Category: Research

Research posts in English

Information Society Agendas and Media Education

I have made a distiction between informal media education and institutional media education. Further, my master’s thesis suggested two types of values in the institutional media education, educational and pedagogical values.

To find out more about educational values in media education I’m planning to select a few Finnish/EU documents relating to information society and projects within it. I’m hoping to find agendas which drives certain values to the parents and teachers particularly the media education concerned.

Let’s see how this will pan out!


e-Europa

Fields of Media Education

Figure 1. Bird’s eye view for the main components of the 3D-model.

Since education has been many times divided to formal and informal, it is relevant in media education as well (see Figure 1). To define this, it is fertile to see that the formal media education is delimited to institutional processes (e.g. in schools). The third branch is a certain kind of technology-oriented approach mostly pushed by the market forces and economy. However, the educational policy-making is related to this too through their information society campaigns etc. Technology-oriented approach has often been seen as a counterforce for two first ones (e.g. Pulkkinen 2003).

Figure 2. Perspective 1 (click picture to see it bigger).

From another view, the technology-oriented is farthermost of the three branches in this three-dimensional figure (see Figure 2). The subject or context of the research on informal media education, as far as I can see, has two trends or fields of research. The other one leans to psychology, especially media psychology (e.g. Anu Mustonen), and the other one has its roots in mass media and communication (e.g. Kotilainen 2004). Media literacy or media proficiency can be seen as an ultimate goal for all media education. I will return to these concepts later.

Figure 3. Perspective 2 (120º left from Perspective 1).

In Figure 3 the informal media education is at the back. The institutional media education (now shifted to left) has two branches as well. Pedagogy refers to the quality of the teaching-studying-learning process organised by the teacher, tutor, etc. Education instead, concentrates on well-being of the children and youth. At a same time, the technology-orientation has its own influence to the whole media education field.

Figure 4. Simplified version as a two-dimensional figure to highlight the relation to my dissertation.

In my dissertation the values and evaluation of the class teacher are focal (see Figure 4). Pedagogical values could be defined as methodological and result-oriented values of teaching–studying–learning. Educational values instead are connected to what is in the interest of a person growing up in the society. The latter are also closer to values in the culture of the institution (e.g. school) concerned.

In class teacher’s evaluation of the teaching-studying-learning process s/he conducts, the goal-oriented/purposive focus leans on the general goals set for teaching, studying and learning with or without media/ICTs integration. Correspondingly, the technology focus is dominated by the concern for the pupil. Either the class teacher feels that every pupil should learn the basic skills in ICT or s/he sees that pupils should be protected from the media, computers and digital games.

Media proficiency is very much related to modern definitions of media literacy (see e.g. Varis 2003), which nowadays include more active and participatory role than literacy as such would imply. Compared to media competence for example, media proficiency has unlimited potential. Tella (MEP 9, 2000) sees that “competence is more and more often used to refer to some kind of basic or minimum level of expertise, while proficiency, for instance, implies a more dynamic, active and higher level of performance”.

As far as teachers are concerned, media proficiency combines professional expertise of a teacher and his/her personal skills in a society and life in general.

The Title

It is common to entitle a research with some name and to decide the final title for a dissertation for instance later. In my case I find it important to translate the title first since I’m not changing the content of my licentiate’s thesis anymore. Few thoughts around this.

  • The Finnish title is Verkko-opetuksen arvot ja arviointi helsinkiläisten luokanopettajien näkökulmasta.
  • A simple translation would make ‘Values and Evaluation of Network-Based Education from the point of view of Class Teachers in Helsinki’.
  • Further on I will be interested on a wider Finnish perspective and so I will leave Helsinki out.
  • In Finnish arvot would be ‘values’ in English. Arviointi instead can be seen either as an ‘assessment’ or ‘evaluation’. In my study ‘evaluation’ would be the term to use. If ‘evaluation’ is used, the connection to ‘values’ is more natural and hence term ‘values’ doesn’t need to be included to the title.
  • In Finnish verkko-opetus could be translated into ‘Network-Based Education’ (NBE; see e.g. Tella et al. 2001. Verkko-opetuksessa – opettaja verkossa). In my study the class teachers I studied were using some ICTs in the teaching-studying-learning process (TSL). However, I was interested in the whole process, not just the network-based part of it. I would say that I did a study from the media education perspective about class teachers’ evaluation when some ICTs were integrated to the TSL process.

Hence the title for my dissertation would turn out ‘Class Teachers’ Evaluation – The Media Education Perspective’. It will bring out the school didactics perspective, the values and evaluation as well as the wholistic media education perspective towards the “e” emphasis of my subject.

What next?

As I’m now heading towards the licentiate’s degree in my postgraduate studies, I should try to outline the starting of the process.

  • The further study will include the process of translating my master’s thesis to English. In addition I should collect nationwide more data which would support the findings of my master’s thesis.
  • My work at the Media Education Centre
    deals with the research and teaching in the framework I share in my further study. This gives me all the time fresh ideas as well as reminds me about the principals of the media education framework that I am attached to (see e.g. MEP8).
  • Media Education or Educational Use of ICTs is the additional subject in my postgraduate studies (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/media/tvt35.html information in Finnish). As I’m doing this programme more or less as a network-based learning i.e. through mediating tools, the substance as well as the method of the learning deals with the Network-Based Education.

“On, on!”

Doctoral studies

I’m starting my doctoral studies now and the thesis will be in English. Hence here is the abstract of my master’s thesis in English.

“The aim of this study is to outline the values and evaluation of Network-Based Education (NBE) from the point of view of the class teacher. Media education and school didactics were the theoretical framework for this thesis. The central conceptual frameworks were Teacher�s pedagogical thinking (Kansanen et al 2000), Relation between theory of didactics and pedagogical reality (Lahdes 1997) and Teaching�studying�learning process (Uljens 1997). The idea was to approach teaching, studying and learning integrated with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in schools through evaluation. This qualitative case study addressed the following research problems: 1) How does the class teacher find the implementation of Network-Based Education? 2) How does the class teacher evaluate Network-Based Education? The first research problem was also approached from the point of view of values and evaluation.”

“Personal interviews and emergent themes were planned on Gallini�s (2001) Framework for the Design of Research in Technology-Mediated Learning Environments (A Sociocultural Perspective) and Tella�s & Mononen-Aaltonen�s (2001) Multidimensional Model for Principles of Planning and Evaluation of Network-Based Education. Eight class teachers were interviewed and they completed a questionnaire. The data was thematized but also some analysis on the data was made without any theoretical presumptions. The findings of this case study suggest that there are two different types of values in the class teacher�s evaluation: (A) methodological and result-oriented values of teaching�studying�learning and (B) educational values and the values in the culture of the school concerned. The former can be simplified as pedagogical values and the latter educational values.”

“Based on these two types of values different levels of evaluation were outlined when information and communication technologies are integrated. The two main levels were defined as the focuses of evaluation in Network-Based Education: (1) Technology focus and (2) Goal-oriented/Purposive focus. In Technology focus (1) the evaluation is dominated by the concern for the pupil. Either the class teacher feels that every pupil should learn the basic skills in ICT or s/he sees that pupils should be protected from computers and digital games. Correspondingly, Goal-oriented/Purposive focus (2) leans on the general goals set for teaching, studying and learning with or without ICT integration. In the media education framework the design and evaluation of Network-Based Education are initiated by educational and pedagogical values instead of technology. However, the focuses should be seen as complementary. Thus, the variation of focuses by the class teacher means true media proficiency, which combines professional expertise and personal skills in life.”

Tekniikka vastaan päätekäyttäjät

Jyrki Pulkkisen Oulun yliopistossa tarkastettu väitöskirja tuo jälleen yhdestä näkökulmasta esiin tämän merkinnän otsikossa esitetyn vastakkaisasettelun. Tämänhetkistä tieto- ja viestintätekniikan liittämistä opetukseen, opiskeluun ja oppimiseen sekä näiden tutkimusta leimaa jako teknologiaorientaation ja muun lähestymisen välillä. Jopa omassa gradussani nousevat nämä kaksi puolta esille – ei kylläkään toisensa poissulkevina vaan toisiaan täydentävinä.

Tästä nousee kysymys, jota ei liian usein ole pohdittu. Minkälainen tiedetausta verkko-opetuksella on? Toki lukuisilla tutkimusalueilla on tehty soveltavaa tutkimusta tieto- ja viestintätekniikan liittymisestä erilaisiin prosesseihin, mutta itseäni kiinnostaa rajaus juuri tvt:n ja opetus-opiskelu-oppimisen välille.

Jyrki Pulkkisen väitöskirja

Verkko-opetuksen arvot ja arviointi helsinkiläisten luokanopettajien näkökulmasta

Riikka ja Olli

Tämän tutkimuksen päätarkoitus oli hahmottaa verkko-opetuksen arvoja ja arviointia luokanopettajan näkökulmasta. Teoreettisena viitekehyksenä oli mediakasvatus ja didaktiikan käsitys opetus�opiskelu�oppimisprosessista. Didaktisena perustana käytettiin Kansasen ym. (2000) opettajan pedagogista ajattelua, Lahdeksen (1997) didaktiikan kehämallia sekä Uljensin (1997) opetus�opiskelu�oppimisprosessia. Lähtökohtana oli luokanopettajan arvioinnin kautta pohtia opetuksen, opiskelun ja oppimisen sekä tieto- ja viestintätekniikan yhtymistä koulukontekstissa. Tutkimuksen pääongelmat olivat: 1) Minkälainen oli luokanopettajan käsitys verkko-opetuksen toteuttamisesta? 2) Miten luokanopettaja arvioi verkko-opetusta? Myös ensimmäistä pääongelmaa lähestyttiin arvojen ja arvioinnin näkökulmasta.

Menetelmänä käytettiin teemahaastattelua. Teemahaastattelun teemoja jäsennettiin Gallinin (2001) sosiokulttuurisen verkko-opetuksen arviointimallin sekä Tellan ja Mononen-Aaltosen (2001) mediakasvatuksen monitasomallin avulla. Aineistonkeruussa kahdeksan helsinkiläistä luokanopettajaa vastasivat lyhyeen kyselyyn, jonka jälkeen heitä haastateltiin välittömästi. Laadullisen aineiston analyysissä teemoiteltiin aineisto, ja tämän rinnalla rakennettiin aineistolähtöistä analyysiä. Näiden vuorovaikutuksesta syntyivät tutkimuksen johtopäätökset. Keskeisinä tuloksina tutkimuksessa nähtiin luokanopettajan verkko-opetukseen liittyvien arvojen kaksi eri näkökulmaa: (A) opetus�opiskelu�oppimismenetelmien ja -tulosten arvonäkökulma sekä (B) ns. kasvatuksellinen ja koulukulttuurin arvonäkökulma.

Arvonäkökulmien pohjalta hahmotettiin johtopäätöksissä erilaisia tasoja luokanopettajan opetuksen, opiskelun ja oppimisen arvioinnista, kun tieto- ja viestintätekniikka on mukana prosessissa. Kaksi tasoa tarkennettiin verkko-opetuksen arvioinnin fokuksiksi, jotka olivat (1) teknologinen ja (2) tavoitteinen fokus. Teknologisessa arvioinnin fokuksessa (1) arviointia hallitsee huoli oppilaasta ihmisenä. Arviointi liittyy joko siihen, että oppilaan on opittava perustaidot tieto- ja viestintätekniikassa ja ymmärrettävä Internetin mahdollisuudet, tai siihen, että opettaja pyrkii suojelemaan lapsia Internetin uhkilta ja liialliselta altistumiselta esimerkiksi digitaalisille peleille. Verkko-opetuksen tavoitteinen arvioinnin fokus (2) nojaa siihen, minkälaisia tavoitteita luokanopettaja yleisesti asettaa opetukselleen, vaikka tieto- ja viestintätekniikka ei liittyisikään prosessiin. Fokuksen taustalla on myös mediakasvatuksen näkökulma tieto- ja viestintätekniikan opetuskäyttöön, jolloin keskeistä on, että opetuksen suunnittelu ja arviointi ei lähde teknologiasta käsin vaan didaktiikasta ja pedagogisista arvoista.

Verkko-opetuksen arvioinnin fokusten voidaan nähdä täydentävän toisiaan. Fokusten varioinnissa voidaan puhua luokanopettajan kohdalla todellisesta mediataidosta, joka ulottuu yli ammatillisen pätevyyden aina opettajan henkilökohtaiseen kehittymisen kaareen.