THEME 3 - Comments - Research and Theory

Links to the comments I've made

1. On the concept of truth - Post-Seminar
2. From falsification to truth - Post-Seminar
3. On uncertainty from the authors - Post-Seminar
4. On philosophy and theory - Post-Seminar
5. On observation and forced phenomena - Post-Seminar
6. On theory of knowledge - Post-Seminar
7. On searching for relevant journals and papers - Post-Seminar
8. On theoretical aspects and practical research - Post-Seminar
9. On theory flow - Post-Seminar and Part-Two
10. On abstraction and existence - Post-Seminar

Read More

THEME 3 - Post-Posting - Research and Theory

Most people would agree human progress is highly dependent on our ability to bring up new theories. Science for example has made great progress during the Industrial Revolution thanks to the numerous discoveries that brought scientists to build new theories, to reinforce old ones, and to create innovative products based on these theories they proposed. 

In a world where paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn describes, have occurred more than once, what happens when we realize a natural phenomenon happening in contradiction with a commonly accepted theory? Does that mean we have to discard completely this theory? Build a new one based on our new observations? What actually makes a theory? 

This week, after reading the articles and explaining one based on what I had learnt, I believed I had grasped the most important notions of the "Research and Theory" theme, without really having had the opportunity to go deeper. The lecture and the seminar gave me this opportunity, and cleared up a few points I had misunderstood. 

To me, a theory was always "true", until someone proved it wasn't. In this sense, my concept of truth differed from the original meaning of the word "truth" - for there to be "truth", we have to be able to consider, as talked about in earlier themes, the world in "God's Point of View", which is factually impossible. Thus, I realized it was better not to use the word "true" or "wrong" to explain what I meant - rather, I'd say a theory is commonly accepted, until someone proposes another take, another contradiction, something that can change our view on that theory. 

Now, I wrote earlier in my Pre-Posting that "theory isn't to be reduced to references, data, lists of variables, diagrams or hypotheses - even if they are part of a system scientists often use for their research. What makes a theory is the added value to these ingredients : the recipe that causally links them in relation to a question it answers. In short, theory has to answer the question of "why", and in that sense further the understanding of the reader in that subject". My stand on this question didn't really change since last Friday, but I can add a few details to make it clearer. Very often, scientists issue a hypothesis: independently from where they got it (from observation, most likely), or how they're going to explain it (by causally linking data, references, etc.), a hypothesis is basically a statement that describes the relationship between entities. Theory has to explain this relationship, to answer the question of why this phenomenon occurs. For example, in Newton's case, a hypothesis would be "if I let go of this pencil, I think it's going to fall.", while his theory explains the relationship between the object we're letting go of and the center of the earth, based on a causal reflexion built on previous theories and data. 

It's also important to realize that we're always working within a specific framework, a specific context. We can then formulate our current paradigms based on previous theories we've commonly accepted… That is, until our whole scientific community has to undergo another paradigm shift. 

Read More

THEME 3 - Pre-Posting - Research and Theory

Learning, Media and Technology (Taylor & Francis Group, IF 1.26)

Previously known as Journal of Education Television (1975 - 1995), then Journal of Educational Media (1996-2004), before eventually settling for Learning, Media and Technology (2005-current), this international peer-reviewed journal focuses on the benefits and drawbacks that technological progress can have on education. Aiming at stimulating debate on how innovation influences educational theory, Learning, Media and Technology publishes papers related to the use for educational purposes of digital broadcasting, internet and online resources, as well as innovative new digital formats. 

Digital Storytelling : A Powerful Technology Tool For the 21st Century Classroom (Bernard R. Robin)

As the title suggests, this article focuses on Digital Storytelling, used as an educational tool. 

With the rise of new technology in every aspect of our life, classrooms have started to adapt themselves to an innovative digital trend, and as this slowly spreads across the world, the author suggests we take a moment to investigate the theoretical framework behind it all.

Robin proceeds to describe digital storytelling, its history, and to what extent its use in classrooms can be beneficial for education and teachers. Contradictory to his statement, the U.S. Department of Education (2007) reported to Congress that they found "no significant differences in student achievement between the classrooms that used the technology products and classrooms that did not". Based on this, and the benefits he previously described, Robin highlights the need for a new, more solid, theoretical framework for digital storytelling as a learning tool, an enhanced and more developed version of the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) model.

The article's motives are undeniably relevant to our current educational situation: in a way, the main issue raised by this article can't be contested, as the core of the debate with new technologies as a learning tool doesn't lie in its efficiency, but rather in the methods applied to its use in classrooms. The author takes a direct and honest approach to the problem : progressing with linearity, the argument is clearly exposed to the reader - after having described the main concept (digital storytelling, definition and history), he shows the opposition between what happens (U.S. department of education's report) and what should happen (the benefits of digital storytelling in classrooms) to bring the reader to his conclusion : the need for a new framework, that he suggests a model for. All along, he backs his argument up by solid and relevant articles and resources, that he sometimes illustrates to make his point clearer for the reader. 

Although the author proves his point already by describing the different kinds of digital storytelling and the causal logic that links them to being an efficient learning tool, without having to back his argument up with data, I find the article could have done with more scientific content on showing the benefits of digital storytelling - studies conducted in classrooms for example, that the author hints at in the last paragraph ("how educators might conduct future research studies that can demonstrate the benefits of multimedia in general and digital storytelling in particular"). 

The Nature of Theory in Information Systems (S. Gregor) && What Theory is Not (R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw)

Gregor and Sutton's articles both contribute in making the concept of theory clearer. Basically, contrary to popular belief, theory isn't to be reduced to references, data, lists of variables, diagrams or hypotheses - even if they are part of a system scientists often use for their research. What makes a theory is the added value to these ingredients : the recipe that causally links them in relation to a question it answers. In short, theory has to answer the question of "why", and in that sense further the understanding of the reader in that subject. 

In the particular case of the article I chose, Robin opted for a method lying in between the Prediction theory type and the Explanation and Prediction theory type to approach the issue he points out. A major part of his analysis consists in explaining the main concept - "what is, how, why, when, where and what will be" - of digital storytelling as a learning tool, based on previous studies and self-reflexion. It's not entirely an EP theory, because the causal explanations highlighted are sometimes hypotheses not completely backed up by enough data/references; but at the same time it's not just a prediction theory because it offers that much more in terms of added value - the justificatory causal explanations are there, they're just not complete. Then, he proposes the beginning of a solution, in compliance with the Design and Action theory type, for improvements and adaptation of the TPCK model for digital storytelling in classrooms. 
The combination of these models makes the article stronger in my opinion, because it's very solid content-wise, and the added value is undeniable as well.

Read More