Why Use Phenomenology in Educational Technology?
(Following excerpt taken from An Examination of Teachers' Integration of Web 2.0 Technologies in Secondary Classrooms: A Phenomenological Research Study (Boksz, 2012).
Roblyer and Knezek (2003) called for a research agenda for instructional technology, particularly ones studied in practice that focused on teaching practices and student learning. Most research has focused on outside factors such as access to technology, support for professional development to encourage integrating technology, and how a teacher’s beliefs about technology impacted their integration of technology. However the standardized measures used in most studies cannot measure the subjective nature of the teachers’ experiences. Therefore, previous research has fallen short of providing the answers needed to close this present digital divide between teachers and their students. Conducting research that would focus on teachers’ lived experiences while adapting pedagogy that makes the best use of the technology will be a step toward bridging the divide. This insight might give additional data to aid in finding solutions to the present problem.
History of Phenomenology
The focus on researching lived experiences came to the
forefront with Moustakas’ (1994) textbook on phenomenological research
methods. He defined phenomenology (p.26)
as “... knowledge as it appears to consciousness, the science of describing
what one perceives, senses, and knows in one’s immediate awareness and
experience. The process leads to an
unfolding of phenomenal consciousness through science and philosophy ‘toward
the absolute knowledge of the Absolute’.”
The word “phenomenon” comes from
the Greek word “phaenasthai” meaning to “flare up, to show itself, to appear.”
Therefore, phenomenon is a suitable place to start an investigation, but the
challenge for human science researchers is to describe things in themselves
with intuition and self-reflection. This
process involves blending what is present, with what could be imagined, and
looking from the point of possible meanings to be gained from the
investigation. Therefore,
phenomenological researchers need to develop epoche.
Moustakas credits the development of Epoche to Descartes,
and states that Epoche requires the elimination of suppositions, and raising
knowledge above doubt. In Greek, it
means to “refrain from judgment” and stay away from looking at things in an
ordinary way, and be open to looking at things in a naïve way. Researchers construct a question or problem
to guide the study, but refrain from making suppositions. The results may provide a basis for further
research or reflection.
Once the researcher has completed the reflection phase,
the researcher constructs a full description of the conscious experience of the
participants’ into a textual description that includes thoughts, feelings,
examples, ideas, and situations which portray the experience. Evidence of something that shows itself again
and again points to confirmation of the phenomenon. When the participants articulate and describe
their experiences, intersubjective validity becomes evident as patterns are
perceived in their combined narratives. The
researcher’s task, known as phenomenological reduction, is to describe the
participants’ experiences, and look again, and describe repeatedly until a
textural description can be written of the “essence” of the experience as
described by all the participants.
Cilesiz (2011) felt that phenomenological research should
be adopted as a proper methodology for researching the adaptation of pedagogy
and technology because it looks at the “essence” of the meaning of the
experience for teachers. Examining this essence could uncover vital processes
of using technology to learn and teach that may not have been recognized
previously.
Cilesiz (2011) built a contextual framework, and proposes
a theoretical framework, for using phenomenological study for an in-depth look
at educational technology in classrooms. The contextual framework shows a
strong research base focusing on teachers’ experiences with integrating
technology into classrooms. Cilesiz
classified the current streams of research on educational technology into three
main categories. The first stream of research examined students’ experiences in
learning through online education, the second stream focused on the experiences
of teachers, teacher candidates, and their instructors integrating technology
in their teaching, and the third stream investigated users’ psychological experiences
with computer applications. However, even with those existing research
categories, gaps exist in the literature and the literature does not have a
framework or construct to focus the research.
Creating a framework and construct will unify researchers and make it
easier to share a coherent body of research.
Cilesiz proposes that a phenomenological approach will create a unifying
framework and methodology for such a research agenda. In order to facilitate the adoption of this
methodology in the field, it needs to provide clear guidelines on sample
selection, data collection and analysis, and ethics and validity.
As per Cilesiz, the
systematic attempt utilized in phenomenological research methodology may lead
to a deeper understanding of what a teacher goes through in trying to adapt
pedagogy and content to utilize the technology effectively. This belief
corresponds and agrees with Creswell’s (2007) definition of the proper domain
of phenomenology as aiming to develop a deeper understanding of several
individual’s common experiences so as to lead to developing practices or
policies. In addition, Creswell claimed that the essence of human experiences
as determined by the participants’ descriptions of an experience makes
phenomenology a philosophy as well as a method.
Cilesiz’s (2011) proposes that phenomenology should be used as an
approach to studying experiences because it enables an in-depth, comprehensive,
and multi-faceted look at educational technology. Giorgi (1997) reminded
researchers that a rigorous phenomenological study includes a philosophical
background, data collection and analysis and a description of the experience as
its output.
A Phenomenology methodology proposed for Educational Technlogy
The research methodology proposed by Cilesiz (2011) is
based on the phenomenological concept of experience. A pre-condition of studying experiences is
the selection of participants who have meaningful and significant experiences.
Therefore, criterion sampling, or choosing participants who fulfill certain
criteria, is the most suitable method (Creswell, 2007) of choosing
participants. A sample size of 3-10
participants is considered appropriate for this methodology (Creswell,
2007). The collection of data can be
collected through interviews, observations, or written self-descriptions. In-depth interviews are the most suited
method for collecting data in transcendental phenomenology and are the
framework for use in research in educational technology. Three interviews, of
about 90 minute’s length, are conducted with the first interview identifying
the participant’s qualifications for participating in the study. During the second interview, the participants
reconstruct their experiences and reflections on those experiences. For the third interview, they are considered
to be co-researchers because they give feedback on the interpretations created
by the researcher during the data analysis stage.
The data analysis stage includes three parts:
phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis (Moustakas,
1994). Horizonalization of the data, or treating each statement as having equal
value and reading it multiple times looking for things related to the topic area,
is the first basic step of the phenomenological reduction stage. The use of a peer review is suggested at this
stage to examine the selection of relevant statements. The researcher then
transfers the data into meaning units, or word/phrases that represent only one
meaning, by splitting them whenever there is a transition in meaning. Any
repetitions or overlaps are eliminated and meaning units across all
participants are listed. Then individual textural descriptions or narratives of
each participant’s experiences are created.
The second part, imaginative variation, begins with
reading the textural descriptions several times from different points of view
to understand the underlying individual manifestations of the experiences. This
involves identifying the common meanings, making comparisons between statements
within individual descriptions and original transcripts, looking for elements
that contradict the data at large, then creating individual structural
descriptions.
Synthesis involves finding the similarities in structure
between the textures of participants.
Meaning units shared across all or most of the participants are
designated as shared meaning units and combined into a single narrative. The narrative is written in third person to
represent the group as a whole and is called the composite textural
description. The essential structural elements
or representations of experiences common to participants are identified and
integrated to create a single group narrative called the composite structural
description containing common essential structures. This description then becomes the textural
–structural synthesis that contains an in-depth description of the experiences
and is the essence of the phenomenon.
Validity in phenomenological studies comes from
implementation of a range of validation techniques and procedures. An essential component is the researcher’s
engagement in the epoche process, or disciplined, systematic efforts to suspend
their own natural standpoint and prejudgments regarding the phenomenon.
Creating a subjectivity statement at the beginning of the study can facilitate
epoche. Bracketing the researcher’s
words during data analysis and consistently revisiting the subjectivity
statement can minimize the impact of the researcher’s idea on the
findings. Similarly, utilizing member
checks and peer reviews can lessen the impact. Member checks include sharing
the researcher’s interpretations of the data and soliciting feedback from the
co-researchers at the beginning of the second and third interviews. Peer review can be utilized during the horizonalization
process to make sure individual statements by participants are given equal
value, and all relevant statements are included. In addition, transparency, or enabling
readers to understand the context of the study so they can evaluate the
findings of the study can increase the validity. The author’s subjectivity statement can be
part of that transparency, as well as explicitly outlining the steps taken
during the analysis, and giving detailed descriptions of things like
participant selection, and reporting limitations of the study.
Ethical consideration and reciprocity are two further
considerations for any research studies. Due to the reflective nature of
sharing the experiences and the possibility of sharing intimate details, the
privacy and confidentially of participants must be protected. The use of pseudonyms for locations or names
can protect privacy and guard against damaging professional reputations. In addition, sharing the final report with
participants can add to safeguarding privacy. Reciprocity is the ethical
consideration that research should benefit both the researcher and researched.
Since the shared details of a life cannot be compensated financially,
researchers are encouraged to reciprocate by providing a service such as
additional training or mentoring on advanced skills in their field.
No comments:
Post a Comment