This document outlines the research design and methodology for a study on knowledge practices. It discusses challenges in studying literacy as social practices across formal and informal contexts. The study will take a qualitative, longitudinal approach involving two schools over 2.5 years. It will examine how teachers address differences between in-school and out-of-school knowledge practices, and implications for student learning. The goal is to understand knowledge-building trajectories across domains and timescales to inform classroom practices.

1. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
15/3/13
Research design and instrumentation for studies
of knowledge practices
Ola Erstad
Institute of Educational Research,
University of Oslo, Norway

2. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
25/3/13
Outline
1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.
2. Methodological challenges
3. Research design and instrumentation
4. Examples. Discussions

3. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
1. Research orientation. Knowledge practices.
35/3/13

4. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Research orientation
§ Idiographic vs nomothetic research
§ Nomothetic: It describes the effort to derive laws that
explain objective phenomena in general.
§ Idiographic: It describes the effort to understand the
meaning of contingent, unique, and often subjective
phenomena.
§ From qualitative approach to develop items for a survey, and
a possible scale on ‘learning across contexts’.
45/3/13

5. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
55/3/13
Questioning the concepts of formal and
informal
§ How learners draw on resources form different domains of
life. ’Funds of knowledge’
§ Digital content creation challenges the fundamental control
of information (teacher, book, assessment)
§ ’Learning in motion’ (Nespor, 1993). Learners move
between contexts
§ School; a social space for learning and critical reflection.

6. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
65/3/13
Challenging school practices
§ Two different learning cultures
§ Differences between subject domains
§ Now more focus on use of technology in schools, but defined
more to enhance established pratices rather than defining new
§ Parallel discourses: The implications of the PISA study and
about 21st century competences.

7. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Everyday and academic practices
§ The things you learn in school are to do with education
and to get jobs. You’re not really using them in actual
real life. (18-year-old, Bentley, 1998)
§ I guess I could call myself smart. I mean I can usually
get good grades. Sometimes I worry though, that I’m not
equipped to achieve what I want, that I’m just a tape
recorder repeating back what I’ve heard. I worry that
once I’m out of school and people don’t keep handing
me information with questions… I’ll be lost. (15-year-
old, Bentley, 1998)
75/3/13

8. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Everyday and academic practices
§ “Functionally, the distinction between everyday and academic
thinking skills is somewhat akin to a difference between
effortless or incidental cognition and deliberate effortful
cognition. In general, everyday thinking skills provide the
means for interacting with our world on a day-to-day basis,
involve routine scripted activities, and are executed relatively
automatically. Problems requiring academic thinking skills, in
contrast, place a far greater emphasis on precision, deliberate
evaluation, accurate understanding, and predictions consistent
with the provided facts.” (Reeve, Palincsar, & Brown, 1985,
p. 3)
85/3/13

9. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Everyday and academic practices
§ The relationship between everyday and academic thinking has been central
in writings on education and learning for a long time, going back to
Vygotsky (1986, Thought and Language) on “everyday” and “scientific”
concepts, and Bartlett (1958, Thinking) on “everyday” or “experimental”
thinking. Both Vygotsky and Bartlett used these conceptions as a way of
describing conceptual development and the zone or connections between
different ways of understanding, in what enhances deeper insight within
different areas and issues.
§ “The decontextualized nature of learning and knowledge practices in
schools in many subject domains is something students have to
learn.” (Lauren Resnick, 1987)
95/3/13

10. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Everyday and academic practices
§ ’Leisure is hard work.’ (K. Drotner, 2008)
§ “There is a growing consensus that we can come to
understand more about learning if we document both
similarities and differences between learning processes
inside and out of school and focus on the study of the
complex relationships between them.” [Hull & Schultz,
2001].
105/3/13

11. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
115/3/13
Barton & Hamilton (1998). Ecological
perspective on literacy
Six propositions that frame their concept of literacy as a social practice,
and their ethnographic study:
(a) Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be
inferred from events that are mediated by written texts;
(b) there are different literacies associated with different domains of life;
(c) literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power
relationships, and some literacies become more dominant, visible, and
influential than others;
(d) literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals
and cultural practices;
(e) literacy is historically situated; and
(f) literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired
through processes of informal learning and sense making.

12. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Knowledge practices
§ Understanding knowledge practices as ‘personal and social
practices related to working with knowledge.’ (Hakkarainen,
2009: 215).
§ To investigate how teachers and students relate to knowledge
creation and knowledge building, as well as to how teachers
can integrate students’ knowledge practices from out of
school in the classroom.
§ The term ‘knowledge’ is used in the broadest sense, from
what is explicit, or stated in official discourse, to what is
implicit, and thus informing one’s activities, and, further yet,
to that which underlies the competencies in specific
situations, so-called ‘procedural knowledge’ (Hakkarainen,
2009).
125/3/13

13. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
135/3/13
Knowledge connected - trajectories of
knowledge building
Understand knowledge within a domain as negotiable
rather than ‘out there in the world’, readily available for
the learner to pick up.
How we grasp the connectedness and transitions between
aspects of knowledge building along different time-scales?
- Domains
- Informal-Formal
- Online-Offline
- Number of information sources
- Ontological and academic learning

14. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
2. Methodological challenges
145/3/13

15. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Two
dimensions
§ Increased
focus
on
studying
literacy
as
part
of
social
prac3ces
(prac3ces-­‐events)
§ Autonomous
vs
ideological
§ Cultural
contexts
§ Local
literacies
§ The
impact
of
technological
and
media
developments
§ Representa3onal
means
§ Content
crea3on.
User
generated.
§ Sharing,
distribu3on

16. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Methodological
challenges
§ How
do
we
define
literacy
prac3ces
in
a
3me
of
remixing
and
distribu3on
of
content?
§ Development
of
familiar
methods
and/or
a
need
for
new
methodological
approaches?
§ How
can
technologies
help
us
in
collec3ng,
organizing
and
analyzing
data?

17. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Technologies and methodological challenges
§ In
collec3ng
data.
§ Online
communi3es.
§ New
tools
for
colelc3ng
data
§ In
analyzing
data.
§ All
that
data!
§ SoOware
developments
§ In
presen3ng
data
§ Mul3modal
§ Representa3ons
and
models
to
grasp
complexity
175/3/13

18. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
3. Research design and instrumentation
185/3/13

19. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
195/3/13
Example
§ ’Knowledge
in
Mo3on
Across
Contexts
of
Learning’
project.
Focusing
on
teachers,
and
learners.
§ Series
of
biographic
presenta3ons
or
thema3c
orienta3on?
§ Developing
a
conceptual
framework
(’tree’)
in
Nvivo.

20. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Piloting phase
§ Baseline
data
§ Diaries
for
Learning
Lives
project
§ Longitudinal
survey
data
on
youth
for
Knowledge
in
Mo3on
project.
(1992-­‐2002-­‐2012)
§ Reviews
205/3/13

21. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
KnowMo
§ The
overarching
research
ques3ons
in
this
project
are:
§ How
do
teachers
handle
differences
and
similari3es
between
knowledge
prac3ces
in
and
out
of
school?
§ And
what
are
the
implica3ons
of
connec3ng
young
people’s
knowledge
prac3ces
from
different
domains
for
student
learning
and
teachers’
didac3c
strategies?
215/3/13

22. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
§ The
research
design
§ Qualita3ve,
longitudinal
study
§ Involving
two
lower
secondary
schools
in
two
different
local
communi3es
in
one
medium-­‐sized
city.
The
schools
are
selected
in
coopera3on
with
one
University
College,
and
will
draw
on
previous
collabora3on
between
this
college
and
several
prac3ce
schools.
§ The
criteria
for
selec3on
will
be
size
(minimum
of
80
students
in
each
grade)
and
experience
with
integra3ng
ICT
in
teaching.
§ We
will
also
aim
at
selec3ng
communi3es
that
differ
with
respect
to
the
socio-­‐economic
composi3on
of
the
popula3on.
225/3/13

23. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Sample
§ 30 students from two classes at each school will be selected
§ Both girls and boys, and academically strong and weak
students
§ Based on conversations with teachers and on grades during the
first semester of 8th grade
§ Select students after spending time in the classroom to get a
sense of the interaction
235/3/13

24. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
2 x 2 years design
§ The data collection (first 2,5 years)
§ Will be conducted over two-and-a-half years,
enabling the project team to follow developments
over the course of lower secondary school, from the
second semester of eighth grade until the end of
tenth grade.
§ Designing models and ways of working (last 2 years)
§ The later phases will include design experiments
and the involvement of teachers in the schools and
teacher education. Some overlap with the last part of
data collection.
245/3/13

25. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
§ The
main
focus
of
the
observa3ons
and
interviews
will
be
on
iden3fying,
describing
and
analysing
learning
processes
in
each
of
the
specified
domains.
In
each
of
the
domains,
we
will
explore
the
following
five
dimensions
of
the
knowledge
prac3ces
taking
place:
§ Ac#vi#es
and
Structures:
What
aspect
of
the
ac3vi3es
and
literacy
prac3ces
in
each
domain
can
be
defined
as
knowledge
prac3ces?
To
what
extent
are
these
knowledge
prac3ces
structured
and
supported?
In
which
ways
can
different
knowledge
prac3ces
be
characterized
as
formal
or
informal?
§ Content:
How
can
we
understand
the
body
of
knowledge
made
visible
by
the
knowledge
prac3ce?
What
do
young
people
as
learners
extract
from
the
content
of
their
out-­‐of-­‐school
prac3ces
as
well
as
the
use
of
learning
resources
in
the
classroom?
§ Actors:
Who
are
involved
in
the
knowledge
prac3ce,
and
how
do
the
respec3ve
actors
contribute?
What
characterizes
interac3on
between
actors
in
specific
knowledge
prac3ces?
§ Media#on
and
Tools:
What
are
the
means
of
communica3on
and
collabora3on
within
specific
knowledge
prac3ces?
§ Outcome:
What
is
the
outcome
of
the
knowledge
prac3ces
in
each
domain?
What
characterizes
students’
mo3va3on
in
different
ac3vi3es?
And
how
is
this
outcome
nego3ated
in
classroom
ac3vi3es?
255/3/13

26. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
3 domains out of school
1. Families – Home
2. Organized Sports
3. Media Use
§ Each domain with one researcher each. One post.doc and
one PhD in the classrooms at the same time as fieldwork
out of school. Interaction analysis and resources/funds of
knowledge used.
265/3/13

27. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
275/3/13
Design
and
methods
§ Etnografisk
3lnærming.

28. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Methods
§ Questionnaire.
§ Fieldnotes.
§ Video observations in and out of school.
§ Interviews (Teachers and students).
§ Logs by teachers and students.
§ Recordings of family conversations at dinner.
§ Artefacts made by students?
285/3/13

29. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
4. Examples. Data and analysis.
295/3/13

30. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Examples. Data and analysis.
§ From project ‘Local Literacies and Community
Spaces’ (Learning Lives).
§ The three T’s as analytic concepts: Transitions, Transfer,
Trajectories. (A focus on literacy practices and learning identities. ‘Rich
points’, Spradley)
§ Research questions:
§ R 1. How can we understand and follow ‘learning’ across social contexts
and over time?
§ R 2. What are the ‘funds of knowledge’ available to the community of
Groruddalen?
§ R 3. What are the major challenges faced by young people engaged in
transitions between levels of education?
305/3/13

31. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Preliminary findings
§ Transitions
§ Some have a clear idea about decisions.
§ Many are insecure, for different reasons. Decide last minute.
§ Often out-of-school experiences that are important.
§ Transfer
§ Positionings in being a learner. Structure and strategies as learners.
§ Content from out-of-school in different subject domains. Teachers
struggle.
§ Trajectories
§ Ways of engagement and participation in different contexts and
activities
§ Many change their learning identities in moments of transitions
§ Evolvement of literacy practices from first to last grade. More complex
tools and ways of working with texts.
315/3/13

32. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
Sample
§ 60 students/families divided by 3 cohorts. (Representing the
school as a timescale, how to become a learner.)
§ Different subject domains:
§ Cohort 1: Sessions preparing for school.
§ Cohort 2: Norwegian, social sciences, math, project work
§ Cohort 3:
§ Academic track: Social sciences, Advanced Math, Media
and Communication
§ Vocational track: Health and skin care. Car repair.
325/3/13

33. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
A. Diaries
§ What can such diaries tell us about knowledge practices
across contexts?
§ Focusing on:
§ Spaces/places ther are during a day
§ Activities they are involved in
§ The role of technology
335/3/13

34. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
B. Fieldnote, one session
§ What is going on here?
§ How do you interpret the intention and acting in this
session by the teacher?
§ How are the students engaged or dis-engaged in the
content issues of this session?
§ Implications?
345/3/13

35. Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo
C. Interviews combined with other data
§ We start coding interviews, fieldnotes and diaries.
§ Then add coding to other types of data to elaborate
analysis of the written data types.
§ What is expressed in interviews as ways of
understanding learning identities?
§ How are funds of knowledge expressed and for what
purposes/what role do they have?
355/3/13