The research methodology for the SILO project is Provisional Multimodal
Research (PMR). PMR is a research methodology designed for educators to
document the construction of digital artefacts (Jacobs, 2024). The main
ideas involved in PMR can be summarised as follows:
The chronology of digital artefacts and the rationale for changes are
mutually informative as shown in Figure 3.1.
The iterative nature of PMR means that the various pages of this website
change frequently because incremental improvements are actioned on a daily
basis. The SILO project is built upon the following four constructs:
Data sources
The relationship between the data sources is
shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2
Venn Diagram of the Data Sources

Co-construction
Another important methodological issue is
co-construction and how teachers and researchers understand their own
role as co-designers within the classroom. Much time and effort has gone
into cultivating a learning environment based on mutual trust and
respect to encourage the free flow of ideas in a spirit of
collaboration. As yet, there have been no differences of opinion
regarding implementation but the following three protocols are proposed
to manage such instances:
- Ultimately, it is the classroom teacher who has the final say about
what happens as it their classroom as they have a duty of care for
everything which occurs.
- If the researcher suggests an activity which is unfamiliar to the
classroom teachers (such as coding micro:bits), the researcher will
run the session so that the classroom teacher can observe without
having to invest any additional preparation time
- If two or more classroom teachers within the same year level have a
difference of opinion in relation to classroom activities, each
teacher will remain free to pursue their chosen option. Such instances
are likely to be generative as, "It is through understanding the
recursive patterns of researchers’ framing questions, developing
goals, implementing interventions, and analyzing resultant activity
that knowledge is produced" (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 10).
Teachers make countless decisions every day
but the decision-making process which guides such decisions is rarely
articulated because it is tacit knowledge. Figure 3.3 seeks to make this
tacit knowledge visible in the context of STEM education.
Figure 3.3
A Decision-Making Tool for STEM Education
Figure 3.3 is largely based on common sense
and professional judgement but a simple tool like this brings some
larger issues into focus such as relevance and suitability. It also
shows teachers where they might need to expand their skills, knowledge
or resources.
Assessment
As teachers, we are familiar with the
various types of assessment shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4
An Overview of Assessment Types

At the bottom of each of the 28 SILO units
is the following rubric as shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5
A Rubric for Conceptual Consolidation

As noted by Jacobs and Cripps Clark (2018),
progress through this rubric occurs from top to bottom. The implications
for this phenomenon are as follows:
- Initial research for a conceptual topic begins by first
identifying, and then using, correct terminology.
- An eventual outcome of investigating correct terminology is the
identification of relevant components.
- The pinnacle of conceptual consolidation involves understanding
the dynamic relationships that exist between the different
components.
- Conceptual consolidation itself must be understood on a
case-by-case basis because, regardless of any similarities, every
concept is different (Jacobs & Cripps Clark, 2018, p. 47).
Figure 3.6 reinforces the characteristic
movement though the rubric. The other differences are as follows:
- The numbers from 1 to 10 across the bottom quantify 10 different
combinations within the rubric. This can be helpful when discussing
overall achievement.
- The red brackets on the left-hand side show that 'correct
terminology' and 'identifying relevant components' are both part of
the 'what' category. This is because terminology leads logically
into identifying relevant components. In this sense the second row
functions as a checklist for the first row.
Figure 3.6
A Self-Assessment Rubric for Conceptual
Consolidation

This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.