As a former high school educator who was a proponent for
thoughtful integration of digital technology into the classroom, I appreciate
the work that is done by practicing teachers in planning for the technology-rich
classroom. Increased use of
technology in the classroom can democratize the educative process, and the
planning and implementation of lessons can model and encourage this
democratization.
In my relatively new role as a researcher with a foundation
that partners with Vermont middle schools to provide technology, I occupy the
space of supporter and potential collaborator. Although I am a new face to
them, they have an existing understanding of the relationship, and can expect
me to interact in similar ways and fulfill similar roles as those with which
they are familiar. Educators in our partner schools are familiar with the
participatory action research model, and have participated in research projects
in different roles.
My critical viewpoint shapes my interpretation of artifacts
such as planning documents and interview comments, and so the meaning that is
constructed through the research interactions will be subsequently affected.
Further, as a student in a qualitative research course, my viewpoint is in flux
as I am introduced to new theoretical frameworks and methodologies.
A deep description of the lesson planning with regard to
technology can help demystify the practice for in-service teachers as they
consider further technological integration, as well as help the reflective
process of teachers in our partner schools.
Questions: where should I expand? Do I need to say “how” I “think” my stance or the participants’ stances will affect the process of meaning-making? The reflective process is on-going – does it all get folded back into this statement?
ReplyDelete