Reviewing the proposal

Considering points raised by Newby (2010, Ch. 2 & 14) to refine my research proposal has given me a mixture of outcomes. Some of these confirm that my basic methodology is correct, whilst some aspects might need tweaking.

Why this research?

My primary aim in this research is gaining a qualification – however I do need to relate the research to my work context, which has been a source of tension since in future I will need to contribute to projects that further divisional goals more directly.

Why am I interested in this area?

We are aiming to move towards a blended training model, with online and face-to-face components.  The use of forums to encourage interactions among participants has been running for some time, with uncertain results.

Why do I think that it is important?

The building of learning communities with increase responsibility for their own learning will become important to sustain learning across the organisation. Our current resourcing will not enable us to meet the continuously growing demand.

Will I be able to write enough to cover my task?

I have chosen this learning program because I know that there is the potential for enough research data to be gathered for a number of cohorts, and I can combine research on the participants with benefit for practitioners.

What experience do I have of this area?

I have made use of forums in my own study and introduced the idea to colleagues through an explorative example. This led to the introduction of forums in the context that I am researching, and I have been involved in an advisory and technical capacity since then.

Who else thinks this is worth exploring?

There is a slight difference of opinion amongst my colleagues as to the value of exploring this area further. Some of my colleagues however have expressed an interest in gaining insights into this area, and even those who don’t fully support it at least acknowledge their frustrations that the use of forums is problematic.

Creating the context for the proposal

Will it deliver on our personal goals?

Although it might meet the requirements of a modular assessment, it may not have a high enough ‘impact potential’ for further progression in some respects. The project should therefore be regarded as a stepping stone for future research efforts – my key learning points will be how successful the approach is in educating practitioners and giving further insights into a learning program. Once my methodology has been established I will then look for higher impact applications.

Does the topic have a political dimension?

Online education in general is an area of intense interest, along with the tools and media for achieving success. Political commentators and politicians may well have opinions on the area, but they are likely more interested in conventional learning matters at this time.

How much do we know about the area?

As stated previously, I have been involved with the use of online discussion for learning in a variety of contexts, both academic and work related. My initial literature review has uncovered some very useful information about how online communities can be investigated methodically, hence my approach to this project.

Identifying the research boundaries

Total amount of time available

In this case the time available is dictated by the time constraints of the assessment task, and my personal time for writing up my results.

What help can we expect from others?

The work does need to be primarily my own due to the assessment criteria, and the data collection should be fairly straightforward due to sending out questionnaires by e-mail. I do need to consider how much time it might take participants to answer my questionnaires, given that we will be approaching a time of higher workload.

Do we need specialist help?

No outside help will be necessary in this case since the data collection and interpretation is of my own devising, and I have sufficient access to journal articles at this time.

What if things don’t go according to plan?

I believe I have sufficient safety in terms of preserving data and the actual collection. My concern is with the possible response rate of participants within the time frame. For this reason I had already opted to research a program that has had multiple cohorts, and also the interactions have been digitally recorded due to the nature of the medium.

Assessing ethical issues

This has already been covered in the blog post on principles to some extent. As a summary, I will be carrying out my research within my workplace and sharing those results with colleagues. One potential issue could come from the sharing of participants’ responses to a wider audience, from a forum that was set up as a confidential area. For this reason I will need to ask colleagues about how to use their responses. I will treat responses anonymously by default, possibly with an option for their responses to not be quoted in reports. All postings on forums will remain confidential.

Preparing a case for a research programme

This research programme is for assessment purposes, but setting out my thinking will be of use in future, especially if I want to keep research as a positive influence on our evaluation strategy.

Getting an idea for research

From the sources of stimulus I have identified several different strands to my research idea & motivation:

1.   Literature

My review of the literature has revealed that there are a number of different theories cited by researchers, in some cases not including those that I have used as a theoretical basis for my own learning. Because of this I am wary of using quantitative methodology to tie results to a particular theory

2.   Policy

Ongoing interest in the field of online education interests me, particularly from the point of view of keeping practitioner education a key issue. Research that is carried out purely from a top-down institutional perspective is unlikely to produced sustainable benefits for the education system or society.

3.   Experience

Following on from previous points, my experience of online education is that it is most powerful as a constructivist environment, to support communities of inquiry and learning by doing.

Potential to finish research project

For this assessed research project I am confident that I can deliver the required results, and show that my methodology for design and data collection has been adequate. Questions about the impact of my research will need to be addressed for future efforts, since online learning projects will be focussed on areas of greatest business interest.

Arguing the case for the research

(a) Can the topic convince our judges?
The project should sufficiently convince my academic judges, although from a work perspective I will need to convince colleagues that the project has sufficient merit as a developmental tool for future work, and show that my approach to sharing results and insights can benefit the wider team.

(b) Is it feasible for me to undertake it?
I believe that this research project is well within my capabilities, and can be completed satisfactorily within the given time frame.

(i)  The field of enquiry
Research in this area is nothing particularly new, since there has been significant research into the field by academic researchers. Neither should this be considered as a theoretical study, although the context will always be different from others. The real interest here is how policies of using online education methods are succeeding against our objectives, and how the use of these approaches compares between academic origins and the actual implementation in the workplace.

(ii) The research issue / question
Related to the issues from previous questions, my key questions for research are based around the experiences of people participating in the use of new types of media, and ensuring that practitioner approaches can match the desire for business results.

Making sense of what we have

My interpretation of results may well draw on theory, although this will not be the primary lens. My main focus will be on judging whether activities have met objectives and how they can be modified for improvements, and also to identify what course of action should not be taken. My approach to truth here is realising how others perceive it, and using this to inform practice.

References

• Newby, Peter (2010).  Research Methods for Education Chapter 2 p.31-65

Where, who, what, how and why?

Some questions based on Creswell (2009) and answers...

a) Where is the setting for your research project?

Multiple offices of an educational services provider in the United Kingdom.

b) Who are the people that you will study (or what is the thing that you will study)?

Company employees with responsibility for managing the performance of others, participating in a people management skills programme. Participants come from a range of departments.

I will be studying the experiences that participants have with online interactions which are required before and after the central face-to-face training event.

c) What methods do you plan to use to collect data?

Survey questions of participants...

Central question: How would participants describe their experiences of using online interactions to support a face-to-face training event?

• Describe your experience of socialising with other participants who you interacted with online before the training event
• Describe your experience of preparing for a face-to-face event where online interaction was required, relative to an event with no prior interaction
• Describe your experience of participating in online interactions around course related content after the face-to-face event

d) How will you analyse the data you collect?

Comparison of individual experiences of participants, with a view to emerging patterns

• Across all participants
• Within separate cohorts
• Experiences of socialisation activities
• Experiences of knowledge sharing activities

And my own question...

e) Why am I doing this (besides needing a project for assessment)?

Rapid change in all areas of business brings an increased demand for effective training of employees, with lower budgets and time scales than ever before. Face-to-face training, while still highly valued, is expensive in terms of removing employees from their regular work activities, and the cost for transport and accommodation. There is also a question of how effectively the content of a 'formal' learning intervention of this type can be effectively transferred back to the workplace. Online interactions are of interest as a means for extending and enhancing the learning experience for participants.

References:

• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (3rd edition) Sage.

Time to dig deeper?

My initial literature review led me to a very comprehensive article by Ke & Hoadley (2009), which was very much a centre-piece for my (admittedly still thin) literature review. Whilst I'm keen to continue using this and related articles, I'm now realising after the last few weeks of considering research methods that I need to dig a little deeper, and in a different direction. The problem is that the article focuses on evaluation research, whereas I really need some good pointers on action research, as I believe this will be of more benefit in the qualitative research project I actually intend to do.

 

One useful resource that I have come across is an overview of action research (O'Brien, 1998). Although this is a slightly older article, O'Brien covers a lot of the points made in my earlier reading, and with a slightly different perspective on how it might be used. He also gives case studies of early use of computer mediated conferencing, and how action research was utilised to give the practitioners and participants useful insights that improved practice. Most tellingly, O'Brien points out that action research in itself is becoming a vital tool for organisations that are increasingly interdependent in a climate of change, something that fits well with my worldview.

 

"If you want it done right, you may as well do it yourself"

 

Johnson (2001) offers a good overview of online interaction and communities, again slightly ahead of the review by Ke & Hoadley (2009). One point that immediately caught my eye, is the acknowledgement of attrition as being a key problem - within the workplace, simply getting people to participate in learning activities can be problematic, and online interactions even more so. There is also convergence with the works of Wenger, and of Palloff & Pratt, but again no mention of Salmon, nor of Anderson.

 

References:

• Johnson, C.M. (2001). A Survey of Current Practice on Online Communities of Practice.  Internet and Higher Education, Vol.4 pp.45-60. Available at: <http://repository.maestra.net/valutazione/MaterialeSarti/articoli/Johnson-Survey.pdf> [Accessed March 2013]
• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• O'Brien, R. (1998). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. [online] Available at: <http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/xx%20ar%20final.htm> [Accessed March 2013]

Creating the research questions

So how hard can it be to ask a question? Depends on how important the question is really! Newby (2010, Ch. 14) helpfully breaks down the different types of research and the types of questions that we might associate with them, to ensure that our data stays true to the purpose that we set out with. In particular, the Action Research school of though appeals to me, because it serves to educate the practitioners themselves. The method embraces uncertainty, and has an interesting parallel with the concept of Constructive Alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2007, Ch. 4), in that we can gain insight into whether or not participants are actually learning what we profess to be teaching them. For courses with emphasis on people management skills, and such a broad range of applications, this could be invaluable for determining success and continued development.

Creswell (2009, Ch. 7) helps to narrow down the research question strategy further for qualitative and quantitative approaches. In particular, he gives advice about the choice of language to ensure that our research questions serve their intended purpose, and ensure that answers aren't biased towards (or against) theories through a poor choice of words. If our purpose is to avoid referencing theories directly, this could help to ensure that we gain richer insights that aren't clouded by arguments about theories or hypotheses.

After an initial attempt at devising research questions where I realised I did the complete opposite of what Creswell suggests, I have refined my research questions to the following:

Primary:

• How would participants describe their experiences of using online interactions to support a face-to-face training event?

Secondary:

• Describe your experience of socialising with other participants who you interacted with online before the training event
• Describe your experience of preparing for a face-to-face event where online interaction was required, relative to an event with no prior interaction
• Describe your experience of participating in online interactions around course related content after the face-to-face event

References:

• Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd Ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (3rd edition) Sage.
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson.

Thoughts on defining research purpose

Trying to define my research purpose effectively has required extensive reading and critical thought to make sure that my purpose is properly defined

Chapter 5: The Introduction

The Research Problem – Creswell gives some good advice that relates general writing skills to the research context. We are normally trying to convey a very complex topic, so it is important that we consider how we are going to ‘hook’ our readers into the subject, and make sure we don’t bombard them with too much information too soon. There is also the need to make sure that our work is seen as a scholarly endeavour by outlining our links to the literature.

 

Studies Addressing the Problem – Using an inverted triangle seems like a good idea for the process of zeroing in on our research problem, using the wider body of literature to provide the background. We need to acknowledge that there are limitations in the literature we draw on (otherwise there wouldn’t be anything to research) and instead look for ways that the lessons learned or methods employed could inform our own research.

Deficiencies in Past Literature – Whilst avoiding outright condemnation of the existing literature, it is important to point out where it does not (or cannot) address our particular area. For instance, whilst I am planning to use Ke & Hoadley (2009) as a primary reference point for methods, it will be useful to explore the different contexts of the studies they included in their review - how many of the studies are based in the workplace? Referring to studies of learning in the workplace could help to draw links – thinking of the inverted triangle here.

Significance of a Study for Audiences – This does have some good points about writing for particular audiences, and trying to make the study appeal to a wide variety of people. Some of my original reservations remain around the default ‘market’ mentality!  Interestingly one of the sidebars mentions organisational mentalities, and may be worth following up in its own right.

Summary – The five part introduction model should serve well in conjunction with critical thought about my world view and the literature that I will use. The writing exercises will help me to set out my thinking ahead of writing the actual paper, and hopefully draw in some useful feedback. I will make sure that I give feedback to my peers first as an incentive for them to reciprocate, and to strengthen connections amongst the group.

 

Chapter 6: The Purpose Statement

 

Creswell states that this is the most important statement in the entire study – it effectively sets out the means by which others are actually going to be assessing the worth of your research.

 

Significance and Meaning of a Purpose Statement – The purpose statement is deliberately unpicked from the separate points of research problem (the wider issues) and research questions (the fine details of the study).

 

A Qualitative Purpose Statement – Careful use of language is required here. Using the draft script to produce some initial ideas and then going back through the text as a preliminary round of feedback sounds more sensible for learning than trying to construct one from the example words given. That way I can reflect on the differences between how I normally think internally, and the way I externalise this in my writing.

 

A Quantitative Purpose Statement – Although I consider that my study will be more qualitative in nature, it is worth considering the different way that a quantitative purpose statement should be written, so that I know the difference! Considering the variables that may affect an outcome and systematically investigating them is a hallmark of a quantitative study. Although I need to consider what factors may affect communities, I will not try to quantify them at this stage. Theory is implied as being more central to a quantitative study than a qualitative one.

 

A Mixed Method Purpose Statement – Understanding the previous two types of purpose is vital for properly introducing a mixed methods study, as the reader has to be able to distinguish between them through your writing. For success, there should be a central theory, and a single qualitative phenomenon under discussion.

 

Summary – Universal techniques underpin all of the types of study. Action words must be used for outlining the purpose, whilst keeping to non-directional language (i.e. avoid trying to prove a hypothesis through interfering with data acquisition). Mentioning the strategy for the enquiry, along with the participants and site to provide context, helps a reader further discern the relevance for them.

 

Influences on the selection of a research issue (Creswell)

Research agenda – Ultimately everything needs to be paid for! Reading through some of Creswell’s assumptions on the last unit led me to challenge the assumption that research has to be targeted at the greatest number of people. This actually fits more with a market philosophy, whereas I would rather that my research fitted into the network paradigm, and also be carried out for on-going practitioner development. My organisation wants more learning to go online, but there are likely to be many different perceptions of what does and does not work. I may actually be going against accepted wisdom with my desire to research this area!

 

Research issue – From my context, online communication actually becomes a potential measure for how successful a traditional learning event has been, as opposed to one where online interactions have not been present. The Research Problem can then be further defined as outlining effective ways of evaluating training success beyond the event, fitting in with the research agenda more closely.

 

Research question – Can online learning interactions increase the effectiveness of training programs, and when are they most likely to succeed?

 

Learning from a research agenda - This section gives some very good insights on how the research agenda can shift, and acknowledges the limitations of academic journals in our learning and research.

Determining a research issue - Generation of ideas, particularly questions, is dependent on having a rich and diverse environment.  In this way we are more likely to see alternative perspectives that allow us to challenge agendas and assumptions.

Kick-starting the search for a research issue - Whilst this is not the first research project that I have conducted, I do think that I am better regarding myself as being a ‘new’ researcher as I did not undertake any of this kind of learning before my research project – everything was already funded before I started! Within my department there is not always formal research, although my colleagues did use the Delphi research method for determining the best approach to performance & talent management. I also have the benefit of having colleagues who work in educational research to connect with.

 

Scoping the research problem - There are some interesting thoughts here. The reference to Mallik and McGowan about workplace learning is potentially very helpful, although some care will be needed for drawing similarities. How feasible any research will be in my area will sometimes depend on people’s willingness to provide feedback, which is not always guaranteed as people are busy in the workplace. I will have to be careful to make use of different methodologies, as I will have to continue researching towards my dissertation.

References:

• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (3rd edition) Sage.
• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson.

 

First attempt at defining Research Purpose

Originally posted to eBridge, 5 March 2013

First attempt at defining Research Purpose:

The purpose of this evaluation study will be to understand the effect that online discussion has on the quality of learning for participants in workplace learning programs at my workplace. At this stage in the research, the online communities will be generally defined as any online discussion platform set up with the intention of supporting discourse amongst participants on a learning program.

I've deliberately re-written to avoid phrases such as ‘before, during, after’ and ‘training events’ (Shackleton-Jones, 2013) because I want to make sure that the capability of online learning is not limited to simply supporting traditional training events. Although it's likely to be viewed as a bolt-on by many for some time, I want to make sure that I establish effectiveness for the online component in its own right.

Research Problem

Online communities are becoming an area of increased interest in learning provision that is both affordable and available 'anytime, anywhere'. This interest has stemmed from growing demand for higher education, but there is also keen interest for workplace learning. There is a growing recognition that simply providing the technology and expecting both participation and effective learning outcomes is not enough. Investigations of the learning environment - both technological and human interaction within it - warrant study to ensure that both practitioners and participants use the medium effectively. This study will focus on the effects that online interactions have on learning for employees at an educational services provider, and whether the current provision of online learning tools could be said to constitute an online learning community in its own right, or simply an extension to face-to-face training programmes.

Worldview

My current worldview has lately been quite dramatically shaped by a model for social evolution put forward by Ronfeldt (1996, 2012a). He defines human organisation as being representable by four distinct forms: tribes, institutions, markets and networks (T - I - M - N). Within this framework, we can begin to understand the complexity of our society, and what possible avenues there may be for progress beyond our current state. In particular I'm interested in the possible implications for the future of our education systems (Hobson, 2012; Ronfeldt, 2012b) in the face of both technological evolution and the corresponding changes in our organisational behaviour. As Marshall McLuhan famously stated: 'We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us.' My intent is to explore how the network form can be utilised for a better education system, and how online communities might contribute towards realising this future.

References:

• Hobson, J. (2012). The problems with educating a quadriform society. Thinking and learning in the digital age [blog] 7 August. Available at: <http://jimmyhob.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-problems-with-educating-quadriform.html>
• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• Ronfeldt, D. (1996). Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks – A Framework about Societal Evolution. Available at: <http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7967.html>[Accessed September 2012]
• Ronfeldt, D. (2012a). TIMN in 20 minutes: a video presentation. Visions from two theories [blog] 23 May. Available at: <http://twotheories.blogspot.co.uk/2012_05_01_archive.html> [Accessed March 2013]
• Ronfeldt, D. (2012b). Q’s & A’s about “TIMN in 20 minutes” (4th of 7): creation of a new sector? Visions from two theories [blog] 29 August. Available at: <http://twotheories.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/qs-as-about-timn-in-20-minutes-4th-of-7_29.html> [Accessed March 2013]
• Shackleton-Jones, N. (2013). Beyond 'Before, During, After'. Aconventional [blog] 3 March. Available at: <http://www.aconventional.com/2013/03/beyond-before-during-after.html> [Accessed March 2013]

Defining the literature review

Originally posted to eBridge, 24 February 2013

 

I've been using the questions given by Newby (2010, p.217) to further define my literature review:

• Why is this an issue/problem? With the on-going economic instability, organisations are looking for more cost-effective ways of training their staff. Managers are reluctant to release employees for extensive and off-site training, so learning technologies are becoming an area of great interest for ways of training staff remotely and more efficiently. Barriers to adoption of informal learning tools and methods arise because these are not seen as being immediately productive. However, they will become increasingly important for successful cooperation in the era of networked business (Jarche, 2013), and they do not always appear spontaneously, because the existing pressures prevent them from being realised as beneficial. Research to outline benefits of using technologies that support social learning could help to provide a much-needed theoretical basis for convincing stakeholders to adopt them, along with the benefit of self-education for practitioners.

• Is there a political dimension? Potentially, this could have a political dimension. Recent events (Garner, 2011; Orr, 2011) have brought intense political interest in the operations of exam boards. Whilst anti-bribery compliance training has been designed, developed and implemented in-house, this is subject to critical approval and auditing by government and regulatory authorities. My personal interest is in maintaining freedom in how to implement training, and ensure that it is truly successful. Jennings (2012) has questioned the general effectiveness of compliance training, as it focuses largely on 'checking boxes' and doesn't really affect behaviour in the long term. Online communities have the potential to radically alter the way in which training takes place, and ensure that real behavioural changes are achieved. Providing research data on how communities can be of benefit will help to ensure that such initiatives are not dismissed as either ineffective or unnecessary.

• When did this issue first arise? Online communities have been a point of interest for me as a practitioner since beginning my own formal learning using these methods. The concept of communities of practice has been periodically mentioned amongst colleagues, and there is a wider interest in engaging with customers using social media platforms. Online communities could provide an important practice ground for this.

• Who has an interest in the topic? All learning & development (or training) departments have an interest in the evolution of learning technologies, and the alternative methods for achieving learning outcomes that become feasible. See for instance Epic's Social Learning Debate, with interest from many high profile names in the field.

My initial thought is that this literature review should be conducted in a qualitative manner, to allow it to grow inductively. Using the principles outline by Ke & Hoadley (2009) should allow for systematic design along with a self-education aspect.

 

References:

Garner, R. (2011). Profit motive has created corrupt education system, say teachers. The Independent [online] 9 December. Available at: <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/profit-motive-has-created-corrupt-education-system-say-teachers-6274531.html> [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Jarche, H. [2013]. Perpetual Beta is the new reality. Life in Perpetual Beta [blog] 1 March. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2013/03/perpetual-beta-is-the-new-reality/ [Accessed March 2013]

Jennings, C. (2012). Compliance Training: does it really work? Performance. Learning. Productivity. [blog] 15 August. Available at: <http://charles-jennings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/compliance-training-does-it-really-work.html> [Accessed 18 December 2012]

Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.

Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.

Orr, J. (2011). Exam boards: examiners suspended in 'corrupt practices' row. The Telegraph (online) 8 December. Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/8943300/Exam-boards-examiners-suspended-in-corrupt-practices-row.html> [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Blog post 5.2: Mechanism of my mind

Originally posted to eBridge, 2 March 2013

 

I've finished off my reading & reflections from last week at long last! My primary venture into reading about online community literature led me to the article mentioned in my last blog post (Ke & Hoadley, 2009). I note that the authors don't mention Salmon's (2003) model of online interaction, which has formed the basis for much of my understanding in this area, being the first model that I was introduced to on the course. It's interesting how the first mental representation we get will dominate our thinking on a subject!

As I started to outline in my previous post, the authors have done a great job of outlining how they reviewed the literature, and actually relates very well to the principles that have been introduced in our formal reading so far. Therefore I think I'll find it more helpful to pursue an approach influenced by their taxonomy, as it will hopefully allow me to connect my work with a wider body of research. However I will make a point of re-reading my work from the initial module and consider how this work affects my understanding, wither confirming it from a different angle, modifying it or destroying an incorrect assumption.

References:

• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• Salmon, G. (2003). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Blog post 5.1: Reviewing the literature (running behind)

Originally posted to eBridge, 24 February 2013

I'm running late this week, but thought it was better to put up a partial blog post than nothing at all. The primary piece of literature I've identified in my search is a comprehensive review of literature on online communities (Ke & Hoadley, 2009). My immediate thought is that this should save me a great deal of time, but there is a real danger of not being sufficiently cautious about accepting their methods and conclusions. The researchers do clearly set out their review, with criteria for how they chose studies that were suitable for inclusion. They also helpfully set out questions to ask of any study of online learning communities:

• What was the purpose of the study?
• What evaluation approaches were used in the study?
• What indicators or measures of online learning communities were observed in the study?
• How did the study collect and analyse data?

These will be very helpful for considering how to go about collecting my own research data. However I do need to beware that this review is made within the academic world, and likely does not include any kind of workplace learning. Participants in the online communities in question do so out of necessity - they must show that they have learned in order to progress in their studies or receive qualifications, whereas by contrast a workplace learning initiative cannot always count upon such participation from learners.

This actually seems like a good insight for how to move towards greater participation in online communities in the workplace. Having participation in online activities be part of the assessment could dramatically improve participation and uptake of learning, if used wisely, and with stakeholder support. In order to do this, I would have to show that online interactions can add value. Whilst it is unlikely a full collaborative community could be created in the first instance, progressively achieving enhancements to traditional training by provision of online communication tools could be a first step.

References:

• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.

Blog post 4.2: What could go possibly go wrong?

Originally posted to eBridge, 17 February 2013

 

Validity, Reliability, Objectivity = language for quantitative researchers

Credibility, Dependability, Confirmability = language for qualitative researchers

The classic research effects noted by Newby (2010, p.120-3) are of interest to me – I will be researching from a very participatory standpoint, as I am actually trying to influence people’s behaviour through my interventions. The best way to balance out this out would seem to be by adopting approaches such as triangulation to give more credibility to findings. As a learning & development practitioner working within an online community, am I actually moving more into the realm of critical research perhaps?

Reading through Colquhoon (2006), I’m struck by the similarity between the language used for reliability and validity, compared to the discussion of reliability and validity in the context of assessment, as referred to by Race (2010, Ch.4) and Crisp (2007, Ch.19). The pre-occupation of most educational institutions has been with stability of a bank of testable items for norm-referenced assessment. However, one has to consider how long this state of affairs can continue with the economy so unstable and all our assumptions about learning and education being questioned? (Wheeler, 2013)

References:

• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull
• Crisp, G. (2007). The e-Assessment Handbook. Continuum
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• Race, P. (2010). Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education. 2nd ed. Sage.
• Wheeler, S. (2013). Learning is changing. Learning with e’s [blog] 17 February. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/learning-is-changing.html> [Accessed February 2013]

Blog post 4.1: Rules vs Principles

Originally posted to eBridge, 17 February 2013

Do we act according to rules or principles? Newby (2010) suggests that there is normally a set of ‘rules’ that are accepted as best practice – but do all researchers accept these, or can they even be held to them like laws? He advises that when researchers make a decision to act differently, they should ensure that they stick to a set of principles that they can defend from a moral standpoint. One thorny question that enters my mind here is the assumption that children’s education will/should be imposed from a top-down perspective by governments and local authorities. Also the teachers themselves are generally forgotten here – no mention is given to their standing as practitioners, or their own right to learn and adapt without excessive intervention.

Honesty – should really go without saying, but when working in a research department I often heard, through hearsay, about professors leaving choice facts out of their research papers to prevent others from successfully replicating their experiments, particularly if they were working competitively with other research groups towards prestigious results. When people are working towards goals concerning commercial competition, it is to be expected that dishonesty would certainly creep into the equation, both externally and internally.

Confidentiality – as for the previous point, it is unlikely that one will always have a clear cut decision to make about this. Relationships and reputations can be destroyed through breach of confidence, but also sometimes through blind adherence to a confidentiality rule over principles.

Publishing – some of the points that Newby raises about publishing data gathered from individuals and organisations, have parallels with concerns that Lanier (2012) mentions with regards to data on the internet. Newby’s talk of ‘intellectual imperialism’ questions the rights of researchers to claim results as being entirely their own when it comes to publishing; Lanier also warns of individuals’ contributions to online material being anonymised, in a form of ‘digital Maoism’, where the finished product is regarded as more important than the contributors. Beyond this there is also the usual tussle over rights to ‘claim’ conclusions, or the petty arguments as to what order names should appear in on a publication!

The problem consistently rearing its head here is the lack of incentive to collaborate effectively, if at all. Jarche (2013) regularly discusses the failure of collaborative ventures, and possible means to break the deadlock.

Participation – with the point raised above about researchers not acknowledging their participants, this is another considerable barrier to effective collaboration. The context of Newby’s (2010) examples is beginning to differ substantially from my own, but some common principles remain, namely that any data and results I gain should be treated carefully with respect to participants, and ensure that they do not suffer from taking part in the study. I would usually expect that people within the same organisation would be more understanding, but cross-organisational collaboration may be more tricky!

Plagiarism – the problem of ‘digital Maoism’ raised by Lanier comes back into play, as people increasingly treat information on the internet as being open-source for all ends. Simply failing to even reference other peoples’ work is bad enough, but often the data is claimed as one’s own work. Without adequate tools for checking plagiarism, we cannot hope to meaningfully assess even undergraduate work, let alone primary research, for plagiarism.

References:

• Jarche, H. (2013). Collaboration is a means not an end. Life in perpetual beta (blog) 14 February. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2013/02/collaboration-is-a-means-not-an-end/ (Accessed February 2013)
• Lanier, J. (2012). Are we at the beginning of the rise of post human machine intelligence? Available at: <http://dpcloud.co/v3/enterprise/learningtech/index.php?option=com_dpcloud&v=play&p=7117&u=learningtech&cat=Keynotes&Itemid=2> (Accessed October 2012)
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.