CITERS2014 - Learning without Limits? http://citers2014.cite.hku.hk/program-overview/keynote-green/ 13 June 2014 (Friday) 09:10 – 10:00 Keynote 1: Education and Technology Partnerships as Intercultural Communities: An Ethnographic Perspective Speaker: Professor Judith GREEN (Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara) Chair: Dr. Susan BRIDGES (Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, HKU)

1. EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS
AS INTERCULTURAL COMMUNITIES
An Ethnographic Perspective
Judith Green
GeUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
with
Dr. Stephanie Couch, California State University East Bay
Richard Bacon, Graduate Student, UC Santa Barbara
Beth Yeager, California State University East Bay
CITERS Conference, University of Hong KongJune 13, 2017

2. MAKING VISIBLE THE INVISIBLE
 Over the past four decades my colleagues and I have been
developing an Interactional Ethnographic research approach
that grew out of studies in which we partnered with K-20
teachers, students, and technology developers, in a range of
institutional and social settings.
 The Interactional Ethnographic epistemology (way of
knowing) supports systematic and overtime analysis of how
participants are constructing complex patterned ways of
knowing, being and doing everyday events in classrooms and
social groups as cultures-in-the-making.

3.  Guided by theoretical perspectives from
anthropology, learning sciences, sociolinguistics,
and sociology, we seek to develop understandings
of
 How and in what ways members and partnering
groups/actors individually and collectively construct
local knowledge?
 How local cultural and academic knowledge is
constructed in and through the moment-to-moment
and overtime discourse and interactions among
members?

4. AND WHAT COUNTS AS PARTNERING:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE
 Ethnographers seek to step back from their own cultural
assumptions (Languaculture 1-LC1) to learn, from the
group (LC2) with whom they are partnering in research,
by examining
 Who can do (say or engage in) what
 With whom
 In what ways
 For what purposes
 Under what conditions
 With what outcomes or what consequences for what can be
accomplished subsequently by both the individual and the collective

5. RICH POINTS MAKE VISIBLE DIFFERENCES IN
UNDERSTANDINGS OF CULTURAL PRACTICES
In intercultural Interactional spaces,
 A researcher or participant may experience a frame clash (clash
in frames of reference or interpretation), when they do not share a
common understanding of
 What is happening (or expected to be happening)
 What something means to insiders
 What insiders need know to participate in expected ways
 If the researcher/participants actively explore the pathways
(roots) leading to the frame clash, they can TURN the frame
clash into a rich point for exploring what they, or others, need
to know, understand, produce and predict to participate in
expected way

6.  This approach orients the ethnographer(s) to questions
that make visible local, situated ways of
 communicating,
 interacting,
 Interpreting
the referential, semiotic, material & social work of
members of a group (Languaculture 2)
 This approach make visible
 What members construct as ways of knowing, being and doing
the processes and practices that constitute members’
knowledge of actions and content
 How changing policies from intersecting systems are
consequential for (impact) the academic work of students and
teachers alike
STUDYING SOCIAL GROUPS AS LANGUACULTURES

7. TELLING CASE 1: THE
EMBEDDED ETHNOGRAPHER AS LEADER

8. THE STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE PROGRAM
AS A TELLING CASE
The program is an award winning hybrid online
program that was
 Developed by an inter-Institutional team
(K12 district administrators, community college instructors and technology leaders,
college/university faculty, adult school administrators, and Math and English Language Arts
researchers and faculty)
 Served 4,700 students in 78 schools and educational settings,
in 40 of the 58 counties in California
 Served Students who had failed the High School Exit examination
(CAHSEE) 4-6 times but after taking the Stepping program
 38% passed for English Language Arts Test for the first time
 48% of passed the Math Test passed for the first time

9. THE EMBEDDED ETHNOGRAPHER AS PARTNER:
CASE STUDY 1
To generate developing understandings of how teams form
and develop, while creating technology-enabled
educational programs, the embedded ethnographer, as
team leader, sought understandings of
 What kinds of model(s) of interactive leadership and
partnering work were, or needed to be, developed within
and across the development and implementation phases
of the program?
 What unanticipated and novel challenges arose as actors
moved across time and during phases of development?

10. STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE
Live on-line instruction
On site instructional support
Hybrid
Approach

11. A WORKING MODEL WAS DEVELOPED BY ENGAGING IN
THE FOLLOWING PROCESSES ACROSS TIME
Engaging in interactive-responsive processes guided
by an abductive logic of inquiry (Agar, 2006)
Engaging in iterative and recursive analyses across
times, events and multiple levels of analytic scale (Agar,
2006)
Constructing systematically what was occurring from an
emic, or insider’s perspective (Heath & Street, 2008)
Undertaking contrastive analyses of data, theories,
perspectives, and/or methods (Corsaro, 1981)

12. PARTNERING ACROSS THE PROGRAM:
A GROUNDED WORKING MODEL

13. WHAT THE LEADER(S) NEEDED TO EXPLORE
How social, professional and academic practices within and
across disciplines in a team compare and contrast with those of
other partners
 Experts in a field contributing to the project,
 Students engaging in the program,
 Instructors/facilitators of the program
To uncover frame clashes challenging the work of the team, the
leader needed to examine the social meanings, and academic
practices, within and across groups to construct warranted claims
about
 What was happening (or or not)
 When and where,
 under what conditions,
 for what purposes,
 in what ways,
 with what outcomes or consequences for what was being
developed.

14. THE PROGAM AS
A COLLECTIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT

15. INTERSEGMENTAL PARTNERS:
CC, UC, CSU, LAUSD
Creating Opportunities for Students who failed the CA High School Exit
Exam
Butte Glen Community
College District
Lake Tahoe Community
College District
University California,
Los Angeles
University California,
Santa Barbara
Los Angeles Unified
School District
And Other School
Districts

16. PARTNERING FOR CONTENT AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT
Math Instructional
Design Team:
English Language Arts
Instructional Design
Team:
Technology Team:
Lake Tahoe CCD
Faculty
•Larry Green
CSU Fullerton
Faculty
•Harris Shultz
UCSB—Math
Researcher
•Sarah Hough
UCSB Faculty
• Carol Dixon
•Beth Yeager
•Judith Green
SBCC Faculty
•Margaret Prothero,
Butte Oommunity
College District
Administrators
•Tim Calhoun
•Dave Albrecht
•Dave Hammond
UCLA
•Programmers

17. NO SIZE FITS ALL !!!
 The team developed a program with
 Multiple Entry Points
 Multiple Delivery Models
 Strength Based For All

18. STEPPING INTO YOUR FUTURE IS

19. INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESSES PROVIDED
Video Conferencing
With Online Instructor,
group
Online Resources
Tutoring – Online or
other formats
Possibly using e-
conferencing
E-Conferencing,
discussion forums

20. Achieving
Access and
Engagement
Voice
Over/Highlig
hting
Video
Based/Transc
ripts &
Closed
Captioning
Meta
Discourse
Interactive
(journal
responses,
reflection)
It includes:

21. The strong video base
provides students with
explicit examples of
what it looks like and
sounds like to engage in
active reading and
writing and test taking.

22. The highlighting of text,
synchronized with an
audio voice over,
allows the student to
actively read along
and to associate
what is heard with
written text. Points
where the voice over
is optional allow the
reader to choose his
or her own pace for
reading the text.
Voice overs enable students
at multiple reading levels
and/or levels of language
proficiency to access the
text.

23. The voice over and pop up texts provide explicit talk
about what they just heard and saw in the video:
Helping students make connections between
prior ways of applying concepts and practices and new applications.

24. The pop up
Windows
throughout
allow students to
interact with and
respond to what
they are hearing
and/or reading.

25. EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM STRUCTURING
Each lesson moves from Part One (concept explanation, concept
building, including guided and independent practice) in real world
contexts, to Part Two (Thinking Like a Test Maker)
This shift uses concepts and practices in a test taking context (concept
explanation, concept building), and includes guided and independent
practice in applying understanding these concepts to the test context
Each lesson embeds applications involving Word Analysis, Reading
Comprehension, and Literary Response.
Each lesson actively ‘walks the student through’ new concepts and then
provides student with opportunities to practice and make links between
conceptual understanding and reading practice and using that knowledge
in the test context.

26. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT STEPPING’S APPROACH
TO READING AND WRITING?
Traditional Approach to
Comprehension
(examples)
Active Reading Practices in
Stepping – An Approach to
Meaning Making
 Who are the main characters?
 What is the main idea?
 Where does this story take place?
 When does the story take place?
 Why did this happen?
 Making predictions – predicting
possible interpretations
 Asking questions of & with text
 Looking for & using clues
 Noticing details in text
 Making connections
 Grounding in evidence

27.  Interactional Ethnography provided a systematic
approach to
 Making visible how the work of partnering in this particiular
group (or other social spaces) shapes particular opportunities
for development and learning from others, leading to
particular types of knowledge
 Engaging in cross-case analyses to explore how opportunities
for learning differ across partnering groups and actors
 Identifying consequential progressions within and across
phases of development, implementation and use

29.  The contrastive analyses are possible given a longitudinal
ethnography undertaken with Beth Yeager from 1991-2000 in
her fifth and sixth grade classes
 The data records include parallel collections each year:
 Video tapes of the first three weeks of school (all day-- 6 hrs/da)
and purposeful samples of cycles of activity across the school
year (ca. >100 hours of video tapes of key events)
 Artifacts produced by students within these cycles of activity
 Interviews (formal and informal) of teacher and students
 Public records of policy decisions related to what occurred each
year
 Ongoing work with the teacher ethnographer (one of the
authors)
THE ETHNOGRAPHY(1991-2002) AS A
FOUNDATION FOR CONTRASTING ACTIONS

33. Initiating Question(s) 1: Where can I locate discourse in which Samuel
inscribes evidence of his use of creativity and imagination to express
thoughts, ideas, and/or feelings that can serve as an anchor for analysis of
intertextually tied events? What were those events and/or interactions?
Showcase Portfolio Dear Reader letter. Identify all
instances of social science referenced. Select the earliest
cycle identified as an anchor for forward and backward
mapping to the roots and routes to becoming a social
scientist.
Representing data:

35. (RE)PRESENTING DATA: MOVING FORWARD IN
TIME ACROSS DAYS TO IDENTIFY PROCESSES
AND PRACTICES ON FIRST DAY WERE RELATED
TO DEVELOPING INQUIRY AND LITERACY, AS
WELL AS ACADEMIC IDENTITIES.
Analyzing events:
Tracing across the first 6 days of school, the
processes and practices referenced by and
constructed jointly by the teacher with the students
and others in the class (researcher, teaching assistant)

38. From individual opportunities to multiple collective spaces
that constitute a consequential progression of activity and
opportunities for learning

39. Initiating Question(s) 3: How did the teacher construct opportunities for
learning to engage in inquiry in the first cycle of activity? What were
those events and/or interactions?
Identify the flow of engagement in intertextually tied events
and identify the boundaries of the cycle of activity to construct
a data set to analyze what each event afforded him in learning
inquiry, taking up identities, and engage with literacy processes
and practices.
Representing data:

41. • Across time and events, there was a consequential
progression that shaped texts, practices and
knowledge afforded individuals-within-a-group as
well as the collective [Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & Duran, R.
2000]
• Consequential progressions in one year provide a
basis for exploring opportunities gained and lost
when policies change what is possible for teachers
and students to do, construct, and therefore,
display as learning in classrooms
IDENTIFYING CONSEQUENTIAL PROGRESSIONS
ADDS TO THE THEORETICAL EXPLANATION

42. HOW EXTERNAL CHANGES
Supported and constrained opportunities for learning across
years, holding the teacher, school and grade level constant

45. TRACING DISTRICT LEVEL CHANGES
Exploring how political changes at the district
system level changed opportunities across a
three year period

47. THREE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES IN PRACTICES

49. Across Years, Changing DISCOURSES
Impacted What Could Be
KNOWN
TAKEN UP
CONSTRUCTED
By the Teacher by Students
By restricting linguistic resources and
instructional approaches, policy shifts
constrained academic access and the
construction of social and academic identities