. (1989). Case Study Research – Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series volume 5. SAGE Publications.
Zimmerman, J. (2006). ‘Why Some Teachers Resist Change and What Principals Can Do About it’ in NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90 No 3 September 2006 238-249.Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521
Illustrations
Illustrations of TalkWall:
Footnote 2 - TalkWall (n.d). How to use TalkWall. Detailed and illustrated instructions.
Retreieved 15.03.17 from: http://digitaliseddialogues.no/how-to Footnote 6 - Illustration retrieved 05.06.17 from TalkWall Website:
http://digitaledialoger.no/
Model of Activity Theory
Footnote 3 - Model retrieved 06.06.17 from http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper313.html
Model 2: Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009). Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Model of synergistic scaffolding
Tabak (2004, p. 319) Synergy: A Complemet to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding, Journal of Learning Sciences. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
Illustrations from the classroom
Footnote 7 – Illustration retrieved from collected video-recordings 18.01.17 Footnote 8 – Illustration retrieved from collected video-recordings 26.01.17