Paper Proposal for 2017 Positioning Theory Research ...

 Paper Proposal for 2017 Positioning Theory Research Conference (1000-1250 words)A positive positioning research interview design: How to explore children's meaning-making in supported activity. Dr Cheryl JakabMelbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne.Contact: cherylj12@ or cjakab@unimelb.edu.auAbstractThis session presents theoretical and empirical research with a novel interview design that is underpinned by ideas from Positioning Theory and socio-cultural approaches to learning. Examples will be shared of how this design allowed the presenter to capture children's meaning-making acts and storylines in the research interview context. Recently there have been calls for improvements in interview protocols, to move beyond finding what interviewees can do when relying on their own resources in a situation, towards adding culture into ideas of developmental abilities and appropriate practices. The interview described here allows research into what children can and will do (Siegal, 2008) with a concept when supported to do so, as compared to highlighting what they know, can and will do independently with their own resources. Initially designed to explore what young children will do with the idea of 'molecules' in ICT supported activity (Jakab, 2013, 2014), the material and social supports offered to the interviewees in this research will be outlined. The interview design will be shown to provide data that opens meaning-making or learning-in-action for analysis. The interview has a two stage structure that stems from the positive (re)-positioning offered by Vygotsky's idea of double stimulation (Lompscher,1999). The material supports in the interview are thus offered in two stages. The first stimulation provides learners shared experience with the target (specific knowledge, idea or concept). The target is thus available for the interviewee to activate, spontaneously and/or with support, in the second stage or problem stimulus of the interview. Employing Positioning Theory in the conduct of the interview (eg supporting a conversational approach, inviting interviewees as knowing co-participant in the research) and in analysis of data (positions, acts, storylines) supported a richer understanding of meaning children can and will make with the offered concepts when provided with positively positioned opportunity.(300 words)Key wordspositive positioningdouble stimulation interviewresearch interviewsco-researchersReferencesClark, A. (2005). Listening to and involving young children: a review of research and practice. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 489-505.Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think?: Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s talk. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 207-225. Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197-211.Frede, V., Nobes, G., Frappart, S., Panagiotaki, G., Troadec, B., & Martin, A. (2011). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: The influence of methods of questioning and analysis on the interpretation of children’s conceptions of the Earth. Infant and Child Development, 20, 432-448. doi: DOI: 10.1002/icd.730Goodnow, J. J. (2002). Adding culture to studies of development: Toward changes in procedure and theory. Human Development, 45(237-245). Granott, N. (1998). Unit of analysis in transit: From the individual’s knowledge to the ensemble process. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(1), 42-66. Halldén, O., Hagland, L., & Stromdahl, H. (2007). Conceptions and contexts: On the interpretation of interview and observational data. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 25-40. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Hedegaard, M. (2009). Children's development from a cultural-historical approach: Children's activity in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture, and Activity 16(1), 64-82. Hedegaard, M., Fleer, M., Bang, J., & Hviid, P. (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. New York.: Open University Press, .Jakab, C. (2013b). Talk about small: Conversations with young children at play with molecule simulations,. In C. Redman (Ed.), Successful Science Education Practices: Exploring What, Why and How they Worked: NOVA Press).Jakab, C. (2014). Molecules as tools: Discourse, artefacts and children's meaning-making about particles of matter.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lavé, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Lompscher, J. (1999). Learning activity and its formation: Ascending from the abstract to the concrete. In M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds.), Learning activity and development (pp. 139- 166). Aarhus & Oxford: Aarhus University Press.Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 387-412. Mason, L. (2007). Bridging the cognitive and sociocultural approaches in research on conceptual change: Is it feasible? Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 1-7. Posner, G. J., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 195-209. Redman, C., & Fawns, R. (2010). How to use pronoun grammar analysis as a methodological tool for understanding the dynamic lived space of people. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research (pp. 163-182). New York, NY: : Routledge.S?lj?, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202-208. Schiller, W., & Einarsdottir, J. (2009). Special Issue: Listening to young children’s voices in research – changing perspectives/changing relationships. Early Child Development and Care, 179(2), 125-130. doi: 10.1080/03004430802666932Schoultz, J., S?lj?, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Conceptual knowledge in talk and text: What does it take to understand a science question? Instructional Science, 29, 213-236. Siegal, M. (2008). Marvelous minds: The discovery of what children know. . Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Stahl, G. (2012). Cognizing mediating: Unpacking the entanglement of artifacts with collective minds. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning(7), 187-191. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11412-012-9148-x ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download