Moving beyond literacy

So I am finding that there are really three strands that are coming into play for what I am looking at regarding emerging technology in education. There is the one that is more of an ICT (think geek) approach that is looking at this as a technology approach which examines the networking, the computers as tools to communicate, etc. There is a second that looks at this phenomena from a use in education approach...that is from a how do I apply this technology in my teaching and how does that impact the teaching. The third is more where I situate myself which is the idea of new literacies which has been used by many, including my favorites of Lankshear and Knobel, to discuss emerging technologies and the impact of the meaning-making associated with and a part of the
everyday and classroom practices in the use of these technologies.
I see that this is incredibly useful starting point, but I also have this feeling that it is slightly off-center from my own focus (or better to say that I am off-centered from this focus). That is, there is a great amount of work looking at this from a literacy view. This is not bad, I just seem to feel that there is other views, that I am in some ways constrained by forcing this through the literacy lens. I resonate more with the practices and spatial approach. Yet, this area is less defined and is so often tied into this idea of literacies. I know that part of this is that the way that we do interact are through artifacts of communication. This approach seems to come from those like Heath and Street who discuss literacy events and practices. They have defined these so broadly that we can really look at anything we do as part of that event/practice.
Yet, I do see that we are missing something. So what is this something? Or is it something, or rather, as I said earlier, that I am coming from a different viewpoint. Thus, I am not viewing this through the lens of literacy and see that there may be value in viewing these activities through different lenses. Other lenses that have been used: identity, spatial, participation, activity, etc.
Although all of these are part of what I am seeing as a part of this, I do not see one as resonating with me as MY lens.
So this is more a post of questions than a post of in depth theorizing.

Exploring everyday life and social space literature in four articles

Here are my reviews of 4 articles and the themes that play across them.

Lankshear- The Challenge of Digital Epistemologies

Starting from the idea that the everyday life is more and more digitized, Lankshear looks at the way that the change from 'atoms to bits' in everyday practices cause specific changes to knowledge, knowledge processes. Specifically he says that "these are ‘changes in the world to be known’, ‘changes in conceptions of knowledge and processes of coming to know things’, ‘changes in the nature of knowers,’ and ‘changes in the relative significance of different modes of knowing.'"

First, the knowledge changes in value from that of a valuable resource to that of a commodity to be used. Secondly, knowledge becomes externalized, so it is not a property of the individual but rather a shared resource existing between people. This also impacts the essential knowledge for a task. Internalized knowledge was needed in the past to complete a task, that is the one performing the task needed to know the information, now one must know how to access and operate the technology to bring up the information to be used in the task. Lankshear discusses that this shift is really that of shifting from propositional knowledge, or knowing what, to procedural knowledge, or knowing how. Even so, "the abstraction and decontextualization of classrooms from mature forms of authentic non-scholastic social practices has seriously limited the range of possibilities until recently" (p. 177).

All of this questions the current way knowledge is looked at and understood and suggests the need to develop an understanding of knowledge in the digital age. There are references to the ways in which schooling is impacted by this such as recognizing the change to shared knowledge work in the wider, online world does not truly change the individualistic approach in schools. "Ultimately, schools too operate on this assumption at the level of their ‘deep structure.’ For all of the group work and collaborative activity that has entered classrooms in recent times, knowledge is seen in the final analysis as a private possession, and is examined and accredited accordingly" (p. 176).

Leander- Tracing of everday sitings of adolescents online

Leander and McKim discuss the need to "understand online literacies as social practice" p. 211. As such they problematize the dichotomy of offline/online practices which is often addressed in the literature regarding online practices. They suggest that this is primarily an aspect of moving from analysis of one type of place, that is a static conception of space to a different understanding of social space, that is a relational notion of space. They provide examples from the research that make the case that offline and online are not separate but are rather interconnected and interwoven.

They suggest that there needs to develop new methodologies which could be grouped under the context of connective ethnography. This is the ethnographic study of relational interactions through multiple contexts and not tied to a specific physical space, but rather defining space as "performance of place" which is done through boundary creation. These boundaries are continually defined by practices which have embedded meaning within that space.

In my own critique, it is here that I would want to further explore this idea of space and place. If the performance of place does involve that definition of boundaries, yet there is a desire to define place by the relational aspect, then it is difficult to see how we would in reality develop that context of study. The continual enactment of the place would mean that the space that is being study would be a shifting and changing entity and perhaps lose clarity for the study in this shifting. I believe that this is not an issue which is irresolvable, but rather needs to be further refined and discussed.

Leander- You won't be needing your laptop

In this discussion of a study done at a private school, Leander examines the ways in which traditional definitions of literacy and instructional practices intersected with the "open" framework provided by every student having a laptop connected to the internet. The implications from his study is that the provision of access to the technology is not enough to change the practices in school around teaching and learning with these technologies. Leander does not address this issue from an organizational culture or even the momentum of 'habitus' in recreating itself. However, he discusses the technologies which are used to "spatio-temporally produce and organize schooling as a particular kind of activity" (p. 27). The observed practices of ths use of the laptops, for the most part, were for common practices that were just the transfer from print interactions, such as taking notes and the processes surrounding handing out and submitting homework. Yet, even in these traditional practices, the use of the laptops did provide opportunity for changes to these practices.

Leander also highlighted tensions between competing concepts of identity (strong wired women versus vulnerable frightened girls), information (unlimited, open digital library versus questionable and unreliable online postings), and classroom interaction (ongoing, shared discussion versus scattered, disruptive and unobserved side chatter). Most helpful is Leander's chart depicting the space-time productions seen in school and that in the online.

Although Leander's shift to the idea of space-time is very helpful in approaching the issue of the use of online practices in the school setting, he is recreating the very binary that, in other works, he problematizes of in-school/out of school. I do not see that this is a contradiction, but merely the tension in discussing how we can address this complex interaction. Leander does reference Soja's work on spatiality which recognizes the complexity of space-time by understanding it as trialectically created, with the trialect being comprised of social, historical and spatial aspects. This is an area that could use further exploration. How do these three intersect? What can actually be seen as the social, historical and spatial aspects? and How do these interact to produce social space?

Leander - Writing traveler's tales on the new literacyscapes

Starting with an example of chalk writings on city walls explaining how to access wireless internet, Leander highlights four ways that this act provides entry into understanding online literacyscapes: 1) the writing is about the digital world but not in it, 2) explicitly shows the 'working of social-spatial boundaries' 3) a practice of identification and 4) uneven distribution of identity and knowledge related to online work. Pulling from both spatial theory (primarily Soja, 1989 and Lefebvre, 1991) and narrative discourse analysis (Holloway & Valentine, 2001) Leander suggests that the research needs to move beyond looking at the artifacts created by youth in online spaces and begin to understand the process or 'travels' through this cyberspace as an important aspect of study. He specifically discusses the need to recognize the crossing of practices without limiting to the in school literacy practices or out of school online activities only.

Leander provides a brief critique of the use of activity theory to analyze the shifting interactions of literacy across various literacyscapes; offline, online, home, school, out of school, etc. He suggests that this theory has potential as a lens, but is limiting in that it is so often tied to the concept of communities of practice which suggest a history of practices that are passed through an apprenticeship model. This reduces the explanatory power of such a lens when applied to rapidly changing forms of interaction which are developed and redeveloped through use with others who are also new to them. However, he does end with the suggestion that this lens is a useful one to examine and perhaps modify to help understand "how new literacies are learned and culture is being transformed' (p. 396).

Themes playing across these articles

First, it should be recognized that these articles were selected specifically since they addressed the ideas and themes seen in Leander's Connective Ethnographies chapter in the Handbook on New Literacies Research. Thus, the themes were in some ways already known going into these articles. However, there were in deed specific themes seen:

· The focus on the everyday practices shifts our analysis from that of recreating the online/offline binary to understanding how the new literacies practices shape and change the way that people interact and construct identity, space and knowledge. In this way the new literacies need to be seen as always emerging and changing, but that they are not new as in novel. The very everydayness of their use suggests a broader impact and transformation of practice and interaction.

· There is a shift to understanding space and literacy as relational. The social interactional aspect of activity and the connectedness of these interactions changes the primary assumptions about space and literacy as bounded and defined by one location or type of interaction. This understanding brings into play the historical trajectories of interaction as impacted by the current technologies for relating.

· Finally, all of these articles highlighted the conflicts and tensions that exist within systems and organizations which were designed and developed out of traditional literacy practices and yet now are beginning to try and utilize new literacies practices. These articles suggest that there needs to be an actual shift in mindset or change in foundational epistemologies for the new literacy practices to be put into place and also to be effectively researched and understood.

The Everyday of NML

In reading again today I found Leander (2003)* discussing everyday literacies. This resonates well with what I am looking at in regards to the concept that students are not completely different in school from out of school. Nor do they do identity work in isolation, as Wortham shows. Rather the development of literacies, practices and identities are across various spaces and settings in our lives. The use of the internet and the practices, meaning-making spans the spaces. By understanding new media literacies as everyday practices which cross spaces, it problematizes the binary often set between in and out of school practices. It situates the interactions in the broader social context of what is happening in the internet, which is a part of the broader society. The recognition that students bring more to school than just what school gives them (and more than school often values), can be seen in the ideas of Moll who discuss funds of knowledge. This movement to seeing the student participant as part of the larger social interaction of society rather than merely an actor in the school setting in isolation gives power to the need to look at the ways that students interact out of school (others are doing that) and inside school as part of that broader context (few are doing this). I see that the latter is my focus. What are the students doing inside the school setting, but at the same time enacting identities and practices to create social spaces which are part of trajectories which have school as a part of them. This view does not examine the students trajectory as that of a kindergartener (or preschooler) to that of a graduate (or non-graduate). Rather, this view sees the student as having a life trajectory that intersects with school and school practices, but does not limit the resources for action, participation, identity work and interaction to those which have been supposedly provided by school or assessed by school. It is for this reason, that I do not wish to focus on 'academic achievement' as the means of seeing what the impact of technology is on the students. This concept is problematic, not only in the problem of academic achievement but also in that of examining the impact of the technology. Again, the focus on everyday practices allows us to understand the technology, not as a tool put rather examining the social ecosystem for which the technology provides a vital part which changes the way the whole system is enacted and identities which in that are produced..not just a single impact. The embeddedness of the practices in everyday helps us to see that it is the practices which continually create, recreate the large system of interactions. Thus, to examine the 'impact of the technology' is to assume a static system on which it is impacting. This does not recognize the constant enactment of the ecosystem which is continually emerging.
This embededness of the everyday allows us then to return to a situatedness of the practices and interactions in both the local setting as well as the larger global setting through the internet and societal context (Gidden; Gergen).
*Reading Research Quarterly 38 no3, p. 392-7

Themes of NML (part 2)

In this post, I'm going to take a stab at a couple of different ways that various authors have talked about NML themes and overarching concepts.
Warshauer summarized how different individuals have framed technology and literacy together. He suggested that there were three different frames; learning, power and change. Learning discusses the impact of technology use with a focus on literacy and learning. However, he saw that "In addition, technology- even when used in a particular way- usually is better understood not as having an impact, but rather as helping reshape a broad social ecology, and thus affecting learnining in ways that are unforeseen" (New Lit. Handbook, 219) He suggests that the change framework allows us to understand that ways that literacy reshapes learning, however, by looking at a power framework, introduces context a purpose and thus can include the change and learning frameworks to some extent according to Warshauer.
Another suite of themes "to construct expanded notions of literacies and being literate" are those of identity, participation and collaboration. These are strong terms and lenses to use for understanding changing literacies. One might also add into these, the aspect of culture as this provides the underlying flow from which to discuss changing identity and identity resources, as well as the ways that participation and collaboration are constructing a shared set of practices.
In my own examination of the literature, I might suggest connectivity, access and modality. This would be conenctivity in both that of the connection to others and among others (social), as well as the interlinking of information and ideas through the web nature of the internet. Access also refers to access to a variety of people, cultures, potential identities (the more social aspect) as well as to information (which changes the dynamics of information capital). Finally, the modality refers to the expanded ways that relationships and information are being constructed.
Although not foregrounded to the same extent, I see an underlying, and interesting theme flowing throughout the literature: everyday practices. This idea is valuing the practices that emerge in the everyday life's of individuals outside of school. It is looking at the ways that the,as internet use becomes part of the everyday, it does change the ecology of interactions and assumptions about knowledge, information and people. Thus, the funds of knowledge and knowledge resources of individuals has become more prominent in discussions of this technology. However, I am not sure if that is a theme or more prominent than just a theme and needs to be a defining aspect of the discourse around new literacies.
So: connectiviy, access and modality as seen in the everyday practices of individuals are changing the ways we understand and interact...thus the major themes and ideas from NML??
Well, it at least is a start. Comments...anyone...anyone??
J:)

Themes in New Literacies Research

New literacies addresses a wide range of ideas and concepts. It is pulled from various fields and foci. Although primarily with at least one foot in the education/teaching/learning realm, the term literacy has become such a catch-all phrase that nearly any idea relating to interaction and meaning making can be applied to it. With the idea of literacy is more broadly understood as meaning making practices, we gain a certain focus for our discussions around the term literacy. Yet literacy with this idea moves outside of the realm dealing with reading/comprehension and ability to write/communicate in written form. Meaning making can be done in many different areas and with crossed with a term like Science, as in scientific literacy, we now are speaking to a certain type of meaning making, that is scientific. However, it is not just the concepts of science, that is required when making meaning, but an understanding and use of the broader tools and resources of those who tend to talk about science. Gee refers to this as Discourses which one can participate in. The literacy in a specific area, then is looking at the ways that meaning is made in the Discourse of that specific area, encompassing the shared practices, histories, vocabulary, etc of that area.
Now then, what 'area' would New Literacies be? New literacies research looks at the way that various technologies change and transform the meaning making process, or literacies. This research can span the change that utilizing different mediums (such as video, graphics and audio) impacts the way that communications that typically might have been text are created and understood. This multi-modality is a focus of some researchers (Kress) who are looking at the way that communications that might have been in print is being transformed and what that transformation does for the meaning itself, the process of making meaning and the individual utilizing that medium to make meaning. Others look at the way that more open access, brought about by ubiquitous computing and the internet, to information is changing the way we think about, relate to, evaluate and present information. Still others consider what technologies such as gaming or simulations might do for making meaning, once these games allow for the end user to help in the creation of the way the game is played (Gee, Prensky, Squires). Even more so when those games involve multiple users from multiple locations.
So then, as we look at the ways that new literacies studies exams the impact of ever-changing technology has on meaning making, what are the themes that begin to emerge? I think more on that tomorrow. I am more on a roll to finish by addressing the question: What happens when you look at new literacies in a specific area such as science. We saw that with science and literacies, we entered into specific Discourse in which the meaning was made not only with the use of resources of that specific Discourse but the meaning itself only had meaning as it existed in that area. For example, the discussion of the impact of changing barometric pressure on the density of air masses, causing energy to be released has very specific meaning to a group of people (even if my meaning is wrong as I do not claim to be an earth scientist). Both the vocabulary but also the relationship within that and the ways that this can be observed and measured are all a part of this larger way of making meaning. Now if we are to take new literacies and cross that with science, this intersection or nexus provides us with an area of study which is looking at the ways that technology is changing how meaning is being made, the meaning itself, and the person making the meaning in the scientific Discourse....or in our case the scientific education Discourse. This is not only interesting but also extremely complex area to study.
I shall leave my notebook tonight with this final thought:
New Literacies research is creating a space for understanding the changing practices of any area. It provides us with a space for exploring how these practices might change when the processes around the interactions is disrupted and redesigned for different space.
Thanks,
J:)

Lost in (virtual) Space

Threaded throughout my discussion thus far has been the idea that there is an online space. I have defined this as a points of interaction or a location where practices are shared. This space is first of all fractured (Brighum and Lankshear) in that there isn't a single physical location but rather there are multiple points of entry into this online space. However, there are certain aspects that define this as a space. First, there is the designed aspect (thanks to Joanne for her input on this one). That is this space has both purpose and intentionality in how it is laid out, the activities required of the students and its relationship to the rest of the classroom activities. Secondly, this design is for movement or development in the individual. That is there is a desire to move the students, through participation in this space, towards a specific new identity (this might be knowledgeable students in science, young scientists or merely progressing through the stages of being a student). This designed changed and movement within a space through specific activities is similar to the type of design work that is done in games (as Gee and others have pointed out). Yet, it is the very design which makes this space take on the unique qualities in school settings and that which is most intriguing to me. For a teacher who wants to utilize the 'power of social networking' in the classroom, she is designing and requiring participation in a space for the purpose of voluntary interaction and emergence of learning practices around a subject matter she has selected.
As can be seen, the design of a space and even requirement of activity, does not automatically elicit the type of participation desired for a more Web 2.0 mindset (Lankshear and Knobel). So, can space be designed to produce the type of interaction and practices which would make it the online space that is being sought? According to deCertau, the designed space may be taken up in very unexpected ways by the users of that space. So, then what would be the purpose of having this type of space? Well, first; we are expanding the range of practices that are possible through the use of these spaces.
Secondly, although these spaces may not mimic the spaces seen more broadly online, there is still good work that can be done in them. It just must be seen that these spaces must be designed in a manner congruent with the goals of inviting participation in the types of activities desired by the teacher.
Finally, part of the broader online spaces are the potential for the user to impact and change that space...or at least a corner of it. The design must allow for this AND ALSO there must be ongoing redesign to allow for practices to continue to emerge based on the varying resources and trajectories of the individuals.
I realize there are many claims made above that are not substantiated. However, as I think about spaces, these ideas are what peculate to the top.

Research Questions

Time for the latest version of my research questions (with explanations of course).
So I am struggling between two ways to talk about this, both have merit but are different slants. The first would be : "emergent practices in online spaces" Wonderful suggestion from April. This approach highlights the practices and space aspect. Both of these are critical. Practices is a key to what I am looking at as it is the potential practices and then how these emerge as enacted practices and then how some of these enacted practices become shared which is intriguing to me. The spatial aspect of the online is critical in the sense that this lens provides a way to talk and think about the online as both different and yet a part of in-school setting. Yet there is the concern. I do not want tocreate a binary between in-school and out of school. Using an idea like hybrid space would allow me to talk about the convergence and overlapping of multiple spaces, but can be problematic in discussing the fluidity of what is going on.
The second slant would be: "varied participation of youth in new media literacy" (Once again, a suggestion from April) This focus highlights youth, varied and NML. All of which are important. I also think that I have a richer literature set to draw on for the NML and youth practices. However, this is also an area that has been walked quite a bit already. I think I could add, but perhaps the entry of space helps. When looking at the participation, this triggers the identity lens, which I have seen as important, but not sure how to bring it all into the mix. Gee is pretty helpful in talking about space, identity and practice, but I still am struggling with how they all relate.
Out of this I am looking at keeping my primary interests:

What types of student practices and participation emerge within online spaces? How do these practices emerge? How do teachers respond to these emerging practices? How does this interplay develop and redevelop the online social space?

Then the comp. questions might look like this:

Question 1: Literary Review

What does the literature say about emerging youth participation in virtual spaces in relation to youth's everyday practices broadly and then specifically practices in the educational setting?

Question 2: Theoretical Framework

What theoretical frameworks have been used to understand youth participation in virtual space? How do these lenses help in focusing the discussion on the work being done in and across school and non-school settings?

Question 3: Methodology

What research methodologies and methods have been used to examine youth participation in virtual spaces? In what ways are these methodologies linked to or shaped by the primary theoretical frameworks used?

I think that I could really work with these.
J:)

Connectivity-Theoretical Work

SO I am looking at the practices and how they emerge in a social spatial sense. I have also been thinking about how the overlapping spaces and trajectories of practice are important. In the back of my mind has been tickling this idea that there is an aspect of the connections here that is key. That is to understand the web of meaning (Geertz) as an essential aspect to all of this. So how is meaning being made across these social spaces which utilize newer tools. What are the practices that help and shape the meaning making process BUT ALSO what are the connections (or networks) which inform these practices? SO bear with me here as I go through the logic:

• Social spaces are always emerging from the negotiated and shared practices being enacted
• Practices emerge from the trajectories of practice of the individuals (so both a bistorical element and future expectation are seen here)
• Trajectories of practice cross multiple spaces in which these practices are impacted by the practices of those spaces AND the negotiation taken place as a part of those spaces
• Thus, the trajectories are tied up and connected to the other spaces, people and practices, not just as a past interactional resource, but also as a future or potential practice. The trajectory thus is impacted by these connections.

And so returning full circle to the dieas that April mentioned regarding needing to look at practices across social spaces both as part of school but outside as well.
By the way, when the connectivity piece really hit home was when I quickly played with TouchGraph which was mentioned in an article by Mortensen (Of Divided Mind: Weblog Literacy).

Thinking about Comments on my Thinking

I'd like to follow up on the comments made by April regarding the focus of the RQ's in last post. First, it is amazing to have someone able to give strong feedback and still affirm the work you are doing. April has seen to do that in her very focused comments.
She suggested in general look that I rethink the close focus on K-12 environment. This is a struggle I have had with this whole topic. HOW narrow should I be? I realize that in my final RQ's for my dissertation there needs to be a very clear and fairly narrow focus. However, I am having some problems being too narrow as this is such a new field in regards to research. Thus, I have already switched from the narrow focus of multiuser virtual environments (MUVEs) to the broader virtual spaces. This is both pragmatic, in that I am not sure I can find enough good placements for study, as well as theoretical, in that I want to examine virtual spaces which are planned to be used for more than just a single project. Additionally, I see that the usefulness of my study will be greater with a look at virtual spaces with multiple tool sets rather than just a 3d immersive environment in that the implementation of these into wider spread schooling is further off.
Further she was suggesting a move away from the educational focus into a broader focus on youth utilizing these tools. As she puts it "I just don't think what you would find looking at NML in K12 would be that inspiring. I think you may need to learn from outside that realm to gain a powerful lens to consider the potential for K-12."
She has made a very valid point here. However, part of what I am finding is that there has been research done outside of school practices...along with theorizing how these can apply inside of schools. I want to help to take that next step of what does happen, and why, when these NML tools and practices are brought into the school settings. I do fear that I may be uninspired and perhaps even not have data to work with. Yet, I have also seen in my own work with individuals that there is some things going on that are encouraging, if not inspiring. Even more, I am hoping that I will see potential practices which do start to emerge from the students which can be highlighted so that teachers will read my research and begin to think about how they respond to the students and then how these practices and responses can change the space.
I think that many teachers have heard the potential for these NML in the classroom but have struggled with actually moving in that realm. With a focus on the space as being constructed from multiple trajectories and NOT just being pulled right from the 'cool' web to make the classroom cool, I hope to refocus on a different way of thinking about these tools and their uses for learning in the educational setting.
My final thought on the comments is to say that I love the phrasing she gave this: "youth's varied participation with nml" It really shifts the focus to the youth, which I do love. Then looking across arenas but with youth who are in classrooms trying to use NML, perhaps we will have a greater understanding of the differing ways that youth engage with these newer tools and the meaning making being done in each space.
Now would be a good time to pitch another rendition of the questions...but not sure I see quite how to do that yet.
J:)

Trying to set the stage

So I have put together a preliminary document (published Google doc) that attempts to pull some thoughts on the broader context and a bit of the 'so what' regarding my current research. I would say that the key thoughts are:

• I am looking at the nexus of student, teacher and technological trajectories within the virtual space created through the use of new media literacies in K-12 classroom (say that 3 times fast)
• Space, identity and practice are tied in together when looking at these new media literacies
• My primary questions are: What types of student practices and participation emerge within these online spaces? How do these practices emerge? How do teachers respond to these emerging practices? How does this interplay develop and redevelop the online social space?
• My potential comp questions off of this would be:

• Question 1: Literary Review

  What does the literature say about emerging practices in virtual spaces in relation to youth broadly and then specifically in the educational setting?
  

  Question 2: Theoretical Framework

  What theoretical frameworks have been used to understand how new media literacies are implemented in educational settings? How do these lenses focus the discussion on the work being done on new media literacies in K-12 school settings?

  Question 3: Methodology

  What research methodologies and methods have been used to examine new media literacies in K-12 school settings? In what ways are these methodologies linked to or shaped by the primary theoretical frameworks used?

But rather than just reading the quick bullets, you can always read the full document..ahh the beauty of shared documents.

Design of Study 1

To really be able to know how to put together a study, obviously I need to know what I will be studying. At this point I am looking at the emerging practices of students and teachers in an online, school-initiated space. More precisely I want to look at 1) what types of practices emerge, 2) how they emerge and 3) how these emerging practices are responded to.

The study of students in an online environment brings with it many concerns. First, to suggest that all activity that involves the online space takes place in the online space is naïve at best and doesn't really address the overlapping spaces and identities involved with any social space, much less an online one. This means that the study of the practices which emerge in the online space, requires multiple forms of data collection. Specifically, I need to talk with students and teachers, observe interaction in the classroom and around the online space as well as the space itself. This is really an ethnographic study and so I see multiple data collection points. Right now these are:

· Snapshots of the site, text from the site

· Recorded observations of teachers and students discussing the space and its use

· Teacher pre, during and post interviews focused on purpose, design, and observations

· Student pre, during and post interviews focused on intent, motivation, and what they observered, AS WELL AS, reflections on why they post different types of posts or activities.

· There is the potential of having students micro-blog about their own reasons fro posting. Micro-blogging will help keep the requirement done on amount of extra work so that we are more likely to have good data and will also grab the immediate snapshot of student perception of use.

Another issue that I am struggling with is what type of space. It makes the most sense to examine a space with multiple templates and tools for use so that the potential practices are greater. However, the real issue is that I want to look at a space where the use is more than just a single project but rather involves multiple uses. Use is the key here, in that the potential of the tools does not create use. So I will need either a space where it is already used throughout the course of study or one in which the teacher(s) intend to use the online space throughout the curriculum and course. I would prefer to look at a space like Ning which was designed for end user requirements and not structured around schooling as BlackBoard or Moodle hass been. However, I recognize the issues I have with finding teachers willing to try out a space like Ning in the classroom and as such may need to study within one of the other tools. I hesitate to look across tools as this complicates the study. Although, I will have access to individuals using SecondLife, Moodle, BlackBoard, Sharepoint and then just a single tool like Blogging (where the potential for more expanded use is still there).

More on design tomorrow,

J:)

First post

I know that some people start looking at the first post of a blog to see what the blog is about. Keep in mind that these do morph and change. However, for now this is my notebook for working on my own research. It is a place to reflect and invite colleagues, advisors, other researchers or those really interested in responding to post their comments to my current line of thinking.
Thanks and enjoy
J:)