Creating New Spaces for Teaching Qualitative Research Methodology: The Instructor and the Teaching Assistant Enter Into a Post Hoc Dialogue

• In Event: Digital Tools and Technologies in Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Methods

Abstract

Objectives
Increasingly universities are making technology integral to teaching and providing the professorate with the tools and some minimum training in the use of the tools. The research clearly shows that little is being done to motivate faculty to use the tools but the expectations are very present (Brownell and Tanner, 2012). This has led to many barriers to integrating technology and pedagogy in higher education classrooms (Ertmer, 1999; Georgian and Olson, 2008). Although hybrid or blended learning has been the focus of much of the literature on technology integration in higher education, some courses are delivered totally online —creating challenges for instructors more familiar with teaching face-to-face. Online courses use both synchronous and asynchronous methods of teaching to facilitate learning. In this paper the authors explore the process of be-coming online instructors in a distance education degree program and using digital tools that are new to both the instructors and the students. The authors examine the process, the changes and adjustments they make over time, the challenges they face and their interpretations of the impact on them as instructors of qualitative research methodology who were both familiar and unfamiliar with parts of the new digital tools and the technology and the process of blending them with the goals and purposes of the course. How did we navigate the system? What lessons did we learn in the process? How did students’ responses affect our pedagogical styles and the incorporation of technology as a tool for teaching qualitative research methods?
Perspectives
Our personal interest in the ways in which our own levels of technology literacy and pedagogical practices inform the levels of success in designing and delivering instruction online pushed us to use a self-study approach.
Methods
The authors use journal notes, kitchen table discussion notes, email messages, the syllabus materials and anonymous evaluations to examine and revisit the process and the outcomes.
Findings and scholarly significance
We found that how the technology is used and integrated into the teaching is not an easy task for the two instructors who had to overcome the challenges of not being able to interface with the students who still feel the need to have ‘human’ contact. In addition, the intimacy of the methodology itself is lost and virtual learning rooms and spaces do not seem to compensate for the loss of the body contact. The seemingly disembodied nature of the ‘classroom’ creates some tension and student evaluations reflect the frustrations felt by all involved in this new ‘paradigm’.
References
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity?. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61.
Georgina, D., & Olson, M. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1-8.

Authors

• Janice B. Fournillier, Georgia State University

• Romero M. Stokes, Georgia State University