DR JAMES LAMB
  • About
  • Publications
  • BLOG
  • About
  • Publications
  • BLOG

Refocusing my research questions

15/9/2013

0 Comments

 
Having revisited and then categorised the data from the seven interviews, I've rewritten the my original research questions (submitted within my 17 December Research Proposal). On reflection, questions 2 and 3 from my Research Proposal cover too much of the same ground. Also, the questions ignore the conditions that promote/discourage multimodal approaches to assignments, which has been one of more interesting themes to emerge from both the data and my lit review. I think the new combination of questions are also more able to directly address my overarching question posed within the dissertation. Anyway, I have gone...
From this:
The focus of my research will be upon the experiences and attitudes of tutors towards multimodal assessment. Although it is expected that research questions will emerge and evolve during the literature review, I anticipate considering the following themes:

  1. What rationale do tutors apply when choosing to make use of multimodal assessment?
  2. What are the implications in terms of interpreting the quality of a multimodal assignment? In particular, how are assessment criteria defined in order to judge the quality of a multimodal artifact?
  3. How does a shift towards multimodal assessment reframe the role and experience of the marker? 
...to this:
The overarching question I set out to investigate within this dissertation was how the growing the potential for students to present ideas across a range of modes impacts upon tutor approaches to assessment in digital education. To explore this topic I investigated three research questions:

  1. What are the reasons or factors that encourage tutors to take a multimodal approach within summative assessment exercises?
  2. What are the conditions that promote or discourage students from taking a multimodal approach in the response to summative assessment tasks?
  3. How do tutors approach the marking of multimodal artefacts submitted for assessment, in particular, what are the implications for measuring the quality of work in relation to established assessment criteria?
0 Comments

Feedback from Sian on section introductions/structure

12/9/2013

0 Comments

 
Hi James

This all looks good - tidy and clear. There are a couple of v minor things on the attached. My bigger comment would be that there is no indication here of what critical argument you will be making, and no sense of how this will inform and structure the written text. It's good to be able to say in the introduction 'this is the argument I am making, and this is why', and then to be able to say in the conclusion 'this is how my argument has been made, and this is how I have demonstrated that it is important'.

If you were going to define a single argument you will be making in this dissertation, what would it be? If you can define that and write it down in a couple of sentences, that can really help give 'spine' to the piece of work and a coherent sense of direction. Then, whatever meanderings happen in the individual chapters, the piece of work still has a clear trajectory.


Possibly you are quite clear on this - it just didn't come through in the document. If it would help to just fire back to me the central argument (maybe try writing it down in less than 20 minutes : ) ) I can feed back quickly on that. I'm pretty sure you know what it would be - it's just a question of articulating it.


let me know what you think?


s
0 Comments

Sian's paper on Networked Learning with Digital Texts

3/9/2013

0 Comments

 
Another helpful e-mail from Sian:
James - one other thought - did I ever send you my paper on Networked Learning with Digital Texts? It's old now (2006) but you might find it useful. It's also the original source for the idea Ray was mentioning of the crests and the codex book (it was part of my thesis) - he uses that all the time and never credits me : ) I'm not bitter - it's the  supervisor's privilege (be warned!).

the paper's available here: 

http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/bayne.htm


So there you go! Land's work on crests....was Sian's work.
0 Comments

Sian's response to video idea

3/9/2013

0 Comments

 
A reply from Sian in response to my question about the use of video. I can't disagree with any of the below. Basically, it would be good, but its not necessary, and my priority should be the writing.
Hi James

On the video issue: yes, I can see why you might be tempted by this, and I know you'd do it well. My only concern is the time issue, and that the technical and creative challenge of making them might just eat too much into the overal writing time. You'd be able to make most of the points you mention in the blog via a single video - so you might want to consider just restricting it to one rather than trying to be more ambitious with the three.

I'm pretty confident this is going to be an excellent dissertation: you don't *need* videos to make it so. If you feel the time sacrifice is going to be problematic, you can always think of the videos as something to do later - at the moment I think the main thing is getting the dissertation done in good time to move on to whatever comes next.

One other point is that I'm not sure a video would make the point more 'authentically' - while I know what you're getting at, I think authenticity is a tricky concept when it comes to academic knowledge of any kind. Perhaps it might be more useful to think about making the point more *critically* - and whether video would help you do that?

I hope this is useful - I'm not trying to put the dampers on this, just urging a note of caution.

The video idea was already on hold until I get the writing out of the way, however it has been useful to have this reaffirmed.
0 Comments

Notes from meeting with Sian, 16 July, Freemans

16/7/2013

0 Comments

 
Issues to discuss:

  • Structure, navigation and appearance of website
  • Dropping sound element? It needs to be critical? Does it need to be justified/explained?
  • Visual components: is my use of them sufficiently critical?
  • Using hyperlinks sparingly and internally - is this OK?
  • I want to explore idea that I can author/compose all the content
  • In Lit Review I haven't talked about my approach to Multimodal assessment (summative, not feedback)
  • Observational case study: crap title?
  • Delay proposed August submission


Emerging ideas and agreed points:
  • Rationale for representation works better than Rationale for dissemination
  • Creative analytical practice - methodological - make reference to the literature. Take into account aesthetics. Sian will send a paper on about this.
  • Do some testing of the site beforehand, with a view to navigation and whether things work
  • In terms of how its navigated, I'll have opportunity to include Submission notes however these might go as a dedicated section on the front page of the website so that it works as a stand-alone artefact
  • Look at Matthew Preston's assignment for ideas on personal narrative
  • Linkage: my proposed use of hyperlinks doesn't add any value. I need to be think about this and be a bit more ambitious here. It's a nice idea though to link to sections within my own blog.
  • Agreed that it wouldn't be in best interests to attempt to submit in August. Instead I'll aim for October with a view to having something ready ahead of the deadline for the Networked Learning Conference next year.
0 Comments

Changing title, dropping sound

20/5/2013

0 Comments

 
I met up with Michael and Jeremy last night to run a couple of ideas past them. I'll blog about that later however I've had some clarity this morning on a significant change I might make to the dissertation. 

Bearing in mind the difficulty (technology, conceptually, time required) to include aural components within my dissemination, I feel inclined to drop that area. As I've acknowledged elsewhere, this was always going to be a bit ambitious, particularly in terms of the need to create an aural 'channel' that is representative, integrated or complementary to the text and visuals on the page. Basically, how do I create a piece of music that is significant to or representative of 'Data collection'? Or 'Methodology'? Or Lit review? This would be hard to realise. It might also be difficult to justify within the rationale i.e. how can I show that music actually contributes to the communication of (my) meaning in the same way that image or text would. I don't think I can. It would be easier to drop the sound element of dissemination, then. 

Dropping the aural element of dissemination also impacts upon the wider dissertation: I'll also need to drop the 'sound' from my title. But then, when I come to think of it, the content is actually attending to text and visuality much more than aural anyway (in fact, it only gets a couple of token mentions). So the dissertation title becomes: A constellation of image and text: tutor experiences of multimodal assessment in the digital classroom.

What does this actually mean in terms of the dissertation:
  • I need to include in the introduction/lit review that multimodality tends to be dominated by textuality and visuality and that maybe this will be reflected in discussion - hmm, not sure about this - does it offer and implied shift in focus in what I'm setting out to do - my focus is on multimodal assessment, not just abut image and text
  • within data analysis and discussion I need to spend more time attending the the textual and visual themes than might otherwise have been the case
  • in terms of dissemination I need to spend more time interweaving image and text
  • also in terms of dissemination, my front cover constellation image needs to have a balance between image and text and to drop the pictured sound components

Of course, I'll also need to get Sian's take on this: on dropping sound and changing the title.
0 Comments

Response from Sian to May 10 questions

15/5/2013

0 Comments

 
1. Architecture observation
I spent today observing architecture tutors assessing student work (this was the final submission that followed the crit review I attended earlier in term). It was really useful and satisfied my intention of observing how tutors consider multimodal assessment artefacts. I think this will make for an interesting and valuable study, in the context of my work.

This all sounds very good - I'm glad the architecture observation went well.

2. Art and design observation
This has been a bit slower to get going, however I've done a bit of nuisance doorstepping and am assured it will still go ahead. To be honest, I'm not sure what I'll learn over and above what I've seen in architecture but will proceed nevertheless. To an extent though this is beyond my control - is it a problem if it doesn't happen, having included it in my proposal?

On art and design, I think you are taking the right approach in pursuing it - however if it turns out not to be a go-er I don't think that's a problem - it sounds like you have enough and I'd have thought at this point the main gain here is keeing good links with those folk for future projects. It's certainly not a problem re the proposal.

3. Referring to examples of edc multimodal work in my lit review
Is it appropriate to make reference to specific examples of multimodal work on the EDC gallery, within my lit review. Would this count as 'the literature'? Is it a but unconventional to talk about specific examples of student work in a lit review? It would be helpful if I could (and would also help to satisfy your suggestion from last meeting that I need to relate the review more closely to my own research).

Yes - reference specific examples - great. It's not like these are the *only* literature you're using, and it's important to cite/credit people properly for this work. If you publish from this (and I think you probably will want to) you'll need their permission.

4. Referring to course handbooks/assessment frameworks/learning outcomes in lit review
As per question 3. I have assessment documentation for architecture and art and design (and of course our own MSc). I think it would be useful to (briefly) acknowledge how multimodality is encouraged within this documentation. Is this appropriate?

Yes - that's fine - again, if you publish you'd probably want to just get the OK from eca.

5.  Using photographs of student work in dissemination
With the permission of Head of Department and tutors present on the day, I took photos of student work during my architecture visit. It's conceivable that I might want to include some of these images in my dissemination as examples of multimodal artefacts. I took a note of the names of students whose work I photographed with a view to seeking their permission to include in dissemination. As it was, there was actually quite a lot of photographing of work, by tutors and students - it seems an accepted part of what takes place. Nevertheless, it feels like I should seek permission to use images - what do you think?

As above - I think you'd need permission if you publish or present on it (so it's worth keeping a record of whose work it is etc) but I don't think you really need that now to use it (dissertations aren't public documents in the way theses are).

I can't remember if I told you I am going into hospital on 7 June for an operation on my knee, so will be out of action for a couple of weeks. I'll be a bit restricted in mobility for much of June/July but we can still have a meeting over that period if you're willing to have it at my place in Marchmont Cresent - let me know when might be useful for a 
catch-up - I can't quite recall what we agreed on this?

0 Comments

Questions for Sian

8/5/2013

0 Comments

 
Just adding these as they come to. I don't have a meeting in place yet - no need at the moment - but will record the questions anyway as a record.
Referring to EDC examples and course gallery in my Lit review
Is it OK to do this? Does this count as 'the literature'? On the other hand, Sian encouraged me to relate my Lit review more closely to the research questions. It seems like a good idea to be talking about specifically relevant examples, rather than searching through the literature for examples - that feels a bit artificial when they're on my doorstep, so to speak.

Referring to Assessment Handbooks or criteria in the Lit review
As per the above question, does this count as literature? It would be helpful to be able to talk about specific examples. Or maybe that should come in elsewhere in the dissertation, perhaps as its own section? For instance, would it be appropriate to refer to ECA assessment handbook?

Rationale for dissemination
As I recall it from the last meeting, we discussed whether this should come before, or part of, the final dissemination. However I don't think we came to a conclusion. With time moving on, I'll need to find out as it might involve getting something put together fairly soon.
Other questions to follow, as they come to me.
0 Comments

A question for Sian about referring to EDC in lit review

26/4/2013

0 Comments

 
Just noting this down over lunch as it has come to me. During our last meeting Sian suggested that within my Lit Review I need to discuss what multimodal artefacts can look like. She also suggested that I need to talk more specifically about my research questions, rather than distancing myself from the work. Sian suggested offering examples of Alisdair Gray's work, however I think I would like to offer something with a strong education/assessment focus. Taking on board all these points then, here's a question to put to Sian the next time I speak to her/email her:

Within my Literature Review, would it be appropriate to make direct reference to examples of multimodal assessment artefacts within the MSc in Digital Education? Or should this wait for the discussion of findings section? I actually think it would be really helpful to draw the reader's attention to specific examples at this stage - and of course I could use screenshots (perhaps edited). 
0 Comments

Notes from meeting with Sian on 5 April 2013

11/4/2013

0 Comments

 
I've been a bit slow on this. Here are the notes from last week's meeting with Sian where we discussed my second draft lit review, dissemination, data analysis and a few other bits and pieces.

Some general comments:
  • Really well written
  • Nicely critical
  • Done a great job on affordances – managed to say a lot in a short space
  • Thorough
  • Nicely structured
  • Basically, it’s great and I should feel really good about it. It reads like a piece of scholarly work.


Gaps, weaknesses and room for improvement:

  • There’s nothing on print dominance including the history. There is an identifiable print dominance in education. This needs to be acknowledged in my exposition section. If I’m going to make the point that it’s not all about print, I first have to recognise that it is significant. There’s a gap otherwise. What is essayistic linearity? Reshaping academic composition from what?
  • Also in terms of historical context, maybe I need to talk in more detail about the way that texts were multimodal.
  • I need to have more about the characteristics of multimodal text. What does multimodality do to text? This is what it can be like. I’ve only touched on authorship and there’s room for more.
  • How have other people looked at how we assess multimodal artefacts? There might be some stuff out there. Worth looking for this, though. This should go within the ‘decomposing artefacts’ section.
  • I need to write more directly in relation to my own research. At times it’s like I’m shying away from it. It’s OK to write directly – and in the first person – about the research project and questions within the lit review. I’m situating myself as a researcher, not aspiring to be objective – I’m doing some more interpretative.

Fitzpatrick?

  • Is it worth looking at other examples of multimodal literature e.g. Darius Glass, Alisdair Gray, Tristam Shandy? I could maybe use screen shots.
  • The dissertation form should reflect the content. Ideas should be presented in a particular way for a reason. For instance, there needs to be some significance to the use of soundtrack, even if it might take the reader some time to work it out.
  • Is it risky to go for multimodal dissemination? No, it’s essential to present ideas multimodally considering my topic. Have a look at Matthew Preston’s web essay from IDEL a few years back (it will be on course gallery). Incorporates music. 
  • Considering there are relatively few interviews, investing time in Dedoose might not be worth the effort as its purpose is to deal with data collaboratively. It also costs.
  • Hyperresearch might be a better option than Dedoose, but maybe I should just use MS Word with hyperlinks for transcription.

Things to leave out:
  • Stick to summative assessment frameworks, rather than trying to cover formative and summative.
  • It’s OK to leave out the counter-linguistic turn due to lack of space
  • Don’t go into digital authorship unless it’s a major theme

0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    Abandoned Ideas
    Abstract
    Acknowledge And Bib.
    Actions/things To Do
    Appendix
    Brian Eno
    Carey Jewitt
    Conclusion
    Constellation Map
    Data
    Data Emergent Ideas
    Digital Spaces
    Dissemination
    Dissemination Rationale
    Eca
    Ethics
    Fitzpatrick
    Glossary
    Hypertext Links
    Ideas
    Image
    Interviews
    Kress
    Land
    Literature/reading
    Lit Review
    Meetings
    Methodology
    Music
    Natasa Lackovic
    Observation
    Photography
    Research Proposal
    Sian
    Soundtrack
    Stephen Hunter
    Time Needed For M
    Title
    Uni Crest
    Vectors
    Video
    Visual

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012

    Timeline

    Picture
    Other stuff
    Resources page
    Moodle
    EDC13
[email protected]