Methodology – it really is a mixed bag

In this blog post I will be looking at the first (of several) online education articles in terms of their methodological approach taken. In keeping with the previous post, in which I identified the MOOC topic as a potential option for the dissertation, I have decided to explore an article on that subject. My chosen article for this post is a 2010 paper by Mackness et al. that was presented at the 7^th International Conference on Networked Learning and was published in their proceedings.

This paper explored the ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC, using an online survey that was emailed to active MOOC participants, in addition to email interview data from self-selected interviewees. Unfortunately, the article did not provide any insights into the philosophical position of the study, nor the research paradigm and rationale. However, inferences can still be made. The study clearly adopted a mixed method approach, which would appear to adhere to a ‘relativism’ stance as discussed in Tutorial 5 “Linking Philosophy and Methods”. With relativism, the positioning is somewhere between qualitative and quantitative, with assumptions that it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of these structures. It is also said to triangulate data based on different research perspectives and methods. So why was this positioning used in this study? Why incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods? Well, according to the article, the data collection consisted of two stages, in which the participants were first surveyed about their preferences for communicating in blogs and forums. Next, the analysis of the survey responses informed the email interview questions that further explored the participants’ learning experiences. The survey was emailed to a total of 301 participants (bloggers, forum users and course instructors), with 90 responses. Apparently, the survey responses alone generated enough data to produce another research paper, thus indicating that this scale of survey data (300 invitations with around 100 responses) may be appropriate for a Masters-level dissertation.

Apparently, 22 responses were then received for the “email interview”, which unfortunately was not sufficiently explained in the paper. From my experience, the requirement for in-depth quality data from interviews precludes the option to conduct them via email. I have always conducted my research interviews face-to-face or via Skype for those based outside of the UK. Getting back to the article, sadly no information was forthcoming about the actual analysis that was conducted on either dataset, thus I am limited as to what I can learn from this study. Certainly the option of conducting a mixed method study is feasible, although the subject of my dissertation would need to have research questions that were strongly aligned with this approach of gauging initial opinions via surveys and then further exploring the topics via interviews. Certainly, this approach would be the most time-consuming – not only due to the two very different datasets to be analysed, but also due to the waiting associated with the surveys plus the two-stage aspect which means that I would not be able to begin the interviews until the survey data had been received and analyzed. Due to the timescale for the dissertation, this may prove too challenging, although at this stage I shall keep my options open. For now, I have some food for thought as I continue to read around the MOOC (and other) topic(s) and explore different options for the dissertation.

Jordan

 

References

Mackness, Jenny, Sui Mak, and Roy Williams. “The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC.” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. University of Lancaster, 2010.

Shall I LOOK at the MOOC?

So this is my first in a series of blog posts over the coming weeks that explores possible avenues for research investigation for the MSc dissertation. Where do I begin? We have studied such a diverse range of interesting topics related to BOE throughout this course. However, I do not want my personal preferences of topic to influence my decision of what area of BOE to explore for the dissertation. Yes, it is important to chosen a topic that is of interest to you, in order to maintain your focus throughout the project and produce research of the highest quality. However, more important than this, in my opinion, is the need to conduct research into topics of BOE from which there is a genuine gap in our current understanding and/or body of literature. That way, I believe there is the greatest opportunity to make a real and significant contribution to the educational research field whilst driving forward our understanding of the BOE domain.

So I have begun my search for a dissertation with an entirely open mind, by searching objectively in Google Scholar for recent studies on “online education research” to see what are the latest trends and identified research gaps for further studies to address. An interesting article by Gasevic et al. (2014) has recently considered the future research directions of the MOOC (massively open online course) within BOE (I thoroughly enjoyed the MOOC that I completed and critiqued for a previous BOE module). This paper, which was published in the peer-reviewed e-journal The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning in 2014, provides a comprehensive overview of the MOOC research domain whilst making a number of key recommendations for future research. One noteworthy suggestion was that “research needs to come up with theoretical underpinnings that will explain factors related to social aspects in MOOCs that have a completely new context and offer practical guidance of course design and instruction” (p. 1). This appears to be a promising potential avenue from which an MSc dissertation could be developed, as it appears to be of substantial scale, it offers a specific research context (social aspects of the MOOC) and has implications for theoretical development and practical application. In the next blog post in this series, I will therefore look at how much research has been conducted into the social aspect of MOOCs and what are the specific gaps in the literature or niche opportunities to be explored.

 

References

Gasevic, Dragan, et al. “Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15.5 (2014).

 

The aftermath of the Paradigm Wars

 

So, at the end of Week 3 of this final taught module, I have been reading and absorbing the tutorials and recommended reading throughout the week, and attempting to gather together some rational thoughts and reflections of my understandings so far…

 

On reading the Whitehead (2007) article, it seems that the key difference between education and educational research is that, for education research, the perspective is too constricted, too parochial, too short-term. The education researchers are the practitioners – they are the teachers, the tutors, the mentors. Therefore, their interpretation of the research paradigm is more pragmatic and based on what individuals can learn and implement immediately into their practice. Educational research, on the other hand, appears to be more the domain of the researchers, the theorisers, those who perceive the bigger picture of educational research and seek to develop theoretical foundations for the domain. The challenge, as expressed in this article, is that the vast majority of education-related research is driven by the practitioners, not the theorisers, therefore slowing and inhibiting the progression of the field as a theory-driven research domain. In order to reverse this trend, education-related research should be more ambitious and consider what the larger teaching community can learn from the findings of the study, not just those immediately related to the findings.

 

It seems from reading the Denzin and Lincoln (2011) chapter that the paradigm wars of the 1980s has created an atmosphere of “us and them” whereby perceptions of research paradigms have become much more dichotomous and critical. Rather than consider different methodological approaches in terms of their appropriateness and congruence with the research study, as discussed in Tutorial 1, it appears that more emphasis is being placed on subjective (and very often biased) views regarding their academic merits in general, as was the focus of Tutorial 6. The adoption of relativism, as discussed in Tutorial 5 and which lies in the middle of the research paradigm continuum by assuming that it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of the two extremes (posisitivism vs constructionism), appears to be less favoured nowadays as researchers feel compelled to subscribe strongly to one extreme or the other. Thus, Denzin and Lincoln speak of how Positivists “allege that the so-called new experimental qualitative researchers write fiction, not science” (p. 2). This raises the question of at what point does confidence in your own personal epistemological position begin to cloud your judgement and preclude you from considering the potential benefits and relevance of a range of approaches? The fact that both positivism and constructionism paradigms are essentially caricatures with no clearly defined definition, as Tutorial 2 pointed out, adds a further level of obscurity to the situation.

 

The first thing that struck me about the Darlaston-Jones (2007) paper was the honesty of the author in admitting that, despite her insistence that there should be a stronger correlation between the epistemological foundation of the research and the methods used, her own decisions were driven at least partially by the fact that she ‘personally subscribes’ to the constructionist worldview. To what extent should we permit our own personal preferences to dictate our choice of paradigm or indeed research methods? As scholars, it is our duty to provide a solid and intellectual rationale for these important decisions. I recently marked down a Masters dissertation where the student had adopted to conduct one focus group of her fellow students – not because it was the most appropriate method of data collection but merely the easiest. The Tutorial 1 video advises that the philosophy of research should perhaps be objectively perceived as a guidepost, from which we will be informed about the most workable methods and the clarity of the associated research design. Darlaston-Jones argues that understanding the relationship between your personal view of reality is vital in terms of then articulating the following logical steps in relation to the chosen epistemology and research methods. I agree with this view, although I believe that your ontological viewpoint should perhaps not be too firmly established as to create any kind of bias towards one particular paradigm. I believe that in order to base your rationale on the realities of the proposed research study in addition to philosophical logic, the practicalities of what you intend to research should very much inform this personal ontological view.

 

References

Darlaston-Jones, D. (2007) The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), p19-27

Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S., (2011) “Chapter 1 : Introduction, the discipline and practice of qualitative research” from N/A, The Sage handbook of qualitative research pp.1-19, Thousand Oaks:

Whitehead, J. (2007), Article 3, Research Intelligence, British Educational Research Association, Vol 100, p17.

 

The journey begins… Again!

Hello again. Long time no see. After a year and a half hiatus, Joe Blogg’s Boe Blog is officially back in business! I thoroughly enjoyed writing this blog for Module 2, and I’m excited by the prospect of incorporating it into my thought processes in this final taught module as I prepare the ground work for the BOE Masters dissertation next year. Yes it will be therapeutic in terms of gathering my thoughts, but what do I intend to get out the blog this time around? Previously, I set out a number of objectives that I wanted to achieve in my first blog series, which turned out to be a good strategy as I was then able to revisit them at the end and summarize how I’d achieved my goals. I am hoping to step things up during this module with more regular blog posts – previously I made one post per week but I would like to ideally make 3 posts per week this time around. Will I succeed? Time will tell, but for now I will use the following goals to (hopefully) be constantly addressing these points on a weekly basis:

1. Reflections on learning materials around educational research. As reading is so central to this module, this will be a key aspect that I hope to reflect on each week. However, my reflections will also draw upon other materials that I am given, such as the podcasts and videos, in addition to educational materials that I source myself through my own exploration. Each post will most likely have a common theme that will draw together the sources that I have explored that week.
2. Research method investigation. Each week I will study in detail one particular academic source (mostly like a journal article) on education in terms of the research method used, and the subsequent results. I will be critical in my evaluation of its appropriateness to the research area, and my thoughts around its suitability for use in my dissertation.
3. Research topic exploration for the dissertation. For this I will be reading the latest (2017) journal articles on education research, in order to identify gaps in the current body of research/literature that may represent avenues for empirical investigation in my dissertation. Needless to say, I want my dissertation not only to be academically interesting but to also address an important research area that has not been adequately addressed to date. My discussion of potential gaps as I identify them will therefore inform my chosen dissertation topic, as well as reflect on the other two points of the key topics in education research and which method would be appropriate for me developing this idea for the dissertation.

That’s all for now but I will be back soon with the first of what shall be many more blog posts from me over the coming weeks and months.

Jordan