ED 601 – Scholarship

Research Proposal, ED 601

What are the type, level, and volume of — Alaska Native participation — in online learning and online learning communities? What are the constraints or conversely the propellants for participation: access, gender, skill, and preference? To clarify, I am not asking about Alaska Native participation in formal online schooling or workplace training. Rather, I am asking about organic, self-motivated participation in online learning and online learning communities and therefore our first task is a series of definitions.

Online access, ethnicity, bioregion, and gender will all be seen as important details in answering these questions. Likewise, it is necessary to refine an understanding of both “online learning” and “online learning communities.” However, starting from an emic perspective, this question shifts radically, especially when we consider this interview with John Seeley Brown:

…It turns out that my neighbor turns out to be a 20-year-old kid, moderately world-famous in the surfing world named Dusty Payne. And what got interesting to us is that Maui has never produced a world-class champion before. They basically come from Oahu, from the North Shore and so on and so forth. But all of a sudden four kids make it big, big time here in Maui. You say “What Happened?”
And it turns out that if you kind meet these kids they have all come together very much like a guild in World of Warcraft, and what they do is they compete with each other and they collaborate with each other incredibly intensely. They think up a new move, they dash down the hill, they try it out, they take their video cameras with them. They’re videoing each other. They dash back up here. They start kind of analyzing what worked, what didn’t work, build new ideas, dash down the hill again, try it out. And then what they start doing is they start looking at, of course, all the other people surfing around the world, which they get from YouTube. They have all this kind of stuff. They start picking up new moves like that. That’s a kind of interesting way that digital media has enhanced the ability of these surfing kids to pick up all kinds of new tricks. And I can actually show you how a particular move now on a surfboard takes about 48 hours to propagate around the world before all the key surfers of the top edge are trying it out themselves, okay? And of course any time something changes they’re the first to try it out and to appropriate it, so these kids live for picking up something new. They live for trying out something new. And some of this stuff, by the way, is moderately dangerous. So these are high-cost mistakes, but the passion that they have to do this is really awesome.
Well, guess what. The passion that I see in the World of Warcraft of the high-end high performers is also awesome, but it doesn’t stop there. If you look at the artists, if you look at the musicians, if you look at the dancers, if you look at athletics in general and to the extreme edge what you have is kids that are turned on. And when they get really turned on in the right context there’s almost no stopping.
Any interest that any kid has, I am sure there’s already existing out there a passionate community of interest group or a community of practice that you can try to join…. (Brown, 2013)

In the current terminology, I am interested in “open online learning.” This type of learning is about identity, about curiosity, about real compensation. I think these definitions of online learning and online learning community is substantially different from the online learning in which universities or human resource departments engage. To understand better, the process that Brown describes includes the following elements:

Shared passion
Face-to-face cohort
Practice capture technology
Play/practice (elements of gamification)
Online cohort
Published/peer reviewed (open)
Failure has a real cost (injury, financial loss)
Practice refinement and improvement (lather, rinse, repeat)
Success has potential for compensation/recognition in both real and virtual world

This is learner/passion centric. Inquiry originates with passionate individuals following their dreams. That is, less frequently, how we describe school learners though staff development in the workplace can have aspects of passion. More often-in schools our starting assumption is that learners are deficient in knowledge we also assume that they need development across a broad curriculum. This approach to learning puts identity, curiosity, and real compensation at the far end of learning. Alas, for many Alaska Natives that abstraction and that decontextualizing of life/learning/self are related to struggles with school and professional success. Yet my emphasis in this research is on what people do for themselves and with others when they are in control of their own learning. It is precisely a process that I can see appealing to Alaska Native values and practices; moreover, the ambiguous space of the internet can be a space Indigenous peoples may populate in their own way.

Let me return to my project of the definition of terms. In “online learning” we seek activities whose practitioners are passionate, that oscillate between face-to-face and virtual cohorts, that include a cycle of practice/practice capture, publishing and review and practice refinement. The passion is reinforced through status and remuneration (though one can fail, really fail, and such failure puts the passion at risk – said differently, these stakes are real). Implicit in this definition is the embeddedness of communities of practices, both face-to-face and virtual.

The scholarly literature on this topic is limited, and when I define online learning and online learning communities in light of Brown’s description, then the literature does not exist. This is true particularly when we remember to limit our search terms to include “Alaska Native.” The existing literature coalesces into three categories that touches on this question first are topics/projects that are not school-based rather communities based, and have elements of online practice:

Cueva, K., Revels, L., Kuhnley, R., Cueva, M., Lanier, A., & Dignan, M. (2015). Co-Creating a Culturally Responsive Distance Education Cancer Course with, and for, Alaska’s Community Health Workers: Motivations from a Survey of Key Stakeholders. Journal Of Cancer Education: The Official Journal Of The American Association For Cancer Education.

Eisner, W. R., Cuomo, C. J., Hinkel, K. M., Jelacic, J., Kim, C., & Alba, D. D. (2012). Producing an Indigeounous Knowledge WebGIS fo Arctic Alaska Communities: Challenges, Successes,and Lessons Learned. Transactions in GIS, 16(1), 17-37.

Wexler, L., Eglinton, K., & Gubrium, A. (Eisner et al., 2012; Wexler, Eglinton, & Gubrium). Using Digital Stories to Understand the Lives of Alaska Native Young People. Youth & Society, 46(4), 478-504.

Changing the search terms to “social media” and elements of open learning, for example, “MOOC” though always limited by “Alaska Native” — did yield some additional limited results. However, these were medical or behavioral health studies and not studies of learning. I felt that this pulled the research too far from the core topic. While the following articles are all school-related, there are elements of autonomy or self-identity that weaving through them that again border on my research topic. The following articles are school-centered rather than learner-centered.

Hahn, S., & Lehman, L. (2005). The Half-Million-Square-Miles Campus: University of Alaska Fairbanks Off-Campus Library Services. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning, 2(3), 5-24.

This article touchs on the role of technology and its availability in rural Alaskan in schools and communities, as well as the use of school-based online learning. In the end, this article describes the work and priorities of a university, hence not really on target with the questions I have in mind. Yet, this suggests a potentially fruitful place for research. What does information literacy mean in an information rich online environment for Alaska Natives? What does it look like when they answer their own questions, in their own way? As above, broadening the terms to include, “computer use” or “information technology” did yield additional scholarly research; alas, all of it was embedded in the medical or behavioral health literature.

Berkshire, S., & Smith, G. (2000). Bridging the Great Divide: Connecting Alaska Native Learners and Leaders via “High Touch-High Tech” Distance Learning.

Fleming, A. B. (2005). A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of Alaska Natives who persist in one program of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 1715.

Odasz, F. (1999). On the Frontier of Online Learning, in Galena, Alaska. Multimedia Schools, 6(2), 42-45.

Subramony, D. P. (Winter 2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Edutaion, 76(1), 57-68.

Two of these articles are quite old, demonstrating that not only research breadth is limited but so also is the depth. Two are interesting, though in ways only adjacent to the inquiry I am making. Subramony uncovers some interesting questions around gender and computer aptitude. He shows how young women succeed in school including in computer proficiency, more than young men. Young men practice subsistence skills. I mentioned above that online access, ethnicity, bioregion, and gender, would all be seen as important details in trying to understand the type, level, and volume of Alaska Native participation in online learning and online learning communities. Fleming is again focused on school learning and school success, but at least the inquiry is about Alaska Native lived experiences.

My original intent in developing a research proposal was to engage with a community in developing online learning resources, in conjunction with an already developed educational, cultural, or youth program. I am hampered in the scope and reach of my network and by the fact that I do not live in Alaska. At this point, I am uncertain I can develop the rapport quickly enough to support such a project. That in conjunction with the sparseness of existing research caused me to step back and begin to rethink my approach.

This project will consist of interviews with individuals who are both active content creators online and members of Alaska Native ethnic groups. Five to ten interviews will be done, two with members from each of these major ethnic groups, Iñupiaq, Yu’pik, Gwitch’in, Alutiiq/Sugpiaq, and Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian. Thus far, snowball sampling has generated five potential interviewees from three ethnic groups. Interviews will consist of nine to ten questions (see Appendix B to read them). These questions cover matters of online learning, cultural preservation/cultural innovation, and intellectual property/cultural property.

The research will be connected with required coursework for the degree program. Therefore, for example, the summer of 2016, I will be taking ED 654 Digital Citizenship, Internet Legal Issues, Digital Copyright, Fair Use, interviews will be conducted, and preliminary results reported on. This allows me to create and get IRB approval early in the program. This approach has several benefits, first of which is several smaller projects may be combined and built into a final project. Smaller focused projects help me build my Alaska network and may open unanticipated opportunities. Having the project approved and on the record allows me to get underway and to modify the project moving forward, based on fortuitous opportunities. To accomplish this I will need to complete the CITI human subjects’ certification and submit successfully an IRB Research Protocol for this project. Accordingly, I have begun drafting the IRB Research Protocol (see below in Appendix A). I will also need to create an informed consent permission form (see below Appendix C).

In conclusion, little is written, perhaps known, about Alaska Native participation in creation and in open online learning and online learning communities. Yet evidence exists that Alaska Natives participate in online content creation. The aim of this inquiry is to interview participants in order to understand better, how content creators view themselves, and the role of their content in fostering online learning and online communities. This is to explore some of the tensions and restrictions of technology use and online access felt in rural communities of Alaska. In addition, I aim to begin to explore tensions between cultural preservation, innovation, and issues of intellectual property rights for individuals and communities in the context of online learning and learning communities.

Additional aims for this inquiry include scaling into research in terms of both learning the IRB protocol, using qualitative research tools and practices, and building trust and rapport with Alaska Native communities. Having a project on file with the IRB allows me the flexibility to modify an existing project through the coursework rather than doing that simultaneously with the final project, hence easing deadlines. This approach may also open additional opportunities for projects and research through building network with community members. Scaling into the research builds practice and iteration into the process along the way to the final project. This increases my skills and techniques as a researcher as I work towards the final project.

IRB Research Protocol

Application

Application Information:

Title:	Alaska Native Digital Citizenship: Online Learning and Online Learning Communities
Proposed Start Date	May 23, 2016
Anticipated Completion Date	August 12, 2016

Principal Investigator Assurance Statement: IRB protocols may only be submitted by individuals who are eligible to serve as a Principal Investigator (PI) under UAF policy #05-003 (http://www.uaf.edu/research/faculty/policies-and-regulations/Principal-Investigator-Eligibility.pdf).

By submitting this protocol application, I certify that the information provided is accurate and complete. I agree to and will comply with the following statements:

Abide by all regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to research involving human subjects.
Accept responsibility for the scientific and ethical conduct of this research.
Accept responsibility for providing personnel (collaborators, staff, graduate students, undergraduate students, and volunteers) with the appropriate training and mentoring to conduct their duties as part of this research.
If this IRB Protocol Application is for Graduate Student Research, the student’s graduate advisory committee has reviewed and approved this research protocol.
Obtain approval from the IRB prior to amending or altering the research protocol, consent/assent forms or initiating further correspondence with the research subjects,
Immediately report to the Office of Research Integrity any complaints from participants or others, all serious adverse reactions, and/or any unanticipated problems or issues related to this study.
Comply with requests of the IRB regarding Continuing/Final Review and assessment in a timely manner.

I realize that failure to comply with the above provisions may result in suspension or termination of this project by the IRB and, if appropriate, restricted access to funding and notification of sponsor, and referral to the appropriate UAF administrative official(s) for disciplinary action.

C. Funding Information: Place an “X” in the first column to indicate which type(s) of funding will be used to support this project.

Type of Funding	Sponsor or Source	UAF proposal (S#), Grant (G#), or Account (fund-org)
Internal Competitive	N/A	N/A
Internal Non-Competitive	N/A	N/A
External	N/A	N/A
Other	N/A	N/A

Justification of Multiple Awards: The ORI and IRB are required to match the work described in the funding proposal/award to that in the IRB Protocol. In nearly all cases, the same work cannot be funded under multiple awards; therefore, additional justification is required if the work described in this Protocol will be funded by more than one source. Clearly explain why it is not appropriate to file separate IRB Protocols and indicate which portions of the work will be covered by each funding source.

N/A

Classification of Project: Place an “X” in the first column to indicate which of the following best describes this research project.

	Type of Project	Description (if needed)
	Faculty Research
	Doctoral or Master Degree Research	This research is first associated with the final project in ED 654. However, it may, depending on this pilot project grow into a section of Robert Heath’s final project for his M.Ed. ONID program.
	Undergraduate Research Project
	Other – Please describe.	<<Overwrite Here>>

Additional IRB Requirements (Review required other than UAF IRB): If this research is subject to the review and approval of another IRB or similar committee provide the following information. Please contact the Office of Research Integrity PRIOR to submitting applications to multiple review committees, so that we can assist in determining the order of review and, if needed, negotiate with other institutions to determine which has primary responsibility for oversight. If review by more than one non-UAF committee is required, copy and paste the following two tables as many times as needed.

Required Information	Response
Name of Committee	Robert Heath, Graduate Student Advisory Committee, M.Ed. ONID
Institution	University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Contact Person	Sean Topkok
Email Address	stopkok@alaska.edu
Phone Number	(907) 474-5537

	Review Status	Explanation (if needed)
	Application has not been submitted.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	Application is currently under review.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	Application has been approved. Note: Submit a copy of the application packet and final approval letter with your UAF application.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	Other – Please explain.	<<Overwrite Here>>

General Objectives and Methodology: Briefly explain as though speaking with a non-scientist, the specific objective(s) of this research project or program. Clearly state your hypothesis, study focus and your methodology: how each of your proposed procedures will address the hypothesis. Limit your response to approximately 500 words; other project details will be requested in later sections.

<<Overwrite Here>>

Literature Search (References): Provide a list of no more than five (5) references that support the need for this research and/or for the use of the methods proposed for data collection and analysis. References should typically be peer reviewed scholarly articles, but may include discussions with colleagues or other subject matter experts. At a minimum, identify the database(s) searched, the keywords used, and provide a summary of the results.

<<Overwrite Here>>

Research Population: The following section addresses the researcher’s commitment to the justice of this protocol in the sense that it fulfills the obligation to equitably distribute both the burden and benefits for the research participants.

Required Information	Response
1. Maximum number of research participants to be enrolled.	10
2. What are the selection criteria for research participants?	Active production of online content, and member status in one of the five major ethic regions of Alaska, Iñupiaq, Yu’pik, Gwitch’in, Alutiiq/Sugpiaq, and Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian
3. Discuss which populations are specifically excluded from the research.	Only Alaska Natives will be interviewed.

Protected Groups: The human subject protection regulations require special consideration be given to the recruitment and participation of certain groups of individuals. Place an “X” in the first column to indicate which of the following groups you are specifically seeking to include as participants in this research.

	Protected Group
	Children (individuals under 18 years of age), No
	Pregnant Women (in projects where there is the potential for fetal harm/impact), No potential for fetal harm.
	Prisoners, No

Recruitment: This section should describe all methods that will be used to contact participants; fliers, mailings, phone calls, word-of-mouth, etc.

Required Information	Response
1. Discuss the recruitment process. Note: You must include copies of any proposed recruitment materials with your IRBNet submission package.	Five individuals from three ethnic groups have been identified for initial contact. Part of the interview process will be to ask them for additional contact leads.
2. Discuss how you plan to encourage the participation of women and minorities.	The entire focus of this research is on minorities.

Benefits, Costs, Risks, Compensation: This section addresses the researcher’s responsibility to beneficence, which requires balancing risk (potential harm to participants or groups) against benefit (potential advances gained by the research).

Question	Response
1. What are the potential benefits to an individual research participant?	A modified sense of the impact their online content is having.
2.If applicable, what are the potential benefits to the culture or society that is the subject of the research?	A wider sense of Indigenous participation in online learning communities.
3. Will compensation (cash, gift cards, non-monetary gifts, etc.) be offered to research participants? If yes, describe the compensation, how it will be distributed, and what receipts or records will be kept.	No
4. What are the costs (monetary or time) to an individual research participant?	Time taken for interview.
5. Describe any potential risks of harm or discomfort (physical, psychological, or sociological) to an individual participant.	No more risk than having a conversation or sitting at their desk.
6. What will be done to minimize or mitigate potential harms or discomfort that may be experienced by an individual research participant?	Questions, like the consent form will be phrased at Eighth grade level. Since the subjects will choose their locations for the interviews and interviews will be conducted remotely, little can be done beyond limiting the duration and encouraging participants to pick a comfortable site ahead of time.
7. If applicable, what are the potential risks to the culture or society that is the subject of the research?	Variations in self-identity/cultural identity and personal knowledge/cultural knowledge and themes around intellectual property rights will be explored. This may uncover unasked or incompletely explored questions hopefully that will have the opposite effect and strengthen the cultures.
8. If applicable, what will be done to minimize or mitigate potential harms to the culture or society that is the subject of the research?	Member checking of paper drafts will occur. It is unlikely that this research, due to its limited scope, will have large impacts nonetheless, we are happy to share the results with tribal governments and educators.

Participant Consent / Assent: The informed consent and assent process form the cornerstone of the Human Research Protection Program. The following section addresses the researcher’s responsibility to demonstrate “respect for persons” by ensuring potential participants understand what they are being asked to do, what will be done with the data and/or samples, and that their participation is voluntary. Although the IRB’s review will focus predominantly on the consent and assent forms or scripts you will utilize, you must also describe the following :

Requests and alternatives: Place an “X” in the first column to indicate which of the following you are requesting for this research project. You must provide justification for any request made in this section.

	Request	Justification
	1. Waiver of informed consent. Note: The IRB will only consider this if you can demonstrate that obtaining informed consent will impact the quality of the research data; a waiver will not be granted for researcher convenience.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	2. Waiver of the requirement for documentation (written, audio or video) of informed consent: Note: The IRB will only consider this in instances where it would culturally inappropriate or if the documentation is the only way to link the participant to the project and disclosure of their involvement may result in harm.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	3. Greater than 8^th grade reading level for consent or assent materials. Note: Project documents and assent forms for children must be at an age appropriate level. Documents for general population adults should not exceed an 8^th grade reading level. If you are having problems achieving that level, contact the Office of Research Integrity (uaf-irb@alaska.edu or x7800) for assistance.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	4. Inclusion of participants whose primary language is not English. Note: The IRB regularly approves this request, but you must provide an explanation of the translation services that will be provided This may include providing the IRB with both English and non-English versions of consent, assent and other project documents.	<<Overwrite Here>>
	5. Inclusion of adults with diminished mental capabilities. Note: You will need to determine whether or not these individuals are able to give informed consent. If not, you will have to obtain consent from a legal guardian in addition to the individual’s assent.	<<Overwrite Here>>

Consent/Assent Process: Discuss the process to be used to explain the study to potential participants and solicit their voluntary participation. If your participants are children (<18 years of age) or adults with diminished mental capacity you must describe both the parental consent and participant assent processes. If you intend to have ongoing interactions with participants, include a description of how you will ensure their participation continues to be informed and voluntary.

<<Overwrite Here>>

Research Methodology: The following section addresses the researcher’s responsibility to demonstrate “beneficence” (to above all do no harm and to provide for the greatest possible benefit to the individual, society, or culture that is the subject of the research).

Research Plan: This section asks you to provide information about your collection and use of research data. Your answers to these questions will help ORI and the IRB determine the level of risk to participants and the appropriateness of your research location given the research questions you plan to ask.

Required Information	Response
1. What is (are) the specific questions that the research seeks to answer?	Please see the attached interview protocol.
2. How will the data be used? Include all planned uses (i.e. presentation at scholarly meetings, journal articles, dissertation or thesis, agency reports, presented at public meetings, etc.)	presentation at scholarly meetings, journal articles, ED 654 blog site, thesis
3. Where will the project be conducted? Provide the specific physical location. Note: For research that will not be conducted on the UAF campus or in at a public venue you must provide evidence of formal permission to use the location. For the purposes of this question, K-12 schools are not considered public venues.	Interviews will be conducted through Skype or Google Hangout.

Research Tools: Place an “X” in the first column to indicate which of the following data collection methods or instruments will be used to conduct the proposed research. Research tools for adults must be written at no higher than an 8th grade reading level without justification. Research tools for children must be written at an age appropriate level.

	Data Collection Methods or Instruments
	Questionnaires. Note: Copies of questionnaires must be included in your IRBNet submission.
	Interviews. Please see the attached interview protocol for both procedure and question content.Note: An interview script or outline must be included in your IRBNet submission.
	Observations. Note: A description of the nature of the observations and the researchers role in the activity(ies) being observed must be included in your IRBNet submission.
	Focus Groups. Note: A script, list of questions, outline, or instructions to the group must be included in your IRBNet submission.
	Collection of Identifiable Private Information.
	Collection of Biological Specimens.

	Review of Archived Data / Records / Samples. Note: A description of the data or records to be accessed, including why they were originally collected, must be included in your IRBNet submission. Evidence of official permission to access the materials must be provided for data or records that are not in the public domain.

Potential Conflicts of Interest or Commitment: This section addresses the issues that may affect the research team’s objectivity related to the conduct of this research. Answer the following questions by placing and “X” in the appropriate column; yes (Y) or no (N) and providing an explanation for each “yes” response.

Y	N		Explanation (required for all yes answers)
		1. Does any member of the research team have a proprietary interest in the project that may result in patents, trademarks, or licensing agreements? If so, the researcher will need to work with the Office of Intellectual Property and Commercialization to protect these rights.	N/A
		2. Does any member of the research team have any equity / financial interest in the research? This would include incentive payments, but not regular salary or stipends.	N/A
		3. Does any member of the research team have a power relationship with any or all of the research participants? A power relationship is one that may influence the perception of voluntariness of participation (e.g. employer/employee, counselor/client, or teacher/student)?	N/A
		4. Does any member of the research team have any other potential or actual conflict of interest or commitment relative to this research?	N/A

Data Storage and Retention: This section addresses the researcher’s responsibility to be open with participants regarding what will be done with the collected data, records or samples. This section also demonstrates the researcher’s commitment to protecting the integrity of the research record. Original research data must be stored/maintained at UAF. The IRB has drafted guidance regarding the secure storage and handling of human subject research data. Please download the guidelines here.

Required Information	Response
1. What is the form in which the data/samples will be collected or recorded? (Examples: paper instruments, electronic records, field notes, audio recordings,biological samples, etc.)	Audio/visual digital files
2. If identifying data is collected, how will participant confidentiality be maintained?	<<Overwrite Here>>
3. Where will the data/samples be stored during the life of the project?	Files will be stored, encrypted, on a password protected external hard drive.
4. What will be done with the data/samples at the end of the project?	Archived to encrypted CD/DVD read/write disc.
5. If the data/samples will be maintained after the end of the project, where will it be stored and who will be responsible for maintaining and securing it?	CD/DVDs will be stored in the Primary Investigator’s locked office.
6. If the data/samples will be maintained after the end of the project, how long will it be stored or archived?	Data will be stored until 2021 at that point the CD/DVD’s will be shredded.
7. Who will be responsible for maintaining or ultimately disposing of the data?	Primary Investigator has final responsibility for data destruction.
8. How will data be transferred or shared among research team members? (Examples: data will be maintained on a secure server that is only accessible to research team members, data will be transferred to non-UAF collaborators on encrypted CD/DVDs sent via Federal Express, etc.) Note: Please try and anticipate all ways that you may need to transfer participant data. Your response should take into account both participant confidentiality or privacy and data integrity.	Transferred between collaborators (because this research is part of an online/distance program there is several thousand miles between collaborators) on encrypted CD/DVDs sent via Federal Express
9. Do you have or plan to apply for a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health? Note: This is not required, but may be beneficial depending on the type of information you plan to collect; for more information contact the Office of Research Integrity.	N/A

Interview Protocol Form

Project: Alaska Native Digital Citizenship: Online Learning and Online Learning Communities

Date ___________________________ Time ___________________________

Location ________________________ Interviewer ______________________

Interviewee ______________________ Release form signed? ____

Notes to interviewee: Thank you for your participation. I believe your input will be valuable to this research and in helping grow all of our professional practice.

Confidentiality of responses is guaranteed
Approximate length of interview:
Purpose of research:
Methods of disseminating results: Preliminary results will be published on the ED 654 Digital Citizenship, Internet Legal Issues, Digital Copyright, and Fair Use course blog site. Later versions may become part or whole of my final project for degree requirements.

How do Alaska Natives participate in online learning and online learning communities?
- Watch the JSB interview clip.

With this new definition of online learning and online learning communities, does your answer change?

What do you believe are the main themes or important elements for successful online learning unique to Alaska Natives?

We sometimes hear someone taking an online class at the public library, as they do not have Internet access at home or a laptop. How problematic is this, or should we be commending their diligence and motivation?

How does issues of connectivity and bandwidth effect online learning in Alaska Native communities?

You participate in online communities. How does your experience as a digital citizen/ Alaska Native differ from your experience as an American citizen/Alaska Native?

As a content creator, do you experience tension between cultural conservation and cultural innovation? Do you experience this tension most in the real or virtual life?

How does participation in online learning and learning communities’ impact, positively or negatively, creation of new cultural knowledge? How does this learning transfer between virtual and real world?

What online learning and online learning communities can exist openly online, what learning and knowledge needs to occur behind password? Finally, what learning should be reserved only for face-to-face transmission?

What issues around intellectual property do you experience as an individual participating in cultural innovation/preservation and online content creation? Reflection by Interviewer

Closure

Thank you to interviewee, reassure confidentiality, ask permission to follow-up ______

Informed Consent Form (for participation in)

Alaska Native Digital Citizenship: Online Learning and Online Learning Communities

Description of the Study:

Participants will engage in interviews. Interviews will be conducted online, though programs like Skype or Google Hangouts. Interviews will be recorded. Recordings will be transcribed and ATLAS.ti will be used to facilitate qualitative review.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

There are no major risks to you if you participate in this study. Your participation in this program will help us create a better understanding of Alaska Native online content creation. As a participant, you may receive benefits such as education about the online learning communities, but there is no guarantee that you will benefit directly from taking part in this study. This study may be beneficial to other Native groups studying their own cultural heritage through; and a source of identification and cultural strength in knowing what others have identified as important. Preliminary results will be published on the ED 654 Digital Citizenship, Internet Legal Issues, Digital Copyright and Fair Use course blog site.

Confidentiality:

Because I am conducting this study as a part of my research through the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), the results will be available to other people. However, I will not collect any identifying information about you in this study, and will make every effort to protect your identity. Any information about you as an individual that you reveal in conversations or interviews will be kept strictly confidential and secure in a locked office at UAF. This signed release form will be stored securely and separately, making it difficult to link you to this study. Only I will listen to any recordings that I make, and I will transcribe the parts that I need, and then erase the recordings after completion of my degree. You may request any copies of recordings of you for your own use. Given the small number of participants and the type of content creation, your identity may be guessed.

I would like to include your name or other identifiable information in my research crediting results from my research project. I want to identify you for attribution and explanatory purposes. However, you have the option to not have your name used when data from this study are published; if this is the case, please indicate so on this form.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Your decision to take part in the study is voluntary. You are free to choose not to take part in the study or to stop taking part at any time without any penalty to you.

Contacts and Questions:

If you have questions now, feel free to ask me. If you have questions later, you may contact me at or or my faculty sponsor at…. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Research Coordinator in the Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 1-866-876-7800 (outside the Fairbanks area) or fyirb@uaf.edu.

Statement of Consent:

By signing this form, you agree that you understand the procedures described above, your questions have been answered to your satisfaction, and you have been provided a copy of this form. You agree to participate in this study in the specific activities initialed below.

_______ I consent to being recorded while being interviewed.

Signature and Printed Name of Subject & Date

______________________________________

Signature of researcher, Robert Heath & Date

______________________________________

Please indicate whether you agree to have your full name used alongside your comments in the final dissertation that results from this research.

__YES (If you change your mind about this at any point, please let the researcher know)

__NO

__ALTERATION:

Name or pseudonym to be used:_________________________________________

Works Cited

Berkshire, S., & Smith, G. (2000). Bridging the Great Divide: Connecting Alaska Native Learners and Leaders via “High Touch-High Tech” Distance Learning.

Brown, J. S. (Producer). (2013). John Seely Brown on Motivating Learners (Big Thinkers Series). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/41pNX9-yNu4

Fleming, A. B. (2005). A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of Alaska Natives who persist in one program of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 1715.

Odasz, F. (1999). On the Frontier of Online Learning, in Galena, Alaska. Multimedia Schools, 6(2), 42-45.

Pember, M. A. (2011). Making Their Own Way. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education, 28(3), 19.

Subramony, D. P. (2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Edutaion, 76(1), 57-68.

Wexler, L., Eglinton, K., & Gubrium, A. (2014). Using Digital Stories to Understand the Lives of Alaska Native Young People. Youth & Society, 46(4), 478-504.

Research Terminology Dictionary, ED 601

Research Terminology Dictionary

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

O’Leary offers a tightly packed summary of the “quantitative tradition” in figure 8.1, page 121:

Paradigm/assumption: positivism, empiricism

Methodology: scientific method, hypothesis driven, deductive, reliable, valid, reproducible, objective, generalizable

Methods: large scale, surveys, random control trials

Data Type: generally quantitative

Analysis: statistics

This is so well done there is very little to add. “Positivism” is defined as: “The view that all true knowledge is scientific, and is best pursued by scientific method” (O’Leary, 2014). “Empiricism” is defined: “The view that all knowledge is limited to what can be observed through the senses. The cornerstone of scientific method” (O’Leary, 2014). Unpacking data type, “Data represented through numbers and analyzed using statistics”(O’Leary, 2014).

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

O’Leary (2014) offers an equally tightly packed summary of the “qualitative tradition” in figure 8.1, page 121:

Paradigm/assumption: subjectivism, interpretivism, constructivism

Methodology: ethnomethodology, phenomenology, ethnography, action research, inductive, subjective, idiographic, intuitive

Methods: small-scale, interviewing, observation, document analysis

Data Type: generally qualitative

Analysis: thematic exploration

“Subjectivism emphasizes the subjective elements of experience and accepts that personal experiences are the foundations for factual knowledge” (O’Leary, 2014). Oddly, O’Leary’s glossary does not provide definitions for “interpretivism” or “constructivism” nor does she define these in her main text. Essentially both are versions of anti-positivism, each with its own genealogy. The “data type” is unpacked this way: “Data represented through words, pictures, symbols, videos, or icons” (O’Leary, 2014).

Research Ethics and Institutional Requirements

“Ethics refers to a professional “code of practice” designed to protect the researched from an unethical process, and in turn protect the researcher from legal liabilities. Key ethical considerations include informed consent, causing no harm, and a right to privacy” (O’Leary, 2014). A number of key incidences have sensitized lawmakers and education policymakers to standardize and enforce ethical standards in research. Most colleges and universities will have Institutional Review Boards and standardized policies for reviewing research proposals. Similarly, other types of organizations like tribal government may also have IRB types of policies and functions, though sometimes they follow or accept university standards and reviews. Hence, a project will always need university review and may require additional review at the site of study.(Creswell, 2015)

Considerations for Research Involving Children and Vulnerable Populations

These populations, when identified for research, are even more stringently protected. Both parent and child need to give permission. Moreover, Bartholeme offers some additional guidelines:

Help the child “achieve a developmentally appropriate understanding of the nature of her condition.”
Disclose to the child “the nature of the proposed intervention and what she is likely to experience.”
Assess the child’s understanding of the information provided.
Secure “the child’s willingness to accept the proposed intervention” (Bartholome, 1996).

As well, some sort of ongoing dialog with parents and participants along with the signed documentation can be helpful in maintaining trust and respect and protections for all parties.

Research Paradigms

For the dominant culture, positivist, anti-positivist and critical theory are perhaps most broadly accepted paradigms. Certainly, another aspect we have explored extensively in this class is ethnic identity. Two additional paradigms gaining credibility include subtle realist and feminist. Implicit in aligning with a paradigm is a resonance with a research approach: for example, positivist approaches are quantitative, anti-positivist are qualitative, and critical theory approaches are participant-action research based. Feminist, subtle realist and ethnic paradigms seem to employ mixed method approaches. Ethnic identity and postmodern feminism paradigms may have further resonances because they are both addressing oppressive contexts and incomplete fields. Emphasizing that knowledge is lost or incomplete through language extinction, or genocide, ongoing stories/dialectics of oppression/liberation. A subtle realist paradigm is informed by ideas from quantum mechanics or cybernetics, and so offers a different approach to both hard and social sciences (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

Research Methodologies

The broadest brush of methodologies flows from ones research paradigm. Hence, from positivistic paradigm experimental and quantitative methods are expected. From an interpretivist paradigm, interviewing, observation and textual analysis and qualitative methods are expected. From critical theory paradigm, action research methods, such as observation, planning, doing or making, and assessment cycles are expected. Postmodern and subtle realist paradigms of necessity employ mixed methods and this likewise has reflected back on interpretivist and critical paradigms (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

Research Methods

These are the specific data gathering activities (O’Leary, 2014) and examples include, surveys, interviews, focus groups and micro-ethnographies.

Theory in Research (sometimes referred to as a theoretical framework)

“A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions” (Labaree, 2016). Six approaches to the work include: examine the thesis, brainstorm variables, review literature, list and map constructs, and variables, review relevant social science theories, and discuss assumptions (Labaree, 2016).

Correlation is not necessarily Causation

“’Correlation’ is a statistical technique that can show whether, and how strongly, pairs of variables are related (O’Leary, 2014). What this analysis cannot do is order the correlated variables in a causal sequence. Discovering a correlation may lead to the creation of a hypothesis (null or alternative) the selection of a multi-level independent variable to test follows with a focus on manipulating levels. If this is done well, systematically, repeatedly, and results follow from predictions then the study is moving towards identifying causation (Creswell, 2015).

Sample Size and Population

“In quantitative research, we systematically identify our participants and sites through random sampling: in qualitative research we identify our participants and sites on purposeful sampling based on places and people that can best help us understand our central phenomena” (Creswell, 2015). Simple random sampling offers the preferred approach for statistical studies after that systematic and stratified sampling, multistage cluster sampling, convenience sampling and snowball sampling (Creswell, 2015). Sample size depends in part on the desired outcomes, experimental group size, at least fifteen, correlational study of thirty or more participants, and for a survey study, 350 participants (Creswell, 2015).

Student t-Tests

“Student’s’ t Test is one of the most commonly used techniques for testing a hypothesis on the basis of a difference between sample means. Explained in layman’s terms, the t test determines a probability that two populations are the same with respect to the variable tested.”(Caprette)

Only if there is a direct relationship between each specific data point in the first set and one and only one specific data point in the second set, such as measurements on the same subject ‘before and after,’ then the paired t test MAY be appropriate.
If samples are collected from two different populations or from randomly selected individuals from the same population at different times, use the test for independent samples (unpaired).
Here’s a simple check to determine if the paired t test can apply – if one sample can have a different number of data points from the other, then the paired t test cannot apply (Caprette)

Ethnography

“The Study of cultural groups in a bid to understand, describe and interpret a way of life from the point of view of its participants” (O’Leary, 2014). Creswell identifies ten types of ethnographies: realist, confessional, life history, auto-ethnography, micro-ethnography, case study, critical, feminist, postmodern and novels, in table 14.1, page 468 (Creswell, 2015) This proliferation of methods is a reaction to the book:

Clifford, J., Marcus, G. E., & School of American Research (Santa Fe, N.M.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography: a School of American Research advanced seminar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

The upshot is this book demonstrated the end of the “canon” and a crisis of representation a classic deconstruction during a particularly post-modern moment (Creswell, 2015). Observation, interviews, document analysis, and surveys are the basic sources of data used in writing ethnographies (O’Leary, 2014).

Phenomenology

Is first a philosophical methodology accordingly, its foundational literature is dense and focused on abstract examples and explanations. Hence, it is less available to scholars and more difficult to practice. That said, Husserl, and Heidegger had bold visions for the value and impact of these approaches. Phenomenology makes two distinctive moves at the outset: the first is to address the phenomena over and before all else, the second, an aspect of the first, is to give primacy in inquiry to the embodied self. The first move silences metaphysics and epistemology giving priority to the object of inquiry. The second shows the inquiry to be necessarily an aspect of embodiment and lived experience. Obviously, it is incredibly challenging to stop and silence our explanations and experience the phenomena directly. Indeed one of the grounding an assumption in this course is that that is not possible and in the case of Indigenousness methodologies perhaps strategically ill advised. Nevertheless, it is a recurrent struggle in the history of inquiry; logical positivism tried to do it and tried to set mathematics as a common language of inquiry, for example. Another example from our course is grounded theory that waits for the explanatory theory to come from patterns in the data. We see Buddhism engaging in a version of it in their meditative practices.

This first step referred to as “bracketing” aims at silencing preconceptions. Above I mention the importance that phenomenology places in the embodied inquiry. Ihde explains saying: “every experiencing has tis reference or direction towards what is experienced and contrarily, every experienced phenomenon refers to or reflects a mode of experiencing to which it is present” (1986)Said differently my intention and I realized together with my inquiry and my object of inquiry. Phenomenology provides several hermeneutic (interpretive) rules at the outset 1) “attend to the phenomena of experience as they appear”…, 2) “…describe don’t explain,…” 3) “… equalize all immediate phenomena,…” 4) “…{s}eek out structural or invariant features of the phenomena” (Ihde, 1986). The next step is seeking variations “sufficient examples or variations upon examples as might be necessary to discover the structural features being sought” (Ihde, 1986). In the end, the data, interviews, diaries, drawings, and video look very similar to other qualitative inquires but how the researcher manages themselves and their approach to these data is the difference that makes a difference.

Take note of the more dramatic features of the phenomenological shift.

The first shift was what the Husserlian would call the deliberate shift from the natural to a phenomenological attitude. Those first given appearance…, seemed to have a certain familiarity, a naturalness, which was take for granted and tacitly assumed to be the possibility of the thing in question. On reflection, the Husserlian epoche is a device for breaking the bonds of familiarity we have with things, in order to see those things anew. But it is a device, because Husserlian phenomenology seeing has already placed itself outside and above naïve seeing.

Phenomenological seeing deliberately looked for possibilities rather than the familiar, the taken for granted or the natural givenness of an object. Guided by this heuristic principle, phenomenological seeing pointed out strange possibilities—strange, that is from the point of view of the sedimented and strongly held natural attitude. The first distinct perceptual possibilities appeared as dramatically different, surprising, and in some cases perhaps initially difficult to attain. This break with sedimented …beliefs was necessary to clear the field for phenomenological, contrast to empirical, investigation.

Once broken, the… beliefs were reshaped so that a new level of familiarity emerged, the level of essential seeing, or eidetic investigation in Husserlian language. Now the sense of phenomena was opened, and their possibilities seen to be multiple, complex and perhaps indefinite…. The sense of the phenomena changed, and the sense of seeing changed, both being open textured…. The movement is a paradigm shift, which moves the investigator from one set of concerns, beliefs, and habits of seeing to another. It also contains a value claim that the new paradigm is better then the familiar one, at least theoretically and philosophically, because (a) new discover were made, (b) the previous point of view is shown to be inadequate in perceiving the field of phenomena and in its theoretical insights, and (c) it allows the development of a depth ordering of the new wider field of phenomena (Ihde, 1986).

Case Study Research

This is the thorough and deep study of a single situation relevant to the topic, cases may be about individuals, institutions, cultural groups, and events (O’Leary, 2014). Selecting the right number and type of cases is important. Selection can result from pragmatic considerations like availability, and access, specific cases may further making an argument either by showing the typical or the atypical, or finally based on the cases specific interest (O’Leary, 2014). Case study is a type of qualitative research and accordingly the specific data may come from interviews, focus groups, videos, diaries, images and so on.

Participant Observations

O’Leary offers two types of observation covert observation and candid observation. Within each type, she offers two approaches: participant and non-participant. Accordingly, for participant-covert observation we are talking about “going undercover” whereas non-participant-covert might look like online lurking as another example (O’Leary, 2014). Observation offers both advantages, “opportunity to record information as it occurs in a setting, to study actual behavior, and to study individuals who have difficulty verbalizing…” and disadvantages, “…you are limited to those sites and situations where you can gain access, and in those sites you may have difficulty developing rapport” (Creswell, 2015). Creswell more fully defines the role and tasks of participant observers this way: “A participant observer is an observational role adopted by researchers when they take part in activities in the setting they observe…. This role requires seeking permission to participate in activities and assuming a comfortable role as observer in the setting” (Creswell, 2015).

Interview Techniques

Creswell offers an “interview protocol” saying: “As already mentioned, audiotaping of interviews provides a detailed record of the interview: As a backup, you need to take notes during the interview and have the question ready to be asked. An interview protocol serves the purpose of reminding you of the questions and provides a means for recording notes” (Creswell, 2015). In addition to recording, this protocol standardizes the administration of the interview. In my experience, practicing the interview prior to meeting with informants is important both to refine the questions, both, to develop flow and create coherent prompts for facilitating the conversation. Getting feedback from the practice respondents is also important. Practice with your audiotaping or screen capture before the interviews and be confident in your ability to use and troubleshoot the technology. Being systematic and professional in approaching interviewees as you set up the interviews and taking care of hygiene needs, like restrooms and offering light snacks and beverages build trust and respect. Introducing yourself and framing the procedure will also help to relax the moment (O’Leary, 2014). Clean up your notes immediately after the interview, rather than depending upon memory later. Situations that require translation will be more complicated and will require both greater preparation, more time in the interview, and more extensive note taking and review with the translator after the interview all the more reason to leave ample time. Clarify expectations about transcription as well in this situation.

Focus Groups Pro’s and Con’s

Pros:

There are several advantages in using focus group interview: It is comparatively easy to conduct. It is economically efficient. It generates opportunity to collect data from the group interaction. It gives speed in the supply of the results. It allows a relatively large sample size for a qualitative study

Cons:

There are, however, disadvantages in using focus group interview: The research is not carried out in a natural setting, and the researcher has less control over the data generated. The data may be difficult to analyze. The interviewer must have good interview skills. Assembling a group may require additional resources (Hurtado & Dey, 2003)

Quantitative Data Analysis

The first step is a well thought out research problem, a well-articulated hypothesis. The next step is a well-crafted instrument and a plan for meaningful sampling. Without that groundwork, the data analysis is probably impossible. O’Leary offers five steps: “(1) how to manage your data; (2) the nature of the variables; (3) the role and function of both descriptive and inferential statistics; (4) appropriate use of statistical tests; and (5) effective presentation” (O’Leary, 2014).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Similarly, O’Leary describes five tasks in qualitative data analysis: “(1) organize the raw date; (2) enter and code the data; (3) search for meaning through thematic analysis; (4) interpret meaning; and (5) draw conclusions…”(2014). Beyond these five tasks, O’Leary identifies six steps: “Identifying Biases/Noting Overall Impressions; Reducing the Coding into Themes; Searching for Patterns and Interconnections; Mapping and Building Themes; Building and Verifying Theories; Drawing Conclusions” (2014).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed-Methods

Pros:

Strengthens the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research by combining them. Two ways of thinking creates stronger theory and provides more evidence than studying a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative research by themselves. Permissions are given to allow the use all of the tools of data collection available, rather than being restricted to the types of data for each research type. Ensures the questions are answered unlike those that cannot be answered by qualitative or quantitative approaches. Encourages collaboration across between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Encourages the use of multiple worldviews or paradigms rather than the typical paradigms for quantitative researchers and others for qualitative researchers. It also creates a paradigm that might encompass all of quantitative and qualitative research. Mixed methods research is “practical” because it allows the researcher to use all or any methods possible to address a research problem.

Cons:

Mixed methods research is not easy and can be very time consuming. Collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data can also be confusing because of the amount of data. Requires clear presentation to get maximum benefit out of study. Often times researchers only are familiar with only one type of research and can only explain that one.
Requires knowledge of both forms of data collection (Werth).

Action Research

“Research strategies that tackle real-world problems in participatory and collaborative ways. Action research produces change and knowledge in an integrated fashion through a cyclical process“ (O’Leary, 2014). Creswell augments this understanding saying: “Educators aim to improve the practice of education by studying issue or problems they face. Educators reflect about these problems, collect and analyze data, and implement changes based on their findings. In some cases, researchers address a local, practical problem, such as a classroom issue for the teacher. In other situations researchers seek to empower, and emancipate individuals from situations that constrain their self-development and self-determination” (Creswell, 2015). Action research is common in business practices as well usability testing for website design, and lean waste management projects in business situations, for examples. Although communication across these two applications seems inconsistent and incomplete there is probably much researchers can learn from this different applications of similar methodologies and methods.

Works Cited

Bartholome, W. (1996). Ethical Issues in Pediatric Research The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects (pp. 360-361). Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group.

Caprette, D. “Students” t Test (For Independent Samples). Retrieved from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/stats/ttest.html

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July 2006). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/index.html

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Hurtado, S., & Dey, E. (2003). Tools for Qualitative Researchers: Focus Groups Method. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/unspecified/student_assess_toolkit/focusGroups.html#prosCons

Ihde, D. (1986). Experimental Phenomenology: An Introduction. Albany: State Univerisy of New York Press.

Labaree, R. V. (2016). Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework. Retrieved from http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project (2nd ed.). Los Angelas: Sage Publications Ltd.

Werth, L. Pros and Cons of the method. Retrieved from https://mixed-methods-research-nnu-group-project.wikispaces.com/Pros+and+Cons+of+the+method

Literature Review, ED 601

The following five articles were identified in literature search using the terms, “Alaska Native,” “online learning,” or variations like “online education” and “online course.” Additionally, the inclusion of search terms identifying methodology, for examples “action research” or “grounded theory,” also helped with discoverability. Certainly using the more inclusive search term “Native Americans” combined with variations of “online learning” resulted in a broader set of studies. For the purposes of this initial survey, broader terms were not employed in the final selection. None-the-less, the point of this initial literature review was to focus on Alaskan Natives and online learning communities. Two of these articles report on the results of research teams engaged in participant action research. One article represents the work of a single participant-observer. One is a conference paper presentation. The final stands as a sharp contrast to the others in its methodologies, methods, and bias.

Wexler, L., Eglinton, K., & Gubrium, A. (2014)(Eisner et al., 2012; Wexler, Eglinton, & Gubrium, 2014). Using Digital Stories to Understand the Lives of Alaska Native Young People. Youth & Society, 46(4), 478-504.

The fundamental research question: “How are Alaska Native young people adopting and adapting ‘traditional’ values, roles, and practices in their everyday lives to bolster resilience?” (Wexler et al., 2014). This project grew out of a suicide prevention project between the Inupiat and University of Massachusetts. Two hundred seventy-one youth participated; fewer than ten opted out, four researchers, two with regional familiarity, and two with expertise in visual analysis. “Digital stories are 3- to 5-min visual narratives that synthesize images, video, audio recordings of voice, background music and text to create personal stories….” (Wexler et al., 2014). The team used NVivo8 to store, organize, analyze, and retrieve the collected stories. Systematic codes were applied to the stories. “Throughout this process, stories that stood out as a thematic exemplar (or, in some cases, as a thematic outlier) were tagged as “noteworthy.” By the end of the first phase, approximately 60 of the 271 videos identified as such. In phase 2, approximately half of “exemplary” digital stories were selected from the 60 noteworthy stories” (Wexler et al., 2014). Finally, thirty-one stories were selected for formal coding: “The initial coding scheme was developed through a modified grounded theory approach…” Two key techniques were used to build indigenous knowledge and values into the study. First was to incorporate the Inupiaq values into the coding. Second was to build cycles of “member checking” into the inquiry “to explore cultural resonance and inspire new interpretations.” Three key themes were recognized: “(a) perspectives on important relationships; (b) self-representations: and (c) sites of achievement.” I really appreciate that the authors wrote a section on the limitations of the research. They suggest that involving more young people, analyzing more digital stories, and doing more member checking particularly with young people could make the results better. Finally, in their conclusion, they worry about a gender divide where young men are interested in activities that do not transfer to the dominant culture, whereas young women select activities and sites that more easily transfer. They also observed the impact of the Inupiaq values in the young people’s self-expressions while still negotiating peer and self-invention between cultures. This insight inspired the recommendation that community-based practitioners build more occasions for intergenerational dialog into their programs and projects.

Six western researchers from three different institutions posed four research problems: “Is it possible to develop a geographic database that meets the needs of local “lay” communities while still providing important information to researchers? How can scientists from “outside” incorporate a particular community’s requirements in a GIS? How might a GIS become a truly integrated part of the community when outsiders maintain it? What constraints do very limited bandwidth and outdated computers impose on the design capabilities of the GIS?“ (Eisner et al., 2012). This project occurred over five years, “53 Inupiat elders, hunters, and berry-pickers from the North Slope Villages of Barrow, Atqasuk, Wainwright, and Nuiqsut were interviewed.” (Eisner et al., 2012). However, even before methodology and methods are summarized some of the background and cultural self-consciousness of the researchers needs to be highlighted. The researchers list several preceding local efforts to collect and archive indigenous knowledge similar in content to this project. The researchers also recognize both enthusiasm for and suspicion of this kind of research and online presentation, yet despite these tensions a commonality of purpose between researchers and indigenous residents allowed the project to move forward. This article does an interesting job of balancing science and participant-action research speaking to multiple audiences. Both the website and GIS created in this project are quite impressive. Out of respect for local knowledge, the majority of the data is behind password protection. Only a small portion of the collected data is publically accessible and this is to give a sense of the work. The project included creating an elaborate coding scheme to match map and narrative. The project returned to the communities demonstrating the pilot and offering training on the Web GIS. In the face-to-face environments, the community supported and valued the project. However, use of the online elements has been limited and it seems as well that Web 2.0 technologies are not a quick fix to the limited adoption and use. It appears that efforts to increase community use is ongoing and involve multiple tactics. “Strategies to ensure that the GIS is used by the community to fulfill their needs range from partnering with governments, universities’ and schools to provide K-12 teacher training, developing internships, on-site demonstrations and date collection, and hands-on, real world projects. We plan to further develop the web-based GIS into a more fully participatory process, complete with GIS training workshops, training sessions, and a user-friendly web site where the community can access the date while adding to, building upon, and transforming it” (Eisner et al., 2012). The commitment to capturing indigenous knowledge and setting it on equal footing with scientific knowledge in an interactive online learning community demonstrated by this research team is impressive. This project attempts to bridge elders and youth and is ultimately returned to the communities for their use and benefits.

Interestingly both of these articles are results of larger teams, teams of mixed academic fields, and reflect research that took years to conduct. The researcher/community collaborations are different but present in both. Both carefully define methodologies and methods and both are self-conscious of shortcomings and areas for future research. Both struggle with uneven participation in online communities and both struggle with connection youth and elders. Both engage the community and give back in some way to the local knowledge.

Subramony, D. P. (Winter 2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Edutaion, 76(1), 57-68.

The author proposes an interesting project: “While traditional discussions of the {digital} Divide have tended to focus inordinately on access to technology tools and the development of “consumer” level skills, this article argues that for minority groups to truly empower themselves and overcome their digital disadvantages they should make the cultural transition from technology consumer to technology “producer,” thus fundamentally changing the nature of their relationship with technology and the culture of technology itself “ (Subramony, 2007). Subramony introduces the phenomenon of digital divide briefly and then immediately moves to describe the methodology and methods. Even before that, the author moves to protect participants’ confidentiality by giving town and school system pseudonyms. The author refers to Richard Stakes’ “intrinsic case study approach,” to qualitative inquiry techniques (personal interviews, participant observations, and document analysis), and to Carspechen’s “thick record” technique to record the observation sessions in order to define methodology and methods. The author conducted the original case study during 2003-2004; the author interviewed forty-six informants, twenty-five Inupiat, educators, students, parents, and community leaders, twenty-one Westerners, administrators, teachers, and staff for this project. Six participant observation sessions occurred in, classes, community sites, and events. Documents collected included enrollment records, surveys, syllabi, lesson plans, student work, and school policy documents.

Subramony then defines the role of the research and the personal motivations, beliefs, and values. The parameters of participant observation are defined. The author writes thoughtfully about bias and makes an interesting point, saying: “Also, his study observation in Borealis {pseudonym} provided numerous indication of Western educators appearing to be sincere, culturally sensitive, and responsive toward the Inupiat. Meanwhile, many of the Inupiat this researcher encountered saw him as being not much different from the Westerners since anyone who was not Inupiat was an invader, and thus, unwelcome” (Subramony, 2007). Subramony believed that insight contributed to some of his more formal strategies perhaps limiting bias.

Through data analysis, the author surfaces three important themes: comfort, and proficiency with technology tools, culturally appropriating a technological lifestyle according to gender, finally is evolving from consumer to producer of technology. With an interesting turn of phrase, the author compliments the Inupiat as providing lessons for other cultural minority communities. I think the heart of this lesson is this: “…in the preceding account of Arctic Alaska, it was shown that improved access to technology infrastructure does not automatically lead to increased proficiency at all levels of technology use, but rather achievement of the latter is also contingent on a host of other contextual factors, such a user’s gender, cultural traditions, peer expectations, role models, perception of needs, and opportunities to apply their proficiency”(Subramony, 2007). Another key observation is the author’s encouragement for cultural minority communities to move beyond technology consumption to production.

While this paper represents the ethnographic work of a single scholar it is in many ways as significant as the first two. Particularly when struggling to understand key aspects of online learning in relation to Alaska Native communities. These three articles combined raise issues of content production and reverse mentoring as additional elements of successfully creating online learning communities for Alaska Natives. Between Subramony and Wexler et al., we learn some interesting things about schooling, computer use, and gender. From these first three articles the struggle for cultural preservation across generations is noted, but Subramony and Wexler et al hint at a divide between genders as well, with girls’ schoolroom success pulling them away from boys’ interests in snow machines, and subsistence hunting, fishing and trapping.

Cazden, C. B. (2003). Sustaining Indigenous Languages in Cyberspace. Paper presented at the Nurturing Native Languages, Bozeman, MT.

Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education’s Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions: GAO-03-900. (2003). GAO Reports, 1. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=18210025&site=ehost-live

This paper was read in 2002, published in 2003, and much of the literature it draws on comes from the late 1990s. Accordingly, much of what we take for granted about online learning and schooling had yet to be imagined. Nonetheless, the author raises some important cautionary concerns and provides anticipatory insight into some of the strengths of online learning communities that are bearing fruit now. The author begins recounting the arrival of TV in a Gwich’in community in 1980 and its negative impact on cultural identity, particularly language use. She next mentions some of the technologies that anticipate our current online environment, computer programs, CD ROMS, touching on e-mail and early chat, and points out how these cannot substitute for face-to-face interaction. Some of these technologies like TV are largely consumptive or not networked. Some like e-mail and chat were not ubiquitous and not optimized at that time. That said, her concerns about computer language practice and instruction are important then and now, particularly context, community and natural environment, and lack of literal translations, which might point back to these contexts.

However, in anticipating some of the power of online learning communities, the author offers a brief, interesting case study drawn from Rosie Roppel’s work with a Tligit youth. The young man was deeply engaged with his culture and equally unengaged with his western schooling. “The teacher’s answer came in a request on the electronic network of the Bread Loaf School of English from student in the Laguna (Pueblo) Middle School in New Mexico, requesting responses to their stories about their elders. An electronic exchange of student writing developed between the two classrooms. Roppel concludes, ‘I didn’t know it at the time, but the Laguna students would turn out to be the audience that would motivate some of my students to do their best work’”(Cazden, 2003).

This paper is dated; however, it is prescient in identifying online learning communities and reverse mentoring as important elements for creating online learning communities for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The reverse mentoring in this case is across cultures but it occurs nonetheless between the Tlingit youth and his teacher Rosie Roppel.

Page, G. A., & Hill, M. (2008). Information, Communication, and Educational Technologies in Rural Alaska. New Directions for Adult and Continueing Education(no. 117), 59-70.

The authors define their project, saying: “This chapter provides insight into the issues surrounding the diffusion of information and communication technologies into rural Alaskan communities. A contemporary analysis of the impediments that challenge rural Alaskans and the implications of change from the adoption of innovation is provided” (Page & Hill, 2008). This article appeared in the journal “New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.” Closer reading of the journal shows that the editors select themes for issues; “rural education” was the theme for this one. In that context the work of the article becomes clearer. A striking shortcoming is that method and methodology is left implicit; the parameters of the literature review are not stated explicitly. The interviews and interview processes are minimally described. “To gain insight into the context of technology and rural Alaska, interviews were conducted with three rural Alaska educators and technology coordinators from different geographical locations” (Page & Hill). “The four areas shown in the figure – content, social context, connectivity, and capability – are reflected in the interviews with rural Alaska educators that are described in the next section. First, the responses to specific questions are reported; next the four framework areas are connected to themes that emerged from the interviews” (Page & Hill, 2008). Abruptly “Gary, Joe, and Bob” suddenly have voice in the article and, equally abruptly, they disappear. How were these three selected and why? Why are only men interviewed? Are any of the respondents Alaska Natives? It is also unclear whether the categories came out of the interviews or out of the literature review and informed the interviews. A note on the mentioned graphic “Source: Based on research by Page (2004). This is a mention of the main author’s dissertation, “Exploring the Digital Divide: Poverty and Progress in a Rural County” a study focused on “impoverished areas in the Southern United States.” This begins to explain the mention of data about internet use by rural African Americans and rural whites (Page & Hill, 2008), alas, both demographics remain largely unconnected to Alaska’s situation. The authors touch on interesting topics, such as appropriate technology, cultural difference, and values alas; they never take ahold of any of these issues to explore more deeply. They do not explore the literature generated by Alaska Natives on education, technology, culture, or values. Indeed, only two sources cited are specific to Alaska. Given the shallowness of the literature on the topic of online learning, and Alaska Natives, in the end this article is a disappointment.

This literature review showed excellent recent research being done on Alaska’s North Slope. However, it seems little has been published recently on other social/geographic regions. Eisner et al., and Wexler et al., engage in action research and a mixed methods approach and both collect interviews or digital self-representations. These are utilized in very different ways in each study. Eisner’s group added the challenge of matching the social facts with scientific facts; “We were expected to carry out two modes of verification: examination of aerial photography or satellite imagery, and direct field observation…. We then cross-verified the information with other verbal accounts and finally, visited a subset of sites for validation and data collection” (Eisner et al., 2012). Subramony employs an ethnographic approach but also gathers a document data from the schools. Taken together, ethnography, interview collection, and creation of digital artifacts and the qualitative analysis of these various data in service of a participant-action project offers rich returns on effort. Another important element for a project’s success particularly one with online aspects is to involve both elders and youth from the outset. If Eisner’s group had done this, I wonder if the user interface and the community adoption would have been more enthusiastic with youth buy-in and participation from the outset. Cazden’s presentation surfaces the importance of reverse and cross-cultural mentoring. Member checking is likewise an important aspect of participant-action research and this is seen explicitly in (Eisner et al., 2012; Wexler et al., 2014) and implicitly in (Subramony, 2007). In the end, this review has helped to sketch both methodology and methods for future research. It also shows how wide open the field is for additional research.

Works Cited

Cazden, C. B. (2003). Sustaining Indigenous Languages in Cyberspace. Paper presented at the Nurturing Native Languages, Bozeman, MT.

Page, G. A., & Hill, M. (2008). Information, Communication, and Educational Technologies in Rural Alaska. New Directions for Adult and Continueing Education(no. 117), 59-70.

Subramony, D. P. (2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Edutaion, 76(1), 57-68.

Wexler, L., Eglinton, K., & Gubrium, A. (2014). Using Digital Stories to Understand the Lives of Alaska Native Young People. Youth & Society, 46(4), 478-504.