Critical CinéEthnographic Methods: A New Dimension for Capturing the Experience of Learning in Twenty-First Century Qualitative Research
Saved in:
| Title: | Critical CinéEthnographic Methods: A New Dimension for Capturing the Experience of Learning in Twenty-First Century Qualitative Research |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Gratch, Jonathan, Warren, Scott Joseph |
| Source: | TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. Sep 2018 62(5):473-482. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 10 |
| Publication Date: | 2018 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Ethnography, Qualitative Research, Technology Uses in Education, Video Technology, Electronic Learning |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11528-018-0316-3 |
| ISSN: | 8756-3894 |
| Abstract: | Learning technologies continue to grow in complexity, making it increasingly difficult to understand their impacts on stakeholders using traditional research methods. While comparison and treatment studies, may show if a digital learning tool improved learning, the why, when, and how questions of user experience are often left unexplored. This paper provides a description of Critical CinéEthnography, a research approach that leverages the many forms of media that result from today's learning technologies, including video, personal artifacts, and screen images. This approach provides researchers with the ability to build deep qualitative depictions of the stakeholders' complex digital learning experiences, while also allowing an outcome that can more easily communicate with a practitioner audience. Critical CinéEthnography supports the building of a complex picture of participants as they actively use technologies. The video results can be easily shared with academics and practitioners alike using widely available online platforms. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 47 |
| Entry Date: | 2018 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1189272 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFt1jBtvct_OagatSo6MDWFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFRlCs51u51MTA8G2QIBEICBm7OQ_ad4dXgQOpnwrqbAvonPttNQI0UzvJ-6bUvBcZSDTcXAIF507QIEkYVsd8Y6hVw_nRji_9XfqMkWj7jOMena0IDxYrFUzTf2I0qateY9i3-KqOitMEeGDnmc8rgjC5md5jtPWmC94Ts23W9USCgHGPkXHxJIDjUHKIGrPNLodxhyOttxlzCj2XwzC85ExrehTBMHX_sionJV Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0131407069;ttr01sep.18;2018Aug27.09:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0131407069-1">Critical CinéEthnographic Methods: a New Dimension for Capturing the Experience of Learning in Twenty-First Century Qualitative Research </title> <p>Learning technologies continue to grow in complexity, making it increasingly difficult to understand their impacts on stakeholders using traditional research methods. While comparison and treatment studies, may show if a digital learning tool improved learning, the why, when, and how questions of user experience are often left unexplored. This paper provides a description of Critical CinéEthnography, a research approach that leverages the many forms of media that result from today’s learning technologies, including video, personal artifacts, and screen images. This approach provides researchers with the ability to build deep qualitative depictions of the stakeholders’ complex digital learning experiences, while also allowing an outcome that can more easily communicate with a practitioner audience. Critical CinéEthnography supports the building of a complex picture of participants as they actively use technologies. The video results can be easily shared with academics and practitioners alike using widely available online platforms.</p> <p>Critical CinéEthnographic methods; Ethnography; Research methods; Technology in Research; Video; Qualitative</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Technologies in support of student learning continue to grow in complexity making it increasingly difficult to understand their impacts on the educational stakeholders. Positivist research methods common in many studies used to determine effectiveness of learning technologies approaches, have been criticized for lacking the robustness and explanatory power because they primarily answer questions of whether or if (Reale [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref1">36</reflink>] ). While these have value in appropriate circumstances, the statistical outcomes leave questions of how, when, where, and importantly, why learning occurred (or did not) unexplored. Such issues often stem the complexity of today’s multifaceted digital learning tools, serious games, and learning management systems that change dynamically throughout an individual’s learning experience in response to student actions as a feature that makes generalizing findings difficult. Further, many educational systems are designed to control learner behaviors and outcomes based on what is perceived by the more powerful state, district, or teacher, which may disempower them from choosing their own activities, speaking for themselves, or thinking differently from how the system believes they should. Research methods developed since the 1960s, such as critical ethnography, which was intended originally to help researchers foster emancipatory projects in daily spaces such as workplaces and schools (Carspecken [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>] ; Willis [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref3">44</reflink>] ). Critical theory, a basis for critical ethnography, is grounded in the idea that social research can act as a mechanism to liberate humans and decrease their domination by the powerful in society (Rosenberg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>] ). With the rise of learning management systems, computer-based instruction, and complex testing regimes at every level of education that are intended to capture every aspect of students from elementary school through later employment, understanding the power of digital and political systems relative to learners and teachers becomes an increasingly important enterprise. While positive aspects exist with these systems, the potential for abuse by developing systems of control over human choice also exists and should be understood through stringent critical research.</p> <p>Researchers increasingly recognize these challenges with both large and small systems (Fischer-Lescano [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>] ; Wang [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>] ). Further, understanding the power relationships among learning systems and student, teacher and student, pedagogy and technology, classroom dynamics, and the context of the local educational organization requires taking advantage of advances in digital tools ranging from a high capacity camera and audio recorder in most researcher’s pockets to rapid, increasingly high quality digital transcription using free services such as YouTube. We must not only to study the impact of technology on learning, but also how they do so and under what conditions they are effective when the complexity of interactions of variables is too high for experimentation, as well as the power our designed digital systems hold over the stakeholders involved in the teaching and learning process. The power issues tied to the educational system in which learners and teachers are expected to perform then often becomes the topic of inquiry; that is, the main focus of the research. Because power is a subjective phenomenon, largely understood through a multiplicity of views, exploring power in an educational system in all its forms is not a research question with a single answer. Rather, the focus of the inquiry is to explore more completely a system as it exists in a moment of time, with a lens taken to explore power relationships across individuals, technologies, policy, organizational aspects, and depending on what the researcher and participants agree is of interest.</p> <p>For example, educational games are complex educational content delivery mechanisms designed for particular pedagogical purposes in a particular situation, such as a middle school. These tools organize and leverage specific cognitive (e.g. memory, language, reinforcement) and media (e.g. visual and auditory) resources in order to spur learning. The more complex these digital tools become in terms of how they change and interact with learners in response to their choices, the more difficult it is to predict outcomes. With a game used for learning under a specific social studies curriculum such as the Civilization series, each learner’s experience is different as the digital system adapts to their choices, so comparing learning outcomes across all students in a class provides little insight into which particular interactions in their personal experience led to learning, because it is not possible to hold them constant. The teacher, student, administrators, parents, commercial game company, and other people who a vested interest in having students use the game (the stakeholders), each hold, exert, and receive differential power to act through and around the use of the game. Further, the naturalistic settings where these games are used, in our experience as instructors and researchers, lead to unexpected interactions because each student comes to the instructional technology treatment with different expectations, skills, and knowledge. As a result, sometimes, the instructional design is sometimes not employed as intended (Warren et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref7">41</reflink>] ). Critical ethnographic methods allow us to better understand the power dynamics within a complex system that, for example, lead to a failed educational intervention in a way that other methods may have trouble explaining. Critical methods allow us to understand what it is about the teacher-designer, designer-system, system-organizational aspects led to poor outcomes, and will, hopefully, point to what can be done to balance the system of power relationships to improve future treatments rather than simply detecting that a failure occurred, as Positivist methods tend towards.</p> <p>With advances in technology, we can capture multiple data sources including video, personal artifacts, and screen images. This can permit the building of improved depictions of educational system stakeholders’ lived digital learning experiences, producing new forms of academic scholarship such as documentaries and interactive “thick records” (Geertz [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>] ). Depending on the scope of the study, this may focus only on learners, but may encompass many different participants in the educational experience around the use of a learning technology. Forms of scholarship such as digital video documentaries can be beneficial for academics, because they tend to reduce academic jargon and broaden reach to the practitioners we seek to influence with our ideas and evidence as was done with our documentary entitled, “Semester” (Warren et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>] ).</p> <p>This piece explains the process of data collection and analysis, along with a discussion of its conceptual basis, synthesized and expanded from sociologist Jurgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Actions ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>] ), educational psychologist Phil Carspecken’s ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>] ) Critical Ethnographic methods, and anthropologist Jean Rouch’s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref12">38</reflink>] ) CinéEthnography. For application context, we will present an example from a past use with a K-12 and higher education environment. Additional information is presented regarding how to create proper workflow for video and audio transcription, which is commonly tedious and a barrier to using qualitative methods for many researchers.</p> <p>This article describes a research method that employs both solid communication and learning theory, along with today’s digital technologies to study learning technologies: Critical CinéEthnography (Warren and Gratch [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>] ). This approach resulted from a systems-oriented view of learning derived from Von Bertalanffy ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref14">46</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref15">45</reflink>] ), Churchman (Jenlink [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref16">28</reflink>] ; François [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>] ), and more recently, Boardman and Sauser ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>] ). This perspective recognizes the complexity of classroom and technology interactions that improve or impede learning. Asking only questions of if or whether a technology treatment improved learning in a single instance without understanding, why, how, under what circumstances, and with whom a treatment was effective, or what ancillary impacts occurred, limits knowledge production. Learning outcomes result from multiple interactions among activities, tools, and participants that must be understood in relation to one another, not in isolation.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-3">Background</hd> <p>Educational research methods have existed in different forms for as long as instructors and supportive researchers have sought to improve student outcomes. They continue to evolve in response to changes in paradigms of how humans understand social and psychological relationships, which have continuously shifted in the social and hard sciences, at least since the time of John Locke (Rosenberg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>] ), but likely going back to Greek thinkers like Aristotle and Plato using less modern terms as they sought explanations for how humans interact with the world and one another (Hollis [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>] ; Bernstein [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>] ; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>] ). Early research methods, recorded in textbooks and articles, reviewed from the last hundred or more years, remain similar to how they were performed with direct observation, time-based studies, interviews, and other empirical forms of data collection at the time education began to formalize its research practices around the time of John Dewey (Bradley [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>] ). Early methods stemmed from rationalist philosophical views as educational and other researchers sought to make sense of their experience, primarily relying on observation and inductive reasoning (Noddings [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>] ). When the scientific method became a valued tool for understanding the physical world, the rationalist view fell out of favor as educational researchers sought to validate their findings with accepted “hard” science approaches to make them more palatable and perceived as scientific (Alexander [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>] ; Rosenberg [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-4">The Qualitative Paradigms in Educational Settings</hd> <p>Rather than the reader, the researcher, or the participants under study, qualitative research focuses on an examined phenomenon and seeks patterns rather than generalizations. While some in the research community that believe the purpose of qualitative research should be to advance a social justice agenda, Creswell and Tashakkori ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>] ) explained that not all projects must adhere to this agenda. Researchers from the quantitative, experimental traditions of the Positivist worldview often “expect educational research to produce generalizable, unambiguous, and immediately applicable solutions to complex educational problems” (Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>] , p. 30). Finding research that represents multiple layers of human experience is challenging and sometimes limiting. Adherents qualitative research argue that its methodological outcomes are not a matter of opinion, being grounded in stringent validation processes to establish trustworthiness and credibility. Findings evolve in response to and with confirmation of participant utterances, changing questions in an emic fashion to follow where they lead rather than seeking to test a predefined idea or hypothesis using Popper’s ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>] ) falsifiability concept.</p> <p>Instead, qualitative research subscribes to several different influences including constructivist and critical theory (Guba [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>] ) and requires detailed approaches to establishing credibility and trustworthiness of findings that require stringent processes, record-keeping, and research roles (Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>] ). In critical theory, reality is assumed to be influenced by multiple external elements including economic, social, and political factors (Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>] ; Carspecken [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>] ). These factors are important because they may negatively affect an individual that is perceived to be in a systemically created, inferior position of power with another individual or group in which they must perform (Geuss [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>] ). For example, as was found by Cammarota and Romero ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>] ), a school setting with disciplinary policy may consistently silence the voices of minority students by punishing them for not using preferred modes of communication, such as turn-taking or written assignments. This disempowers them from participating in class activities when sent to the office for violations and is likely to harm their near-term learning outcomes and is likely to have longer-term negative impacts on student performance beyond the educational system, harming these citizens’ competitiveness in the workforce.</p> <p>Thus, in the critical theory paradigm, the focus of the research outcome is on identifying ways to change the system in which the participant functions to reduce “detrimental effects of unequal power relationships in cultures and in the global community” (Gall et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>] , p. 381). This is different from the statistical significance testing that is common with Positivist methods, that can leave researchers knowing that their educational treatment failed, but without a sense of why, when, or how and what to do about it. If the issue was one of a teacher resisting the use of or fully implementing a pedagogical tool, then critical theory-based methods are better able to explore power-based reasons between, for example, researcher and teacher that led to the failure to perform and suggest ways to address that disparity. In education settings, the research focus is often on where these problems have been found to take place most often, to reduce the incidence. This may be at the micro-level in a classroom, the meso-level in a school or district, and at the macro level in terms of how the powerful distribute funds to different groups of students based on non-academic factors such as race, gender, or socio-economic status.</p> <p>The nature of qualitative research, in the perspective described here, is that researchers seek situational truths that are culturally, sociologically, and ideologically bound to a particular setting, group of participants, and moment in time (Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>] ) that frame a “soft system” of interest (Boardman and Sauser [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>] ); that is to say, a complex, human-focused system. Examples at different levels from micro to macro may be a classroom, school district, university, state education system, or other relevant artificial grouping of individuals with similar goals and purposes such as learning, acquiring and applying environmental resources, or others (Jenlink [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>] ; Banathy and Jenlink [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>] ). This system evolves over time as the humans that interact with it make changes in way that meets their induvial and group needs.</p> <p>According to Bogdan and Biklen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>] ) and (Guba and Lincoln [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>] ), qualitative research possesses the following characteristics:</p> <p>Research activities conducted in a natural setting or environment</p> <p>Ethnographic research, using words or pictures rather than numbers, to collect data which are often termed thick record. The thick record refers an extensively detailed accounting of the data. Clifford and Marcus ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>] ) view a thick record as the starting point for interpretation of behaviors and events accounted for in a study</p> <p>Primary research focusing on process rather than product or outcome; in other words, the qualitative approach emphasizes how and why individual perceptions are formed and determined</p> <p>Inductive research to analyze data in which emergent data are collected from multiple perspectives such as observations, interviews, spontaneous dialogue exchanges, field notes, and collected documents (e.g., journals). Researchers “do not search out data or evidence to prove or disprove hypotheses they hold before entering the study” (p. 29); and</p> <p>Interpretation and perspectives of the individuals involved in the study are highly regarded and valued; thus, it is essential that the researcher capture the views of the participants accurately and realistically even though he/she might be a participant-observer</p> <p>Qualitative researchers should choose a particular research design based upon what they intend to investigate rather than for ideological reasons unless that is a component of the system of interest they seek to understand. Data collected using either approach frequently involves collecting observational field notes which are “the written account of what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the data in a qualitative study” (Bogdan and Biklen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>] , p.74). In educational qualitative fieldwork, the interactions among participants and factors that resulted in the current situation are often too complex for the observer to record everything that occurs (LeCompte and Goetz [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>] ). However, it is expected that reasonable attempts should be made to ensure the holistic integrity of the field notes by focusing observations on topical inquiry areas, rather than broad, amorphous data collection activities and sharing them with other reviewers to minimize coding bias by comparing them with the captured video (Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-5">Qualitative Methods with Learning and Technology</hd> <p>While widely available to researchers in the field for decades, qualitative methods continue to be underrepresented in learning technologies-focused research. This may be due to a number of factors including:</p> <p>the difficulty with reducing the large corpus of research findings into a distilled 25 to 30-page article,</p> <p>a strong tradition of quantitative research in the field that may bias reviewers against qualitative research outcomes,</p> <p>some university programs do not teach qualitative methods, so researchers lack training to perform them, and</p> <p>related to this, issue, some peer reviewers and journal editors may lack the knowledge of qualitative methods and outcomes to properly review submitted pieces.</p> <p>In some publications and in our own experience, there may be a bias against qualitative methods and outcomes due to misunderstandings about whether these methods are considered empirical, which simply means they are evidence based (Majima and Moore [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>] ). The discounting of qualitative research may be based on how reviewers view the evidentiary forms chosen (e.g. self-report in interview) or how credibility and trustworthiness were established, which are largely narrative rather than statistical (Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>] ).</p> <p>However, the benefits of qualitative methods come from their robust ability to describe the contexts for learning technologies use help readers understand for successful implementation. The requirement in qualitative methods to describe who, what, when, why, and how in a way that is often minimally described in quantitative pieces is necessary to building conceptual models, as well as practical depictions that permit confirmatory technology development and associated research.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-6">Critical Ethnography in Education</hd> <p>A major attempt to build a stringent means of educational research using qualitative paradigm is grounded in the work of Phil Carspecken ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>] ). His concepts have been used frame the qualitative analysis of structure, norms, communication, identity, and power issues in classrooms. This employed concepts offered by Habermas ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>] ) that focus on four types of communicative acts as the focus of analyzing classroom discourses and observations. The first are strategic speech acts (directions, orders) that are commonly given by teachers to provide learning activities or assessments. The second are constative speech acts that are discursive between or among participants where truth is uncertain and must be agreed to after logical argumentation is exchanged by students and/or instructor. Dramaturgical or identity-based utterances are expressions of personal truths about who we are in the classroom and may take different forms beyond speech, venturing into art, poetry, and other performances. Normative speech acts focus on the rules and tacit agreements among class participants that govern how they behave. These linguistic frames guided Carspecken’s ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>] ) methods and informed our own discussed in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-7">Critical CinéEthnography</hd> <p>Going beyond more traditional analysis of learning discourses for identity, power, relationship, and other systemic components, our Critical CinéEthnographic research methods employ audio-visual capture of both in-digital experience, out-of-class discussion, student learning artifacts, integration activities external to the digital learning technology use. The researcher uses these tools for multiple observer review of body language that may indicate positive regard, distress, or other affective responses relevant to understanding the lived experiences of students and faculty as they work with learning tools (Warren and Gratch [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>] ). This approach supports researchers seeking to build a complex picture of participants as they actively use technologies and the film results can be easily shared with academics and practitioners alike using widely available online platforms. While more complex and intensive than other research methods due to the duration of researcher data capture, number of data sources, and extensive findings validation process, Critical CinéEthnography provides a stringent and credible, step-based analytic process that aids in understanding how users communicate with and respond to technology-intensive learning activities (Warren and Gratch [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref53">42</reflink>] ). This can help explain more clearly the contexts and outcomes in the language of the participants themselves.</p> <p>Related indirectly to Carspecken’s ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>] ) methods through the ethnographic research tradition is the concept of ethnographic film research that dates at least back to the 1920s with Vertov’s Nanook of the North (Flaherty [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>] ; Rouch [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>] ). By the 1940s, film was more frequently used to capture the lived experiences of cultural participants grow with the advent of Jean Rouch’s work in Africa after World War II using the sometimes unreliable and fragile film and sound equipment left over from journalistic war reporting. Over time, this approach evolved to allow researchers to study both foreign and local cultures, as when Rouch studied Senegalese religious practices in the 1950s, and then racial and ethnic components of French society in the 1960s (Rouch and Poirier [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>] ). With this in mind, we review the ethnographic film research tradition.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-8">Ethnographic Film</hd> <p>Ethnographic film joins the art and skills of the filmmaker with a qualified intellect and insights of the ethnographer (Heider [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>] ). Ethnographic films frequently take the form of documentaries enabling the devotion of time to the portrayal of a person, event, or process. However, ethnographically shallow films using a “come-in-shooting-and-get-out-fast” approach to film making often fails to provide a detailed description and analysis of human behavior based on a long-term study. While this is an essential feature in ethnography, it falls short of putting the data into a cultural context.</p> <p>In the mid 1990s, ethnographic methods evolved as an alternative to conventional and postmodern qualitative research in the form of critical ethnography. Critical ethnography emerged in the mid-1990s after the basic ethnographic methods were reformulated as an alternative to conventional and postmodern qualitative research. Critical ethnography rejected or reformulated some of the standards of ethnographic practice, such as grounded theory, the use of analytical concepts such as validity, generalizability and so on (Jordan et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>] ). Two problems with critical ethnography found in the 1990s were that practitioners came from the “ivory towers” of academia and had trouble relating to those they studied; further, their research findings were insufficiently protecting those at the research site.</p> <p>Critical ethnography does not oppose conventional ethnography; instead, it connects the relationships among knowledge, society, and political action. With its focus on norms and individual identity, which are often institutionalized and politicized as policies and rules, critical ethnographic methods can be used to examine the impacts of management policy and strategic choices on the perceptions, discourses, and behaviors of individuals in complex systems like schools. Critical theory practitioners also examine challenging issues relating to ethics and performance (Madison [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>] ) that are central to how students, teachers, and managers should act in the educational system. This focus is part of critical ethnographic research purposes, with a goal being to identify needed systemic changes towards emancipating research co-participants from situations that negatively impact their lives (Carspecken [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Critical theorists, constructivists, and participatory/cooperative inquirers take their primary field of interest to be precisely that subjective and intersubjective social knowledge and the active construction and co-creation of such knowledge by human agents that is produced by human consciousness.</p> <p>(Denzin and Lincoln [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>] , pg. 271)</p> <p>Thus, critical ethnography does not focus on testing of a hypothesis or outcomes, but on the discovery, interpretation, and application of local knowledge to how it can be used or put into practice.</p> <p>Critical theorists tend to locate the foundations of truth in specific historical, economic, racial, and social infrastructures of oppression, injustice, and marginalization. Knowers (sic) are not portrayed as separate from (sic) some objective reality but may be cast as unaware actors in such historical realities (“false consciousness”) or aware of historical forms of oppression, but unable or unwilling, because of conflicts, to act on those historical forms to alter specific conditions in this historical moment (“divided consciousness”).</p> <p>(Denzin &amp; Lincoln, pg. 273)</p> <p>Studies that invoke a variety of data collection strategies and sources - interviews, narratives, memos, newspaper accounts, library, and historical records, casual conversations, group discussions, photographs, epidemiologic statistics about usage patterns, etc. is a good use of scientific research that can uncover socio-cultural knowledge about an unfamiliar or little-known group (Averill [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>] ).</p> <p>What critical ethnography and ethnographic film can do well is provide clear depiction of today’s power and social issues that must be confronted to improve the systems that humans use for daily living, political activity, education, and many other outcomes. Written critical theory research pieces can be dense and therefore difficult for lay people to access. Taking the large number of documentaries watched on PBS, HBO, Netflix, and other digital outlets today as an indication of potential acceptance, practitioners, researchers, and everyday people may view films as a more accessible way to encounter the ideas and research findings produced by complex ethnographic research. This is why there is a need to blend both the stringent techniques of critical ethnography and the more intelligible research outcomes from ethnographic film make sense to explore as a way to expand the reach of researchers, while still meeting the high validity and credibility requirements of our field.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-9">Improving Validity and Knowledge Distribution with Critical CinéEthnography</hd> <p>To address this issue, Critical Cine-Ethnography was developed to blend Carspecken’s ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>] ) critical ethnography and incorporated Rouch’s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>] ) approach to cine-ethnography so that we could capture in situ participant work within a complex environment, allowing for regular review and analysis of captured material with multiple participants, without all needing to be present for the entire capture period. This also helped us establish validity through a stringent process of data examination and validation by seeking to understand a large number of possible interpretations of observed actions and speech acts using concepts framed through the lens of Habermas’ ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>] ) Theory of Communicative Actions to examine directive, normative, systemic, discursive, and identity-based truth claims uttered by individuals and groups. Critical CinéEthnography also established a series of goals, borrowed from and expanded upon from authors like Ravitch and Mittenfelner Carl ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref67">35</reflink>] ) and Creswell and Tashakkori ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>] ) to produce authenticity criteria for these qualitative research methods:</p> <p>Trustworthiness</p> <p>Rigorousness</p> <p>Fairness</p> <p>Ontological authenticity</p> <p>Educative authenticity</p> <p>Catalytic authenticity</p> <p>Tactical authenticity</p> <p>To reach these, the process:</p> <p>Gives participants and researchers voice, whether unified or disparate.</p> <p>Allows researcher reflexivity in filmed reflections on choice of research problem and participants as well as how we develop and change as researchers in the field (p. 283)</p> <p>Allows for multiple representations (film, textual, dramaturgical, audio, other) and allow for first and third person accounts.</p> <p>Allows viewer and researcher/filmmaker interpretations not one or the other</p> <p>Reveals researcher bias through self-report and discourse</p> <p>Includes multiple observers and analysts who bring perspectives from multiple genders, races, etc. as part of analysis as well as participants to seek partial validity from findings/images</p> <p>Includes narration only from validated themes while showing and letting speakers tell and confirm outcomes</p> <p>Leverages stringent validity construction process borrowed and adapted from Carspecken ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Using these as a basis for the methodological outcomes, the next section details the data collection methods that logically follow, starting the technical and then the analytic processes to produce the research outcomes and findings.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-10">Data Collection Methods in Critical CinéEthnography</hd> <p>Prior to engaging in direct observation, it is important to gather information about the contexts and lived experiences of participants using interviews to depict each participant and identify each for later video analysis. Additional interviews should be conducted as the need arises throughout the data collection period as events, behaviors, and process of interest occur. Further, after direct observation have ended, interviews should be conducted immediately. Interviewing for film, is a challenging skill that takes years to gain competence in for gathering relevant data. It requires knowledge of one’s participant, their values, and a sensitivity to what they are comfortable with saying on film. A researcher must be sensitive in their questioning as to what it is acceptable to ask a teacher, student, or administrator, because the very nature of the question can create problems for participants and interviewer.</p> <p>Our example took place at a high school as they began to employ project-based learning and high levels of technology, located in the Southwest US. The institution that had recently implemented a project-based learning curriculum coupled with high technology integration throughout the school, including a 1:1 laptop initiative for students. In order to more fully immerse ourselves in the educational system, we scheduled to be there for more than a month. This allowed us to set up equipment in classrooms and the participating researchers became somewhat part of the classroom context as a means of allowing students and other stakeholders to view us more as a part of the scenery than short-time interlopers. We sometimes participated in learning activities, depending on the comfort level of the educators and students, conducting informal and semi-structured, partially open-ended interviews with them as opportunities to study issues of technology use, power, identity, norms, and pedagogy arose. Rather than have fixed research question, we sought to better understand the ethnographic setting, participant experiences, and power relations of individuals and system that impacted learning when new learning approaches and technologies are used with learners and instructors who are leaving an old paradigm of education and seeking to establish a new one. Due to the length of the process in reality, this description is necessarily compressed.</p> <p>Each day, we set up in classrooms to conduct observations, video capture, field note collection, and interviews. Interviews were recorded on three cameras in order to capture utterances and body language, two cameras permitted recording directly to internal flash memory, the third camera recorded to HDV cassette tapes, which can now be done using digital tablets or smart phones to simplify transfer. Both interviewer and subjects were equipped with a wireless microphone for accurate sound recording and audio was inputted into the cameras for recording onto default media. After spending what we deemed to be sufficient time to have saturated our data to the point of finding daily redundancies in what we observed or heard, we would move to study another part of the system, whether classroom, lab, or administrative activities.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-11">Data Analysis with Critical CinéEthnographic Methods</hd> <p>Data analysis with Critical CinéEthnography employs a structure adopted, modified, and made more explicit from Carspecken’s methods, which he outlined in Critical Ethnography in Educational Research ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>] ). Each step in the process is one of building from low inference observations up to a high level of inference that is grounded in low and medium inferences that have been confirmed through a stringent validation process. To conduct data collection with these methods, a summary of the process is provided. Critical CinéEthnography expands on critical ethnography by modifying the five-steps into a twelve-step process as a means of making certain techniques clearer and to include the film capture and presentation components. This modification occurs largely in Step Two, as it now consists of a large number of equally important sub-steps.</p> <p>To make the process more explicit for researchers, we expanded Carspecken’s ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>] ) five steps into the following twelve steps, framed partly with the technology-focused high school as an example.</p> <p>Step 1: Development of a primary record</p> <p>In this process, the researcher starts by describing the complexity of interactions among participants in the system of interest. This includes rich description of the local and macro contexts that impact it, participant in situ speech acts, descriptions made from recordings of relevant body language, time stamps for events, perceptions during direct observations. With the high school study, we took the video and field notes captured each day and organized them into texts and spreadsheets to interlink the different artifacts for later search and analysis.</p> <p>Step 2: Preliminary reconstructive analysis: Meaning field generation.</p> <p>This stage articulates of meaning fields used by the researcher to defines the possible meanings of important speech acts. This is followed by validity horizon analysis, wherein the claims made in these meaning fields are classified in terms of their validity related to how near or far the meaning is from the unadorned statement. Meaning fields with the school data were examined primarily for participant utterances that were deemed both important and somewhat ambiguous so that the group of researchers could explore the possible meanings. When agreement about a participant claim and its inherent validity could not be agreed upon, member checks were done with speakers to confirm meaning.</p> <p>Step 3: Preliminary reconstructive analysis: Validity horizon analysis.</p> <p>This activity takes place through the classification of statements, often taken from the meaning fields, employing validity claims from objective, subjective, normative, and identity communicative acts by participants. These contextualize the values of the individual speakers as they interact with peers and instructor. To verify these horizons and support the meaning fields that preceded them, conduct interviews are necessary to member check the outcomes in the next step. At this step, the student and faculty utterances tied to power dynamics, system, learning, and other aspects. These were done through the lens of Habermasian communicative acts linked to identity, local norms, discourses tied to relative truth claims, and directive, teleological acts to frame them in the foreground, background, and other locations of the setting to better depict movements of power and action across stakeholder groups and individuals at the school.</p> <p>Step 4: Dialogical data generation</p> <p>Here, a researcher engages in and democratizes the research process to provide the interviewees with the opportunity to confirm a researcher’s understanding or challenge unsupportable findings, giving participants voice. It functions as member checking, because, as was the case at the high school the claims and evidence captured in the process of collection and analysis were presented to the participant to ensure that conclusions drawn by the research team align with the intentions of the speaker. Since we had access, this could be done daily or weekly, depending on respective schedules. If problems were found in our interpretations, changes were made to ensure that they felt empowered as co-participants in the research process, speaking for themselves, and allowing their views to be presented accurately.</p> <p>Step 5: Interactive rhythms</p> <p>These can be used to identify speech acts as a series of give and take between or among speakers and are often described by how sound to the hearer, such as the ping pong of rapid back and forth speech acts, or rambling, where speakers may speak in soliloquy for extended periods before responses by others. Such rhythms and their intensity can indicate comfort among speakers, tensions among them, and other issues that may require further analysis. For example, in one instance with the school data, we developed interactive rhythms with particular, high interest transcripts of classroom discourses that lent themselves to understanding when power was being used to encourage or discourage student participation in different aspects of learning technology use.</p> <p>Step 6: Umbrella norms</p> <p>These norms the analyst perceives as governing interactions among speakers are identified through participant speech and physical acts. They are often framed in terms of statements about how people should behave or conditions should ideally be. Umbrella norms for each classroom on a given day were generated by analyzing video and field notes with a small group of researchers once a week’s data was collected to give some distance from the researcher’s immediate immersion in the classroom.</p> <p>Step 7: Role identification</p> <p>Different speakers and actors in a setting take on different formal and informal roles. In educational situations, there may be a Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref72">47</reflink>] ) sense of a zone of proximal development in which a more experienced person acts in the role of mentor or guide. During each intact classroom session or sub-sessions such as small group work, we identified the roles participants engaged with, which were sometimes defined by the teacher ahead of time.</p> <p>Step 8: Analysis of interactive power</p> <p>The final step in the reconstructive analysis phase is to generate an analysis of interactive power in order to understand how the roles and norms play out in the establishment of authority and action in the classroom. With the classroom, we mapped how the roles and norms defined what actions with learning technologies (e.g. research, note taking) were acceptable at different periods, how power was used to punish normative and rule-based transgressions (e.g. video games, off-task reading), and other aspects deemed to be important by the research team.</p> <p>Step 9: Description of system relations</p> <p>At this stage at which the researcher seeks to understand participant actions and perceptions of the systems that most impact them. In the case of students, this often includes school, culture, learning, family, etc. We used simple visual depictions on the white board in our studio during analysis to depict these and come to agreement before writing our narrative describing these system relations. With teachers and other stakeholders, examining the findings in the context of a PESTLEE analysis (political, economic, social, technological, legal, environmental, and educational) can help researchers better incorporate larger statements about how broader complex external systems interact with their local ones and influence their learning experiences. This can be done visually using tools such as systemic diagrams from soft systems methodology (Checkland and Poulter [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>] ), often called Systemigrams (Cloutier et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Step 10:Use system relations to explain findings</p> <p>Beyond simply depicting the local school or classroom system and broader systems, this stage requires researchers to explain the identified themes and depicted outcome relative to power, gender, and other relevant relationships. Connecting the findings across systems may help researchers identify conditions, cultural relationships, and similarities across multiple, similar systems at different sites represented in the study, which was done to connect the classrooms, school, district, and state aspects to explain what enabled and limited the use of innovative methods and technologies used. This stage can leverage the motion picture lens of analysis put forth by Banathy and Jenlink ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>] ) or Systemigrams (Boardman and Sauser [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Step 11:Critical reflection</p> <p>The penultimate step is when the researcher engages in reflection about their participation in the research process and their relationship to the outcomes, as well as how biases may have shaped them. This can be done through analysis of the researcher’s pre-study subjectivity statement, formative reflexive journal kept during the study, field notes, and other artifacts, compared to the conclusions drawn in the themes. We asked all of the primary researchers to review their initial statement, journal entries, and other artifacts once the analysis was completed before reviewing the findings to determine if they detected extreme bias in the findings or recommendations.</p> <p>Step 12:System critique</p> <p>This is the final stage during in which the researcher engages in a full critique of the systems involved towards a goal of improving the learning system or instruction, offering specific recommendations. With the school, we wrote up our findings regarding certain systemic issues that hindered empowering learners and teachers to effectively employ project-based learning and the included learning technologies as the school stakeholders sought to improve their performance in the coming school year.</p> <p>In our experience, to ensure a valid process and accompanying findings, each step should be included. However, some may be dropped in the interests of time as long as the team does not believe doing so will interfere with credibility or trustworthiness of the outcomes. While we did include all of the steps, we did not spend as much time the system relations and critical reflection as would be preferred, because the report had to be completed to meet a deadline. While the number of components may appear daunting, technology has improved to the point that some of the most challenging aspects of qualitative research such as transcription have been made more reasonable.</p> <p>Critical CinéEthnography’s high analytic requirements are partially mitigated by employing digital tools to capture complex behaviors, power dynamics, and processes. Historically, before the advent of simple to use digital video tools, engaging in qualitative, ethnographic research with film was a time consuming and expensive process. It also necessitated highly technical skills and knowledge related to recording systems, long time commitments to produce textual transcripts, and additional time spent on the analysis process when compared with quantitative methods. While little can be done to modify the analyses time without potentially harming outcome validity and credibility, advancements in technology enable greater compression of recording and transcription time with captured events.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>In examining the increased rigor necessary for twenty-first century qualitative research, Critical CinéEthnography represents a merging of traditional cine-ethnography with the critical and rigorous process of critical ethnography with potential applications for emerging mediums including virtual worlds and virtual reality. The onset of these new technologies requires careful considerations for the application of and use in research methodologies. Advances in technologies, such as speech analysis, automatic caption generation, and spatial audio have the potential for reducing the amount of time necessary for the researchers engaged in qualitative studies. This savings, married with the ability to cover wide ranges of complex subject situations using video and audio in both real and virtual spaces, increases the need for validity and rigor in the research process and opens the door for the use of these methods in emerging areas like virtual reality and virtual worlds. In the future, such qualitative research methods should provide context to important numeric data, better answering the why and how questions needed to understand a complex phenomenon. Depicting complexity and communicating effectively is central to improving understanding of concepts in all disciplines and application in new arenas for study, such as virtual words and virtual reality.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-13">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <hd id="AN0131407069-14">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>Jonathan Gratch declares that he has no conflict of interest. Scott Warren declares that he has no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0131407069-15">References</hd> <hd id="AN0131407069-16">Citations</hd> <p>1 Alexander HA, A view from somewhere: Explaining the paradigms of educational research, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2006, 40, 2, 205, 221, 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2006.00502.x</p> <ulist> <item>2 Averill JB, Getting Started: Initiating Critical Ethnography and Community-Based Action Research in a Program of Rural Health Studies, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2006, 5, 2, 17, 27, 10.1177/160940690600500206</item> <item>3 Banathy, B. H., &amp; Jenlink, P. M. (2003). Systems inquiry and its application in education., Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 37-58.</item> <item>4 Bernstein RJ, The restructuring of social and political theory (6th Paperb), 1976, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press</item> <item>5 Bernstein RJ, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, 1983, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press</item> <item>6 Boardman J, Sauser B, Systems thinking: Coping with 21st century problems, 2008, 1, Boca Raton, CRC Press</item> <item>7 Bogdan RC, Biklen SK, Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods, 1982, Boston, Allyn and Bacon</item> <item>8 Bradley JG, Teachers, leaders, and schools: Essays by John Dewey, Education and Culture, 2016, 32, 1, 153, 155, 10.5703/educationculture.32.1.153</item> <item>9 Cammarota J, Romero A, A social justice epistemology and pedagogy for Latina/o students: Transforming public education with participatory action research, New Directions for Youth Development, 2009, 123, 53, 65, 10.1002/yd.314</item> <item>10 Carspecken, P. (1996)., Critical ethnography in educational research. (M. W. Apple, Ed.), Critical Social Thought. New York: Routledge.</item> <item>11 Checkland, P., &amp; Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. In, Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide (pp. 191-242). 10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_5.</item> <item>12 Clifford J, Marcus GE, Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography: A School of American Research advanced seminar, 1986, Berkeley, University of California Press</item> <item>13 Cloutier R, Sauser B, Bone M, Taylor A, Transitioning systems thinking to model-based systems engineering: Systemigrams to SysML models, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2015, 45, 4, 662, 674, 10.1109/TSMC.2014.2379657</item> <item>14 Creswell JW, Tashakkori A, Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2007, 1, 4, 303, 308, 10.1177/1558689807306132</item> <item>15 Denzin, N., &amp; Lincoln, Y. (2003). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. (N. Denzin &amp; Y. Lincoln, Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Thousand oaks: Sage publications.</item> <item>16 Flaherty, R. J. (1922). How I filmed “Nanook of the North.”, World’s Work.</item> <item>17 Fischer-Lescano A, Critical systems theory, Philosophy &amp; Social Criticism, 2012, 38, 1, 3, 23, 10.1177/0191453711421600</item> <item>18 François C, Systemics and cybernetics in a historical perspective, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 1999, 16, November 1997, 203, 219, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199905/06)16:3&lt;203::AID-SRES210&gt;3.0.CO;2-1</item> <item>19 Freeman M, Preissle J, Roulston K, Pierre EAS, Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse, Educational Researcher, 2007, 36, 1, 25, 32, 10.3102/0013189X06298009</item> <item>20 Gall JP, Gall MD, Borg WR, Applying educational research: A practical guide, 2005, Boston, Pearson Education</item> <item>21 Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description. In, The Interpretation of Cultures. 10.4135/9781412984591.</item> <item>22 Geuss R, The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School, 1981, New York, Cambridge University Press</item> <item>23 Guba EG, Guba EG, The alternative paradigm dialog, The paradigm dialog, 1990, Thousand Oaks, US: Sage Publications, Inc, 17, 27</item> <item>24 Guba EG, Lincoln YS, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Competing paradigms in qualitative research, Handbook of qualitative research, 1994, London, Sage, 105, 117</item> <item>25 Habermas, J. (1984)., The theory of communicative action: Volume 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. (T. McCarthy, Ed.) (English tr, Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon press.</item> <item>26 Heider KG, Ethnographic film, 2006, Texas, University of Texas Press</item> <item>27 Hollis M, The philosophy of social science: An introduction, 1994, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press</item> <item>28 Jenlink, P. M. (1968). Systems inquiry and its application in education., General Systems, 37-58.</item> <item>29 Jordan S, Yeomans D, David Y, Critical ethnography: Problems in contemporary theory and practice, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1995, 16, 3, 389, 408, 10.1080/0142569950160307</item> <item>30 LeCompte MD, Goetz JP, Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research, Review of Educational Research, 1982, 52, 1, 31, 60, 10.3102/00346543052001031</item> <item>31 Madison, D. S. (2005). Introduction to critical ethnography: Theory and method., Critical ethnography: Method, ethics &amp; performance, 1-16.</item> <item>32 Majima S, Moore N, Introduction: Rethinking qualitative and quantitative methods, Cultural Sociology, 2009, 3, 2, 203, 216, 10.1177/1749975509105531</item> <item>33 Noddings, N. (2012)., Philosophy of Education (3rd ed.). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.</item> <item>34 Popper K, Conjectures and refutations, 1965, New York, Basic Books</item> <item>35 Ravitch, S., &amp; Mittenfelner Carl, N. (2016)., Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (1st ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage publications, Inc.</item> <item>36 Reale E, Challenges in higher education research: The use of quantitative tools in comparative analyses, Higher Education, 2014, 67, 4, 409, 422, 10.1007/s10734-013-9680-2</item> <item>37 Rosenberg A, Philosophy of Social Science. (T. Curtain, Ed.), 2015, 5, New York, Westview Press</item> <item>38 Rouch J, Cine-ethnography, 2003, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press</item> <item>39 Rouch, J., &amp; Poirier, J. (1968). Jean Rouch. Cinéma et anthropologie. In, Ethnologie générale.</item> <item>40 Wang CL, Power/knowledge for educational theory: Stephen ball and the reception of Foucault, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2011, 45, 1, 141, 156, 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00789.x</item> <item>41 Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., Stein, R., &amp; Barab, S. (2009). Educational game as supplemental learning tool: Benefits, challenges, and tensions arising from use in an elementary school classroom., Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>).</item> <item>42 Warren, S. J., &amp; Gratch, J. (2013). Employing a critical lens on instructor perceptions of learning games: An introduction to method., International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 4(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>). 10.4018/jvple.201307010.</item> <item>43 Warren SJ, Gratch J, Blackwell D, Najmi A, Zhu S, Trombley A, Lived experiences of teachers and technology: A critical CinéEthnography documenting technology use in Today’s schools., American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 2011, New Orleans, AERA</item> <item>44 Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University press.</item> <item>45 Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. Georg. Braziller New York, 1, 289. Retrieved from, http://books.google.es/books?id=N6k2mILtPYIC</item> <item>46 Bertalanffy L, An outline of general system theory, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1950, 1, 2, 134, 165, 10.1093/bjps/I.2.134</item> <item>47 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University press.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0131407069-17">Further Reading</hd> <p>48 Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Giardina MD, Disciplining qualitative research, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2006, 19, 6, 769, 782, 10.1080/09518390600975990</p> <aug> <p>By Jonathan Gratch and Scott Joseph Warren</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib6" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib8" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib9" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib7" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref74"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1189272 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Critical CinéEthnographic Methods: A New Dimension for Capturing the Experience of Learning in Twenty-First Century Qualitative Research – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gratch%2C+Jonathan%22">Gratch, Jonathan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Warren%2C+Scott+Joseph%22">Warren, Scott Joseph</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. Sep 2018 62(5):473-482. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 10 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11528-018-0316-3 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 8756-3894 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Learning technologies continue to grow in complexity, making it increasingly difficult to understand their impacts on stakeholders using traditional research methods. While comparison and treatment studies, may show if a digital learning tool improved learning, the why, when, and how questions of user experience are often left unexplored. This paper provides a description of Critical CinéEthnography, a research approach that leverages the many forms of media that result from today's learning technologies, including video, personal artifacts, and screen images. This approach provides researchers with the ability to build deep qualitative depictions of the stakeholders' complex digital learning experiences, while also allowing an outcome that can more easily communicate with a practitioner audience. Critical CinéEthnography supports the building of a complex picture of participants as they actively use technologies. The video results can be easily shared with academics and practitioners alike using widely available online platforms. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 47 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1189272 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1189272 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11528-018-0316-3 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 10 StartPage: 473 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Ethnography Type: general – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Video Technology Type: general – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Critical CinéEthnographic Methods: A New Dimension for Capturing the Experience of Learning in Twenty-First Century Qualitative Research Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gratch, Jonathan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Warren, Scott Joseph IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 8756-3894 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 62 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
