10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Disorienting Dilemma: Teaching and Learning in Technology Education During a Time of Crisis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The way individuals interpret and reinterpret their experience is central to meaning-making and impacts teaching and learning. Grounded in Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, this research explores whether pandemic-related emergency remote teaching manifested as a “disorienting dilemma” for technology educators. Teachers negotiated curricular outcomes between physical aspects of making and doing, as well as creative problem solving through design, resulting in a pandemic transformed pedagogy. Thematic analysis revealed that making and doing was severely challenged due to decreased communication, student motivation, and engagement. However, most concerning to educators was the heightened disparity in equity and access in their most vulnerable and at-risk students. In conditions of fear and trauma, little is known about the impact a chaotic way of being has on learners and educators. While we cannot predict what the “new normal” will look like for schools, and what the long-term effects of emergency remote teaching will be, our research demonstrates that the disorienting dilemma COVID-19 presents will continue to shape the pandemic transformed pedagogy of technology educators.

          Résumé

          La manière dont les individus interprètent et renouvellent le sens de leur expérience est fondamentale au processus de recherche de significations et cela a des incidences sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage. Ancrée dans la théorie de l’apprentissage transformationnel de Mezirow, cette étude vise à déterminer si l’enseignement à distance en tant que mesure d’urgence liée à la pandémie a causé un « dilemme déstabilisant» pour les formateurs en technologie. Les enseignants ont négocié des résultats d’apprentissage situés entre certains aspects physiques du « faire et mettre en pratique» et ont adopté une approche créative dans la résolution de problèmes par réflexion conceptuelle, ce qui a donné lieu à une pédagogie transformée par la pandémie. L’analyse thématique a démontré que le « faire et mettre en pratique» a été grandement éprouvé par la diminution dans les communications, la baisse de motivation des étudiants ainsi que de leur engagement. Toutefois, le plus inquiétant pour les enseignants, c’est la disparité grandissante en ce qui a trait aux questions d’équité et d’accès qui touchent leurs étudiants les plus vulnérables et les plus à risque. L’on connait bien peu de choses sur les conséquences d’une façon d’être qui est chaotique sur les apprenants et les enseignants évoluant dans des conditions qui favorisent la peur et le traumatisme. Bien que nous ne puissions pas prédire en quoi consistera la « nouvelle normalité» dans les écoles ni quels seront les effets à long terme de l’enseignement à distance comme mesure d’urgence, notre étude montre que le dilemme déstabilisant que la COVID-19 nous apporte continuera de façonner la pédagogie transformée par la pandémie pour les formateurs en technologie.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

            Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers?

              The field of health and wellbeing scholarship has a strong tradition of qualitative research—and rightly so. Qualitative research offers rich and compelling insights into the real worlds, experiences, and perspectives of patients and health care professionals in ways that are completely different to, but also sometimes complimentary to, the knowledge we can obtain through quantitative methods. There is a strong tradition of the use of grounded theory within the field—right from its very origins studying dying in hospital (Glaser & Strauss, 1965)—and this covers the epistemological spectrum from more positivist forms (Glaser, 1992, 1978) through to the constructivist approaches developed by Charmaz (2006) in, for instance, her compelling study of the loss of self in chronic illness (Charmaz, 1983). Similarly, narrative approaches (Riessman, 2007) have been used to provide rich and detailed accounts of the social formations shaping subjective experiences of health and well-being (e.g., Riessman, 2000). Phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches, including the more recently developed interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009), are similarly regularly used in health and wellbeing research, and they suit it well, oriented as they are to the experiential and interpretative realities of the participants themselves (e.g., Smith & Osborn, 2007). Thematic analysis (TA) has a less coherent developmental history. It appeared as a “method” in the 1970s but was often variably and inconsistently used. Good specification and guidelines were laid out by Boyatzis (1998) in a key text focused around “coding and theme development” that moved away from the embrace of grounded theory. But “thematic analysis” as a named, claimed, and widely used approach really “took off” within the social and health sciences following the publication of our paper Using thematic analysis in psychology in 2006 (Braun & Clarke, 2006; see also Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2013; Braun, Clarke, & Rance, 2014; Braun, Clarke, & Terry, 2014; Clarke & Braun, 2014a, 2014b). The “in psychology” part of the title has been widely disregarded, and the paper is used extensively across a multitude of disciplines, many of which often include a health focus. As tends to be the case when analytic approaches “mature,” different variations of TA have appeared: ours offer a theoretically flexible approach; others (e.g., Boyatzis, 1998; Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012; Joffe, 2011) locate TA implicitly or explicitly within more realist/post-positivist paradigms. They do so through, for instance, advocating the development of coding frames, which facilitate the generation of measures like inter-rater reliability, a concept we find problematic in relation to qualitative research (see Braun & Clarke, 2013). Part of this difference results from the broad framework within which qualitative research is conducted: a “Big Q” qualitative framework, or a “small q” more traditional, positivist/quantitative framework (see Kidder & Fine, 1987). Qualitative health and wellbeing researchers will be researching across these research traditions—making TA a method well-suited to the varying needs and requirements of a wide variety of research projects. Despite the widespread uptake of TA as a formalised method within the qualitative analysis canon, and within health and wellbeing research, we often get emails from researchers saying they have been queried about the validity of TA as a method, or as a method suitable for their particular research project. For instance, we get emails from doctoral students or potential doctoral students, who have been told that “TA isn't sophisticated enough for a doctoral project” or emails from researchers who have been told that TA is only a descriptive or positivist method that requires no interpretative analysis. We get emails from people asking how to respond to reviewer queries on articles submitted for publication, where the validity of TA has been raised. We get so many emails, that we've created a website with answers to many of the questions we get: www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/thematicanalysis. The queries or critiques often reveal a lack of understanding about the potential of TA, and also about the variability and flexibility of the method. They often seem to assume a realist, descriptive method, and a method that lacks nuance, subtlety, or interpretative depth. This is incorrect. TA can be used in a realist or descriptive way, but it is not limited to that. The version of TA we've developed provides a robust, systematic framework for coding qualitative data, and for then using that coding to identify patterns across the dataset in relation to the research question. The questions of what level patterns are sought at, and what interpretations are made of those patterns, are left to the researcher. This is because the techniques are separate from the theoretical orientation of the research. TA can be done poorly, or it can be done within theoretical frameworks you might disagree with, but those are not reasons to reject the whole approach outright. TA offers a really useful qualitative approach for those doing more applied research, which some health research is, or when doing research that steps outside of academia, such as into the policy or practice arenas. TA offers a toolkit for researchers who want to do robust and even sophisticated analyses of qualitative data, but yet focus and present them in a way which is readily accessible to those who aren't part of academic communities. And, as a comparatively easy to learn qualitative analytic approach, without deep theoretical commitments, it works well for research teams where some are more and some are less qualitatively experienced. Ultimately, choice of analytic approach will depend on a cluster of factors, including what topic the research explores, what the research question is, who conducts the research, what their research experience is, who makes up the intended audience(s) of the research, the theoretical location(s) of the research, the research context, and many others. Some of these are somewhat fluid, some are more fixed. Ultimately, we advocate for an approach to qualitative research which is deliberative, reflective, and thorough. TA provides a tool that can serve these purposes well, but it doesn't serve every purpose. It can be used widely for health and wellbeing research, but it also needs to be used wisely. Virginia Braun School of Psychology, The University of AucklandPrivate Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre 1142Auckland, New ZealandEmail: v.braun@auckland.ac.nz Victoria Clarke Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of EnglandBristol BS16 1QY, UK
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jillianne.code@ubc.ca
                rachel.ralph@alumni.ubc.ca
                kieran.forde@ubc.ca
                Journal
                Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ.
                Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1492-6156
                1942-4051
                25 February 2022
                : 1-20
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.17091.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, Faculty of Education, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3096-1289
                Article
                191
                10.1007/s42330-022-00191-9
                8881051
                60dcdf0b-bd0e-4d2f-94b3-b7f919341b78
                © Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) 2022

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 21 January 2022
                Categories
                Article

                pandemic pedagogy,technology education,disorienting dilemma,equity and access,secondary education,thematic analysis,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article