Artifacts for collaboration and communication in the research process.

Artifacts for collaboration and communication in the research process. Federica Oliverofede.olivero@bristol.ac.uk Two examples: Video-asset Videopapers

Specialised terminology Propositions and prescriptions Stream of words Language of the classroom Sights, sounds and interactive features of the classroom Visual, oral and physical cues Teachers/ Practitioners Discourse Academic Discourse "if academics want to write for teachers, they need to be careful to incorporate kind of textual features and qualities that are central to teachers' Discourse" (Bartels, 2003) Policy makers Discourse

"communicating findings to others plays a much different role in teachers' Discourse than in academics' Discourse. For academics, the primary purpose of reading and communicating findings is to build a public base of abstract, generalizable knowledge.[…] For teachers, on the other hand, the primary purpose in reading and writing up research is to expand their personal, context-specific bases of knowledge about their teaching and their students' learning" Bartels (2003, p.751).

Some questions • What tools may enable the different ‘communities’ • to express and re-present themselves and their ideas? • and successfully engage with one another? • Collaboration teachers-researchers • Ways of representing the research process

First example:Video-asset University of Bristol (Rosamund Sutherland, Peter John, Federica Olivero) TLPR (Mary James, Andrew Pollard) Available Light TV (Robin Toyne)

Challenges to the idea of video-asset • How to address multiple audiences through a single video-asset: public face (public presentation of TLRP results, eg press), professional users (eg teachers, LEAs), academic audience. • How to create a balance between the particular and the general, that avoids over-generalisation and making the findings appear trivial. • Is it possible to convey a coherent story with enough context for the reader to make sense of it in only 5 minutes? • Is the quality of video collected for research purposes ‘good enough’?

Evolution of the video-asset model “Our research demonstrates how it is possible to improve educational outcomes for pupils of all ages. Their understanding of maths, English and science, all key areas of the curriculum, can be enhanced by approaches that we have developed. This document sets out for the first time the principles for improved school education and how they can be used in practice.” (Andrew Pollard, press release 2006) “The DVD illustrates applications of six of these principles through individual classroom case studies from across the UK” “The materials are offered to support personal reflection about ways of developing practice in classrooms and schools”

The video-asset • Involvement of a professional production company (Available Light TV, Bristol) • Audience: Teachers and school leaders • Across school sectors & regions • Voices of: students, teachers, principals, researchers • Footage from the classroom

Questions for discussion (10 min) • First reactions: what do you ‘see’? • What does the video communicate? • What uses can you see for this video? • What other information would you like to have (if any)? • Any other comments

Second example: videopapers Interactive Education project With Elisabeth Lazarus, Kate Hawkey, Sheila Trahar, Marina Gall, Jean Dourneen, Maria Daniil, various ETS students

Videopapers .... as opposed to dominant print publications • offer opportunities for integrating educational theory/academic research with the excitement of classroom practice • contain the intrinsic features that belong to practitioners Discourse • capture, preserve, and represent events in ways that connect with the world of the practitioner, a world where different forms of knowledge are continually being juxtaposed.

Videopapers created by … • Researchers as academic publication (ESM, JRME) • Researchers with teachers to disseminate project findings (Interactive Education project) • Teachers to communicate work as part of a project to teachers who weren’t part of the project (Interactive Education project) • Researchers to represent the collaborative research process with teachers (REISS project)

Video – synchronised with the text Navigation menu/tools Play buttons – synchronising text to video Closed captions Text Hyperlinks – to other pages in the videopaper or to external sources Slides – synchronised with the video

Questions for discussion • Compare the videopaper with the video-asset: • Similarities and differences • What is the potential of videopaper as a tool for collaboration with and communication to practitioners? • Would you see the use of videopapers in your research?

A teacher creating a videopaper As part of the project we had lots of video so I was trying to find a way of sharing my research with other teachers so that they could understand what I had done and understand the theory behind it. I wanted them to see the practical side so that they could see they can do it themselves, so that's why I liked the idea of linking it with video (Dan)

A teacher reading a videopaper This is real. You can see it. When you read some of these journals with research in them, I sometimes think ‘did they just make it up’ in an afternoon so they could publish something? The writing they do just doesn’t link with practice; it’s about different things. […] but with this you can see it’s real – there is a real teacher, the kids are real, it’s a real classroom – you can see that. She is having real problems, noisy machines, noisy guys, messing around (Rob).

Reader as writer “we want to discover how the kids react to this and then watch the video and then that’s how I would analyse the situation. That would be far more like you are involved … because you also can decide or give your opinion or you feel the reader wants your opinion” (Christine) “But you’re bringing your own set of value judgements about which bits you perceive as being the most important. And they of course might not be those bits that the writer or the creator of the video paper has envisaged” (Liz and Catrin)

Videopaper as a new form of discourse? • Realism brought by the video • issue of believability (realistic realism: Latour, 1998) • Videopapers can be a ‘way in’ for teachers to access theoretical/research ideas through something that is meaningful to them and connects to their practice • Raw data can be accessed and analysed by the reader - reader as writer • Multiple interpretations • “Make up your own mind” • Sharing perspectives

Videopaper is not dominated by video or text - the meaning is created out of the relationship between video and text (multimodality: Jewitt, 2004) in one whole environment • Videopaper as a new genre • New writing ‘style’? New structure? • Analysis vs description

Bristol and BECTA (UK) • Boston (US) • Bergen (Norway) • Goteborg (Sweden) Current videopaper projects • To represent and disseminate research and practice. • As an assessment tool. • For sharing good practice – mentoring. • VP as ‘product’ • For reflection and self-reflection. • For development of practitioners’ skills. • Collaborative research process. • VP as ‘process’

Thank you

Artifacts for collaboration and communication in the research process.