Through the Lens of Third Space Theory
Possibilities for Research Methodologies in Educational Technologies
Kathy Jordan and Jennifer Elsden-Clifton
School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Keywords: Educational Technologies, Third Space Theory, Research Methodology.
Abstract: Recently, there has been a call to reconceptualise the ways in which the field of education technology is
researched and theorised (Graham, 2011). This article responds to this call, through discussing the potential
of utilising Third Space theory as a research methodology in relation to the use, adoption and resistance to
educational technologies. We begin by discussing the under-theorised and technocentric narrative that is
dominant in current research approaches. We then outline the premise of Third Space theory and signal
some of the possibilities this paradigm may offer to study the complexity of educational technology use in
schools, professional learning and university contexts. The article then discusses findings from two
different research projects which utilised Third Space to examine the ways in which beginning teachers and
pre-service teachers navigated first and second space binaries and took up third spaces in order to destabilise
and construct alternative knowledges and practices in relation to educational technology.
1 INTRODUCTION
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing
new landscapes, but in having new eyes (Proust,
cited in Canfield et al., 2002, p. 153).
With whose eyes were my eyes crafted? (Castor,
1991, cited in Davies, 1994, p. 18)
The methodology which a researcher employs
has a number of implications for the scope of the
study and the contribution of the research to the
field. The methodology choice also orientates the
values and beliefs that underpin the research and
provides a lens to guide the researcher (Guba, 1990).
For instance, the choice of methodology influences
the lens in which the research is positioned and
structured, the practices of the researcher (e.g. line
of questioning) (Kuhn 1996) and the methods
employed to conduct the research (Mertens, 2010).
It can also determine the practicalities of the
research – the who, why, what, where, when and
how – and this will impact upon what is featured,
highlighted, silenced and marginalised in the study.
In this paper we argue that traditionally the
methodology employed in educational technology
research has led to technocentric and simplistic
approaches to research; and the field has “learnt to
see” educational technologies in particular ways,
which we would argue can be limiting. In this paper
we propose a move beyond a commitment to ‘one
truth, one method and one knowledge’ and instead
discuss ways to include more diverse ways of
knowing, lenses for seeing and crafting research in
this field (Grosz, 1994). To this end, we consider the
potential that the theoretical paradigm Third Space
can offer as a research methodology in the study of
educational technology.
2 EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
A key premise of Third Space theory is that
everything is called into question (Hulme et al.,
2009) and this includes taking up the challenge of
integrating competing knowledge and challenging
the binaristic thinking that has populated the
research of educational technologies. The call to do
so was highlighted in a recent paper in Computers &
Education, Charles Graham (2011) by way of
leading into his focused discussion of the TPACK
framework. He argued that one of the reasons for its
popularity is because educational technology has
been under theorised. He then went on to suggest a
number of reasons for this apparent void in theory
including the rapid pace of technological change, a
tendency in the past to ask the wrong questions,
weaknesses with methodological designs, and lastly,
220
Jordan K. and Elsden-Clifton J..
Through the Lens of Third Space Theory - Possibilities for Research Methodologies in Educational Technologies.
DOI: 10.5220/0004792402200224
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 220-224
ISBN: 978-989-758-020-8
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
more priority being given to practical issues rather
than on theory building. In this paper we wish to
highlight some of the issues around methodological
designs that have typically underpinned educational
technology research as a way of advocating for
alternate ways to do so.
In the past methodological designs in educational
technology research have followed a similar pattern.
At their heart has often been a world-view that
implicitly assumes that technology is good, that for
example, it is aligned with the future, and drives
desired changes in education. One only has to
peruse school education policy documents to find
plenty of examples of this way of thinking, and
where a technological road map that schools, school
leaders and teachers should follow is provided, and
where there is little capacity to consider detours or
alternate routes. Underpinning this world-view is a
techno-centric discourse, which places technology at
the centre of the research if not the determining
factor in it. This techno-centric discourse is the
dominant discourse around educational technology
research (Harris, 2005). It is important to note that
dominant discourses, tend to subsume other less
dominant ones (Gee, 1998), and as such, this may
help explain why our educational technology field is
under theorised.
In order to build a case for the research, or a
justification for it, a problem in current practice is
identified and a particular technological application
is then later pitched as the solution (Bigum, 1998).
Usually this case is made in overly enthusiastic
terms, in what Selwyn (2002) refers to as the
“technological evangelism” (p. 8) typifying this
discourse. When building this case for the research,
arguments usually take one or two forms. One way
is to compare the ‘new’ to the ‘old’, with arguments
around the superiority of the new, resulting in the
conclusion, that the new technology must replace the
old. Usually, there is little, if any consideration that
both ‘the old’ and ‘the new’ can indeed co-exist.
This has been the case historically, for example, in
the 1980’s revising writing was seen as time
consuming (the old) and word processors (the new)
were seen as making revising easier. In the 1990’s
conventional face-to-face participation in class
discussion was seen as enfranchising those who
think quickly on their feet. Electronic discussion
was then juxtaposed, as enabling leaners to discuss
when and where they want to.
A second way that the case is made is that
particular affordances within a ‘new’ technology are
identified as solutions to the problem (Zhao & Rop
2001). This was the case in the 2000’s, were web
2.0 technologies, such as blogs and wikis were
readily positioned in research as enabling greater
collaboration, interaction and knowledge building.
The specific research questions then set out to prove
that ‘the new’ or the ‘affordances within the new’
did in facto solve the problem. So for example in
the late 1990’s questions in hypertext research set
out to examine how the new text structures afforded
by this technology enabled the realisation of post-
modern views of text – which were desired
(Lankshear et al., 2000). Methods of data collection,
particularly in the early years of educational
technology research used anecdotal reports, or
descriptions of practice. Findings were typically
generalised, so that the particularities in the
technologies being examined were overlooked, as
well as the context of use. As a result, it was often
assumed that all schools, all students, all teachers
were the same and that predetermined
technologically-enabled outcomes would be realised
(Orlando, 2009).
Of concern to us is that without robust theoretical
frameworks to both guide and shape research, that
encourage us to assume diverse worldviews - with
different questions in mind - techno-centric views
will continue to underpin the landscape.
Technocentric views only offer one lens with which
to view our research, one that is based on binaries of
good/bad, old/new, which limit alternate ways of
conceptualising research. One theory which
encourages this practice of looking at the complexity
and multiplicity in educational technology is Third
Space theory.
3 POTENTIAL OF THIRD SPACE
THEORY
Third Space theory is essentially used to explore and
understand the spaces ‘in between’ two or more
discourses, conceptualizations or binaries (Bhabha,
1994). Soja (1996) explains this through a triad
where Firstspace refers to the material spaces
whereas Secondspace encompasses mental spaces
(Danaher et al., 2003). Thirdspace, then becomes a
space where “everything comes together” (Soja,
1996, p. 56, original emphasis) by bringing together
Firstspace and Secondspace, but also by extending
beyond these spaces to intermesh the binaries that
characterise the spaces. Third Space theory is used
as a methodology in a variety of disciplines and for
different purposes. For example, it has been used to
illustrate issues from colonization (Bhabha, 1994)
and religion (Khan, 2000), to language and literacy
ThroughtheLensofThirdSpaceTheory-PossibilitiesforResearchMethodologiesinEducationalTechnologies
221
(Gutiérrez et al., 1997).
Bhabha (1994) illustrated his conceptualization
of Third Space through the discussion of cultural
identity and colonization. Specifically, he explored
the ways in which people negotiate being in-between
their own traditional culture and the newly imposed
culture; in other words being in-between first and
second spaces. Bhabha (1994) argues that through a
continual negotiation, reinterpretation and creation
of identities, a hybrid or a third space which
challenges both cultures is created. In illustrating
the work of Bhabha - and drawing heavily from his
explanation of Third Space - we are mindful that
Bhabha’s notion of Third Space is associated with
the critique of colonization which does not directly
relate to our research (Hulme, Cracknell & Owens,
2009). However, aspects and foundations of his
work are useful in our research around the utilisation
of technologies in educational spaces.
Within educational contexts, Moje, et al. (2004)
used Third Space theory to examine the in-between
everyday literacies (home, community, peer group)
with the literacies used within a schooling context.
In their influential paper, they summarized the three
main ways that theorists have conceptualised Third
Space which includes: as a bridge; navigational
space; and a transformative space of cultural, social,
and epistemological change. To explain in more
detail, the first way perceives third space as a bridge
which according to Moje et al. (2004) helps learners
see connections and contradictions and enables them
to bridge competing and contradictory
understanding. This concept was illustrated in
Moje’s et al. (2004) research into how students
bridged inside and outside schooling literacies in the
classroom and in doing so, created a space for
typically marginalised voices or stories within their
learning. When perceived as a navigational space,
participants can cross over or draw upon different
binaries, discourses or discursive boundaries. The
other way that Third Space can be perceived is a
transformative space, in which students’ linguistic
and cultural forms, goals, or ways of relating,
transform the official space of the school, teacher, or
classroom - enabling participants to become more
central to their learning and gain access to alterative
knowledges (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). This was
evident in Elsden-Clifton’s (2006) research into the
visual arts created by migrant students, which found
that students used their art to navigate between
cultures and in doing so, negotiated being connected
to, and ‘in-between’, different countries, cultures
and spaces.
We have currently been involved in two recent
research projects which have used a Third Space
theory which we now turn to explain.
3.1 Example 1: Beginning Teachers,
Professional Learning and
Educational Technologies
The first research project used Third Space theory in
a small-scale exploratory study that reported on
ways in which 26 beginning teachers and an
instructor, along with 3 online coaches and 2
moderators interacted in one Blackboard (Bb)
Collaborate session during a professional learning
program. In the design and implementation of this
research study, we were mindful of the dominant
approaches that have been used in researching the
introduction of new technologies. First, we wanted
to move away from simplistic notions associated
with the introduction of technology in learning (e.g.
Bb Collaborate is a better method of instruction,
when compared to older ways of instruction, or has
particular affordances which should be used to
remedy shortcomings or problems in instruction).
Instead, we wanted our research to focus more on
the complexities involved and acknowledge more
critical views of technology introduction and use. In
our quest we turned to the methodology of Third
Space as it opens up difference spaces, allows for
different presumptions around technology use by our
research participants and ways of knowing our
research site.
For this research study we associated
conventional notions of face-to-face instruction with
first space and the computer-mediated
communication technologies, with second space.
We identified three instances in an online interaction
on Bb Collaborate between beginning teachers and
instructors where the participants took up third
spaces. We found that that beginning teachers were
able to navigate, bridge and transform spaces and
take up hybrid or third spaces. In particular, they
disrupted the expert/novice binary by challenging
the “teacher” and asking for and providing peer
feedback rather than looking always to the expert.
When in this third space, beginning teachers were
able to take control of this space, shaping it to suit
their own learning needs and destabilising the
traditional roles of teacher/student. Thus, they were
able to disrupt the traditions of first and second
spaces and ultimately challenge who controls the
interactions and the space. This research
demonstrated some of the ways in which the theory
may provide a way of recognizing the dynamic and
maybe contradictorily spaces that educational
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
222
technologies may take us.
3.2 Example 2: Pre-Service Teachers
using Educational Technology on
Placement
The second project investigated pre-service teachers’
familiarity, confidence and perceived knowledge
and skills of ICT implementation in the classroom
during practicum. This research involved up to 70
pre-service teachers along with the School Principal
and Teacher Mentors at their practicum school site.
We were drawn to the Third Space construct as it
enabled us to make visible the connections, and
movement between binaries of pre-service teachers
while on practicum in school (Bhabha, 1992). It
provided a framework to acknowledge the tensions
and dilemmas of pre-service teachers on placement
as they struggled “to negotiate unfamiliar terrain”
moving from their education application of
technology (first space) and their personal
knowledge of ICT use (second space).
Pre-service teachers while on placement inhabit a
third space; they neither “belong” to the school, nor
are they “at” university, thus, they are in-between
these two spaces or in a third space. Through its
emphasis on “between” we were able to research
some of the struggles that pre-service teachers
encountered as they interweaved the binaries of
university/school, public/private, known/unknown,
known/acquired and learner/teacher. It also
provided a lens in which to examine the difficulties
faced by pre-service teachers as they attempted to
cross the boundaries of university based learning to
learning to use technology in schools. The potential
of third space for this research is that it did not see
this dilemma or struggle as problematic or negative.
Instead, Third Space methodology enabled us to
draw attention to complexity around how pre-service
teachers use technology while on placement and
draw out the multiple possibilities and constraints of
pre-service teachers’ experiences of ICT while
learning to teach.
4 FINDINGS
This paper has attempted to respond to the call for a
continued conversation around the theoretical lens
used to research educational technology. We
believe that Third space has the potential to
contribute to the field of educational technologies in
three key ways, this includes:
Provide a framework for destabilising and moving
beyond the past patterns and stories of research in
education technologies that encourage us to ask
different research questions which consider
alternate conceptualizations of uptake and use,
rather than relying on binaries of good/bad,
new/old, updated/outmoded, and
valued/undervalued that have often characterized
research
Provide a research methodology that enable us to
explore complexities in teacher use of technology
Helping us to wrestle with the questions and
complexities of education technology use in
diverse contexts.
By proposing the use of Third Space theory within
educational technology research, it is our hope that
we contribute to an on-going conversation about the
ways in which we research educational technologies.
To this end, we feel it gives us possibilities to
examine the complexities in education technology
use and enables us to ask alternative research
questions, that focus on the how and why of
technologies within particular contexts rather than
the what of technologies themselves. In doing so, it
would also open up diverse research sites and take
up potential opportunities to research more complex
conceptualizations and move away from an
overreliance on technocentric and binaristic
conceptions of research.
REFERENCES
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London:
Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1992). The third space: Interview with Homi
Bhabha. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: community,
culture, difference (pp. 207-221). London: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Bigum, C. (1998). Boundaries, barriers and borders:
Teaching science in a wired world. Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 44(1), 13-24.
Canfield, J., Hanson, M., & Zilkman, S. (2002). Chicken
soup for the traveller’s soul. Deerfield Beach, FL:
Health Communication.
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom
practice. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press.
Danaher, P. A., Danaher, G. R., & Moriarty, B. J. (2003).
Space invaders and pedagogical innovators: Regional
educational understandings from Australian
occupational Travellers. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 18(3), 164-169.
Elsden-Clifton, J. (2006). Constructing ‘Thirdspaces’:
Migrant students and the visual arts. Studies in
Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development,
3(1), 1-11.
Gee, J. P. (1998). What is literacy? In V. Zamel & R.
ThroughtheLensofThirdSpaceTheory-PossibilitiesforResearchMethodologiesinEducationalTechnologies
223
Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies:
Teaching and learning across languages and culture
(pp. 51–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for
understanding technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3),
1953-1960.
Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal
feminism. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alvarez, H. H.,
& Ming, C. M. (1999). Building a culture of
collaboration through hybrid literacy practices. Theory
Into Practice, 38(2), 87-93.
Gutiérrez, K.D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M.G.
(1997). Putting language back into language arts:
When the radical middle meets the third space.
Language Arts 75(5), 368-378.
Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration:
It’s time to choose. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2). Retrieved
from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/editorial/
article1.cfm.
Hulme, R., Cracknell, D., & Owens, A. (2009). Learning
in third spaces: Developing trans-professional
understanding through practitioner enquiry.
Educational Action Research, 17(4), 537-550.
Khan, S. (2000). Muslim Women: Crafting a North
American identity. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lankshear, C., Snyder, I., & Green, B. (2000). Teachers
and techno-literacy. Managing literacy, technology
and learning in schools. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and
Unwin.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469-474.
Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L.,
Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward
third space in content area literacy: An examination of
everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading
Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers’
ICT practices: A longitudinal perspective. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 33-44.
Selwyn, N. (2002). Telling tales on technology:
Qualitative studies of technology and education.
Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles
and other real and imagined places. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Zhao, Y., & Rop, S. (2001). A critical review of the
literature on electronic networks as reflective
discourse communities for inservice teachers.
Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 81-94.
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
224
