Activity 16.1: Investigating research proposals

A research proposal should be as specific and focused as possible. If the research is being driven by gaps in the existing literature, which of these gaps will you attempt to address? If your research is being driven by theoretical or policy debates, which specific points of these debates are you going to focus on?

Use a contents list and plan carefully so that each sentence follows logically from the one before and the reader knows what to expect.  A well written text is a "chain of ideas" following "verbal signposts" in the text.

Key components are:

Title

Concise and descriptive

Abstract

Approximately 300 words. Include the research question, the rationale for the study, the hypothesis (if any) and the method.

Introduction

• A description of the research problem

A clear and simple formulation of the research question followed by where the idea came from, clarifying any concepts need explaining.

• An argument as to why that problem is important

Does the research aim to resolve theoretical questions; develop better theoretical models; aim to influence public policy; or aim to change the way people do their jobs in a particular field?

Describe context, showing necessity and importance.

Set delimitations of research and define key concepts.

Literature Review

This needs to provide an integrated overview of the field of study showing your awareness of the relevant theories, models, studies and methodologies. It provides a conceptual framework for the reader and demonstrates that the researcher is aware of the breadth and diversity of literature relating to the research question.

You need to demonstrate the manner in which your research questions emanate from gaps in the existing empirical literature or apply a theory to a specific context.

Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature).

A description of the proposed research methodology

Demonstrate your knowledge of alternative methods and make the case that your approach is the most appropriate and most valid way to address your research question

Hypotheses

Research Design

Sampling techniques and how they represent population (vital to validity)

When particular measurement instruments are used, important to explain how those instruments were developed, where they have previously been used, and to what effect.

Data collection procedures

Data analysis

A description of how the research findings will be used and/or disseminated

You need to communicate a sense of enthusiasm and confidence without exaggerating the merits of your proposal. That is why you also need to mention the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research, which may be justified by time and financial constraints as well as by the early developmental stage of your research area.

References

Birmingham City University guidelines: http://www.ssdd.bcu.ac.uk/learner/writingguides/1.07.htm

University of Nottingham Business School:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/phd/Proposal.html

Trinity Western University

http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_how_to_write_P_Wong.htm

Activity 13.4: Reading 16 (2.5 hours)

Read Gillen's paper in full.

• To what extent do you think the "new synthesis of methods" (p.72) is actually new?

Gillen uses the term 'virtual literacy ethnography' for her 'new synthesis of method'. I am not sure that they really are new methods or even a new collection of methods as she says that "I aim to explore the range of literacy practices...." (p.57) but then goes on to say that there was only "a tiny amount of speech in-world" (p.59) and that conversation was mainly written, the forum was written and all the material on the Wiki that she describes is also written. She does mention 'multi-modality' (p.69) in connection with Wiki but this is not analysed or even discussed. Julie Coiro has published some interesting things on new literacy practices including being one of the editors of The Handbook of Research on New Literacies where literacy is discussed as a constantly evolving medium where the author has to make choices about which forms and functions most suit their purpose. Gillen appears to have restricted the analysis only to the traditional analysis of language used although she also comments on collaboration

The method does not seem to address the aim as it only analyses the written word with a frequency list of words drawn up and compared to newspaper articles, correspondence and everyday adult conversation - very different conversation forms to that used when encountering another young person's character in SL.

• Would your methods have been any different?

I would have liked to explore the young people's choice of the literacies available to them. Lawrence (2005) discusses the use that young people make of slices of digital animation, video and audio in their literacies. In order to examine this complex field, the researcher needs a framework to give the structure and order required to examine literacy from diverse perspectives and I am currently uncertain how I would do this but I am inclining towards Activity Theory as it looks at the temporal dimension of the activities as well as the tool, context etc.

Looking at a single issue, I think I would have liked to examine the support networks that the students set up between themselves in order to develop their literacy practices. For example, Gillen illustrates the literacy of the group by referring to the setting up of the dictionary. I would be interested in how this was done: how they chose and defined the terminology; how they negotiated the methods by which they wrote the definitions. This collaborative aspect of new technologies intrigues me as I work with many young people with Asperger Syndrome who find it very difficult 'letting go' of their work when it needs to go towards a group project.

• How does Gillen's approach relate to the account of ethnography provided by Hammersley in Reading 15? Can the research be considered an ethnography?

I do not consider this work to be a true ethnography. Hine (2000) defines ethnography as 'a researcher spending an extended period of time immersed in a field setting, taking account of the relationships, activities and understandings of those in the setting and participating in those processes' (see activity 13.1 for ref.). Gillen has spent time in-world but does not seem to have taken full part in forums and the Wiki and although she joins in, she is a staff member and researcher and the chat log extract seems to show that the main members of the group tolerate and carefully instruct her in simple tasks, much as an adult is allowed to join in children's games. The analysis concentrates on only one aspect of the activities - the language used, where true ethnography would examine the relationships, context and perceptions of those using the environment.

• What do you think of the researcher's avatar having the message "logging chat" above her head?

It marks her out as different and allows others to avoid her if they do not want their chat recorded. This is great from an ethical point of view but not so beneficial to research. In a simplistic view, ethics generally considers online information to be considered as public if it can be accessed openly by anyone with an internet connection or if the participant understands that it is public. The 'logging chat' logo is intended to inform participants that their conversation is public.

• Given the limitations of space, the discussion of ethics in the paper is brief, but you will have come across other papers about researching Second Life in earlier weeks. Try to list the key ethical issues for such research.

Ethical decision-making and Internet research - Recommendations from the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) ethics working committee (2002)

Informing the participants that the information they are sharing is public

Allowing participants more information about the research e.g. notecard (Rosenburg, 2010 p.26)

Quoting using a person's avatar name should be checked with person before publication

Simple observation cannot happen, researchers must participate so representation is important

I liked the diagram shown in McKee & Porter (2009) which allows for the researcher to use discretion to determine when informed consent is necessary:

H809: Activity 12.8/9: Reading Paper 14 (2 hours)

Read the paper by Cox (2007). When making notes, think about the following questions.

1. Clearly, as Cox says, 'It is relatively easy to collect voluminous amounts of process data', but what else has been added here?

Technology enhanced research (TER) allows the modelling of the process to determine the best points and forms of intervention. A framework devised by Chi (1997) has been suggested in order to determine granularity of the units they are analysing and then develop a coding scheme based on this.

2. What do you think he means by 'triangulated' and 'multiple data source approaches'?

Triangulation is a method used by qualitative researchers to check and establish validity in their studies.

Data triangulation: A key strategy is to categorise each stakeholder in your study and include a comparable number of people from each group.

Investigator triangulation: several investigators used with each using same method, findings are compared, if similar than validity established.

Theory triangulation: Multiple perspectives i.e. from different disciplines or different theoretical positions within disciplines.

Methodological triangulation: multiple qualitative and/or quantitative methods.

Environmental triangulation: different locations, settings and other key factors.

[From: http://www.rayman-bacchus.net/uploads/documents/Triangulation.pdf Accessed 2nd May 2011]

I thought Cox (2007)  had a slightly different interpretation of triangulation than one I had come across before. He describes his approach as data triangulation as the data is retrieved from a variety of sources but I would have considered this methodological triangulation as multiple methodologies are required to collect the data. I suppose that the terminology does not really matter as the whole point of triangulation is to validate the data by approaching from various angles and compare the results to see if they are consistent.

I had a few problems reading this paper. I kept getting confused between granularity as used in this context; granularity as referred to in the IEEE/LOM; and the granularity used in data management for databases. All very similar but with enough overlap to confuse me!

My thoughts so far are as follows:

Learner performance is a very high level of granularity.
Learner performance on one exercise is a lower level of granularity
Learner performance on one aspect of an exercise is an even lower level of granularity

I think that Cox was saying that a researcher needs to determine the lowest level of granularity required to answer the research question and then use this as a basic unit in order to model the process using data gleaned from various methodologies..

Is this what others understood from the paper?

Activity 12.4 & 12.5: Second Life research in education

I looked at a few journal papers and also looked at some more general articles on accessibility in Second Life as this is an area that impacts on my work and in which I am especially interested. I have included two journal articles in my blog and also two magazine reports.

The research that I examined all seemed to involve practitioner-researchers using SL as a tool within their educational settings and the analysis was based on the assessments that the learners completed together with questionnaires/interviews and practitioner perceptions. Little account was taken of the fact that the learners were being assessed and that researchers were closely involved with the learners and the effects that these could have on the results. All the research I looked at was qualitative and studied constructivist, problem-based learning.

Good, J., Howland, K. and Thackray, L. (2008) 'Problem-based learning spanning real and virtual words: a case study in Second Life', Research in Learning Technology, 16: 3, 163 - 172.

Project teams were paired with clients from Sussex Learning Network partner institutions to design learning experiences that corresponded to real curriculum needs within the vocational learning arena. The clients were asked to identify issues which were difficult, dangerous or impossible to teach in real life, to hold an initial meeting with the student team to outline their problem area, without offering a solution, and to provide additional input if required during the project.

Assessment by portfolio:
Production of a machinima (a short film shot within SL) which showed the highlights of their learning experience
A group document describing the project overall
An individual document grounding the learning experience in the relevant literature, reflecting on the overall experience, providing a critique of their learning experience and engaging in a broader discussion of the value of IVWs for learning.

The project was supported by eight sessions of two hours each, where students were introduced to a range of learning theories, initial orientation and building classes in SL and mentoring by a staff team experienced in interactive technologies, learning theory and SL.

Schiller, S.Z. (2009) 'Practicing Learner-Centered Teaching: Pedagogical Design and Assessment of a Second Life Project', Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 3, pp. 369-381

The Second Life project was implemented in an MBA-IS course in which thirty-two students were randomly assigned to eight teams. Each team managed an avatar and completed a series of business-related activities.

Teacher facilitates with guided activities
Snapshots
Chat transcripts
Reflection essays
Group presentation in class
Post-activity survey

As this was part of an official course, the assessments were valuable to the students but also gave feedback to practitioner-researchers. Results may be biased due to students perceiving requirements for positive feedback in order to pass the course.

Springer, R. (2009) 'Speech in a Virtual World, Part II', Speech Technology Magazine, 14, 7, p. 42

Programs have been designed specifically to integrate assistive technologies with SL so disabled users can participate. Two of these are TextSL and Max, the Virtual Guide Dog.

TextSL, a free download, harnesses the JAWS engine from Freedom Scientific to enable visually impaired users to access SL using the screen reader. TextSL supports commands for moving one's avatar, interacting with other avatars, and getting information about one's environment, such as the objects or avatars that are in the vicinity. It will also read the text in the chat window. The program, which was created by Eelke Folmer, an assistant professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Nevada-Reno, is compatible with the JAWS screen reader and runs on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.

Max, the Virtual Guide Dog, was created as a proof-of-concept to show that SL could be made accessible to people with all types of disabilities. Max attaches to one's avatar, and its radar moves the user and interacts with objects. Max can tell a user what she can reach out and touch, printing the information into the chat window. Max can also help a user find a person or place and transport the user to a desired location. If a device or object has a .WAV file associated with it, then Max can play the audio file as well.

Springer, R. (2009) 'Speech in a Virtual World', Speech Technology Magazine, July/August.

http://www.speechtechmag.com/Articles/Column/Voice-Value/Speech-in-a-Virtual-World-55189.aspx

An estimated 50 million to nearly 200 million people use virtual worlds like Second Life (the range can be attributed to an overlap of users among sites and a differentiation between registered and active users). We don't have hard numbers regarding how many users have disabilities, but statistics on video gaming offer insight. As many as 20 percent of the estimated 300 million to 400 million video gamers are disabled, a 2008 survey by PopCap revealed. Considering that roughly 15 percent of the U.S. population is disabled, people with disabilities are overrepresented in the gaming market. Those surveyed reported more significant benefits from playing video games than their nondisabled counterparts.

Activity 11.9: Validity

Reading 11: Bos et al. (2002)

Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development

To what extent does the study demonstrate that its findings generalise to other participants, places or times?

States that it suggests social dilemma tasks elicit exploitative and self-protective behaviours and so the study relates to interpersonal trust in these types of risk. This is a population of students and others attached to a university with the associated assumptions of technological literacy and intelligence levels.

To what extent are causal relationships, rather than just correlations, demonstrated?

Just correlations - there are many factors which may affect trust development and it is uncertain how many of these were kept constant. It is reported that the participants did not know each other before the study but they may have had friends in common which would affect trust. Personal disclosures were discouraged but it does not report whether conversations were monitored. I believe that it has previously been found (can't find ref.) that personal disclosures in online situations can encourage group formation.

Are the instruments used in the study actually measuring what the researchers claim they measure?

I do not think that there is necessarily a link between the group pay-off and the degree of cooperation. For example, there must be an aspect of intelligence required to understand the necessity for cooperation. In this case the participants were all students or others associated with the university and so a level of intelligence can be assumed but this may not correspond to an understanding of the how the game works.

How strong is the evidence for the claims?

A major limitation of the results from a one-way ANOVA is that it does not say how the means differ, just that the means are not equal to each other. To solve this, post-hoc tests can be used - a test conducted after you already know that there is a difference among the means. Given a set of 3 means, the Tukey procedure will test all possible 2-way comparisons: 1&2, 1&3, and 2&3 and it is optimised to reduce the likelihood of producing random positives when doing pairwise comparisons.

This showed a significant difference between text and the other three but not between the other three. This was conducted at the end of the study.

Are alternative explanations possible?

High quality video cf conference telephones for the audio and very simple text system. Chatspace is very simple and poor quality site with spelling mistakes and poor text/background definition on the home page.

There may have been people who did not work well in groups and created problems in group trust formation. This may have been detected by the post-study questionnaire but it does not say whether these were excluded or included in the results. I presume they were included but how were they distributed throughout the groups? Were there more in the text group?

How could claims be tested more strongly?

I would like to see good quality technology used for each condition and recording of the sessions to give a richer understanding of how the relationships formed. In some cases were there individuals who obstructed the ability to form trust? This could be detected from recordings of text messages, chat and video.

Reading 12: Ardalan et al. (2007)

A comparison of student feedback obtained through paper-based and web-based surveys of faculty teaching

To what extent does the study demonstrate that its findings generalise to other participants, places or times?

A student population was used so may be able to generalise to other student populations, which was the aim of the article, but not to other populations. The web-based survey is claimed to be equally available to all students which may be true for a university population but not the general population.

To what extent are causal relationships, rather than just correlations, demonstrated?

Just correlations.

Are the instruments used in the study actually measuring what the researchers claim they measure?

Chi-square is a statistical test commonly used to compare observed data with data we would expect to obtain according to a specific hypothesis. The chi-square tests the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant difference between the expected and observed result.

The t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.

How strong is the evidence for the claims?

Statistics seem to be good but there are many variables which are unaccounted for: the same courses were assessed but there is no mention of whether the module format was changed or whether teaching staff were changed.

Are alternative explanations possible?

Testing so many hypotheses at one time leads to confusing results. There is no mention on how the paper-based questionnaires were presented to the students and who presented them although there is comprehensive discussion on how the web-based survey was presented.

The change in response rate is put down to the change in format from paper-based to web-based but no account is made of how positions had changed over the 12 month period. The students were used to the paper-based survey and not familiar with the web-version and it seems that the paper-based survey was to some extent enforced as it seems to have been handed out in class.

How could claims be tested more strongly?

Which ones!

I would like to see a dual-methodologies approach to find out why students chose to participate in the survey and to give some depth to their answers. Were the answers on the enforced paper-based survey less accurate to true feelings?

Activity 11.6: Reading the papers (5 hours)

Effects of Four Computer-Mediated Communications Channels on Trust Development. Bos et al. (2002)

Questions: What research questions are being addressed?

Is trust development in inhibited in video and audio when compared to face-to-face settings?

Setting: What is the sector and setting? (e.g. school, higher education, training, informal learning)

• University students - did not know each other outside games
• F2F, audio, video, text chat
• Single and Mixed gender groups
• Social dilemma game (Daytrader)

Concepts: What theories, concepts and key terms are being used?

• Trust - 'a willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expectations about the actions of others'
• Delayed trust
• Fragile trust
• Bordia (1997) - text-based interaction less effective for tasks that have a high social-emotive content.
• Audio-conferencing - encourages domination by high-status group members (France et al., 2001)
• Text-based - fosters equal participation (Kiesler et al., 1984)

Methods: What methods of data collection and analysis are used? (e.g. the number of participants; the type of technologies; the use of interviews, surveys, observation, etc.)

• 66 3-person groups - 105 male, 93 female - av. Age 23
• 9 all-male, 7 all-female, 36 mixed gender groups
• Distributed more or less equally
• Pre-questionnaire on general trustingness
• Post-questionnaire on game behaviours and attitudes to other players
• Co-operation measured by total payoff

Findings: What did this research find out?

• Communication condition had significant effect on investment
• Greatest distance between chat and the other three
• No significant difference between other three at end of test
• All three mediated conditions delayed trust
• Partial agreement used in mediated conditions (not signif)
• Mediated conditions are more vulnerable to defections and more fragile
• Audio and video almost identical

Limitations: What are the limitations of the methods used?

• Not allowed to exchange social information
• Assumption: trust determines cooperation
• Value judgements - 'the other players could be trusted' used in second assessment when students knew each other
• Uncertainty of to which trust situations the results apply
• All participants of same age
• All computer literate and used to technologies

Ethics: Are there any ethical issues associated with the research?

• Paid to participate, according to how well they played

Implications: What are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further research?

Some indications that managers can make determinations on which equipment to use depending on degree of trust required in a particular situation.

Classify the studies using Tables 11.1 and 11.2.

The study is Semi-interventionist, A. Asking questions as it uses pre- and post-questionnaires. There is also an aspect of Non-interventionist, C. as records of the amount of money won in each round is used to determine co-operation.

It is difficult to classify the study according to table 11.2 as it does not mention how the questionnaires are distributed. It includes both old (f2f groups) and new (audio/video/ text) learning technologies and we have no information as to whether it was assessed by either old (pen/paper) or new (emailed/web) research methods. I would suspect old research methods so this would give sections 1 and 2.

We also want you to note any difficulties you have with this task:

• Are there words or concepts you don't understand?

Not done any research on trust so no knowledge of previous or other relevant work.

• Are there statistical terms or methods that are new to you?

I had to relook up Tukey's test - similar to t-test but more suitable for multiple comparisons

Finally, how convinced were you by the research?

Initially I thought that I was quite well convinced but I am wondering if this is because it conforms to my expectations. Some research on social dilemma games and how trust relates to cooperation revealed that I may have been correct to be sceptical:

'Some people are, by nature, more likely to trust others. In order to solve both the first-order dilemma (how to agree to organize collective action) and the second order dilemma (who's going to police the agreement), you need both kinds of people: the more trusting people are necessary in order to make an agreement, and the less trusting people are necessary in order to police the agreement'.

http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/390

This suggests that the balance in the group may be as, or more, important to the outcome than the fact that all people are trusting each other enough to cooperate.

A comparison of student feedback obtained through paper-based and web-based surveys of faculty teaching. Ardalan (2007)

Questions: What research questions are being addressed?

Is there a statistically significance difference between student feedback obtained by web-based and paper-based surveys?

Sub questions: 1. The equality of the percentage of the total number of respondents in each semester out of the total enrolments was considered.

2. The equality of student ratings of faculty teaching for the eight quantitative questions.

3. Whether there was a statistically significant change between the two methods in student ratings for faculty who were rated above the college average in the paper-based method

4. Whether there was a statistically significant change between the two methods in student ratings for faculty who were rated below the college average when the paper-based method was used

5. The ratio of the number of students who provided a qualitative response to the number of students who completed the quantitative portion of the survey between the two methods

6. The number of students who gave a positive, mixed or negative response between the two methods

7. the length of comments made by students between the two methods

8. the ratio of the number of students who provided a constructive response to the number of students who provided a response between the two methods

9. the number of constructive comments in each student response between the two methods

10. the ratios of number of constructive comments and the number of constructive comments that were qualified by students between the two methods

Setting: What is the sector and setting? (e.g. school, higher education, training, informal learning)

• Higher education

Concepts: What theories, concepts and key terms are being used?

• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Various theories on differences between pen and paper and web surveys

Methods: What methods of data collection and analysis are used? (e.g. the number of participants; the type of technologies; the use of interviews, surveys, observation, etc.)

• No incentives
• Email and class information
• Same survey for online and pen/paper
• Anonymity ensured
• 8 quantitative (Likert scale)
• Same semester; 2 consecutive years; paired as to course
• 46 pairs; u/g and graduate level
• No signif demographic changes

Findings: What did this research find out?

• A significantly larger number of students provided feedback when the paper-based method was used.
• No significant difference in ratings for faculty teaching
• Decrease in overall effectiveness rating for faculties with high ratings when using web survey
• Increase in overall effectiveness rating for faculties with low ratings when using web survey
• students who participate in the survey of faculty teaching on the Web are likely to provide the same amount of feedback as those who participate in the paper-based method.
• This result suggests no differences between the feedback students provide on their level of satisfaction with faculty teaching in the two methods
• a statistically significant increase in the feedback length for the web-based method
• although students may provide longer responses, the responses are not necessarily more constructive
• The results of Hypotheses 8 and 9 contradict the expectation stated in the literature that web-based feedback will be more thoughtful
• Students provided more qualified constructive comments in the web-based method than in the paper-based method.

Limitations: What are the limitations of the methods used?

Ethics: Are there any ethical issues associated with the research?

• Equal access? Some problems with accessibility for VI students but this can also be a problem with pen/paper
• Permission obtained from Dean and VP academic affairs in addition to normal procedure
• Data removed that would identify department/course/professor

Implications: What are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further research?

• an environment without time pressure and in which the student rates a number of sections at the same time may be less conducive to the use of extremes in the rating
• Decrease in respondents may cause problems with small sample sizes and statistical analysis- incentives suggested

Classify the studies using Tables 11.1 and 11.2.

Semi-interventionist - A. Asking questions. Survey.

An old learning technology (F2F course) with a mixture of old and new research methods. Sections 1,3.

We also want you to note any difficulties you have with this task:

• Are there words or concepts you don't understand? No
• Are there statistical terms or methods that are new to you? No

Finally, how convinced were you by the research?

Interesting results. I was concerned about the definitions for constructive responses and qualified constructive responses and so I was not convinced by the conclusions that came from those hypotheses.

Activity 11.2: Categorising the studies met so far (1.5 hours)

Use Table 11.1 to classify each of the empirical research studies met so far in the H809 readings. Note down your reasoning and conclusions.

I found this quite difficult to do in many cases as the categories seemed to have a very positivist slant and some of the studies we looked at were anti-positivist. I think my confusion arose when 'asking questions' covers both interviews and questionnaires and is considered to be semi-interventionalist. In my opinion many questionnaires produce quantitative data and can be categorised as semi-interventionalist but interviews produce mainly qualitative data and are interventionalist because the role of the interviewer must be accounted for. Looking back on the date of initial production of these categories (Madge, 1953) I suppose it is natural that there is a strong positivist approach at this time.

So, what are 'new' research methods and how do they relate to the framework in Table 11.1?

Let's consider three variants of 'asking questions' using interviews:

Interview 1: A woman with a clipboard stops you in the street and asks you a lot of questions about soap powder.

Interview 2: Somebody phones you up to ask you how you are planning to vote.

Interview 3: You are asked to take part in an e-interview, using email, about your Open University studies. For most of us this would feel like a new research method.

They are all 'interviews' - the researcher asks questions and you, the respondent, answer them. Spend a few minutes reflecting on what exactly is 'new' about Interview 3.

I believe that 'new' reflects the method of communication; the material that can be included (screen shots, audio files, video); and the researcher's acknowledgement of their part in the process.

Activity 11.3: Effect of interviewing style (15 minutes)

We want you to do a 'mind experiment'. Imagine you are being interviewed about your views on government spending on education.

• Do you think your answers would be different, depending upon which of the three interview methods mentioned above was actually used?
• How would they be different?
• What if the topic was whether you had ever broken professional rules?

Once you have reflected and made notes, discuss your thoughts in the Modulewide Forum.

Interview 1: I am likely to refuse as I do not want to be interviewed about soap powder just for the benefit for commercial companies and I am generally busy and do not want to be interrupted in the middle of a task.

Interview 2: I would definitely refuse - I hate phone interviews, my voting choice is private information and I hate being interrupted in the middle of things.

Interview 3: Course information is useful research for planning and so I would be inclined to take part. The fact that it is by email is also a positive as I can take part when it is convenient for me and I am not interrupted.

I would have to consider the purpose of the interview to be serious and important work if I were ever to consider answering the question concerning whether I had ever broken professional rules. I would also have to be certain of anonymity.

My answers were interesting. They resonated with the comments made by Adam Joinson that nowadays the more sophisticated audience is aware that online is confidential rather than anonymous. I also agree with Adam that I am encouraged to participate if the research is transparent i.e. where I can see a useful outcome for the data.

Activity 9.3: Comparing Reading 10 with Readings 8 and 9 (2 hours)

In your tutor group forum, discuss how you see the differences between these readings:

I believe that Reading 8 (Tolmie) illustrated a piece of research that concentrated on one aspect of collaborative learning: the effect of context. Examining this as a single concern allowed its analysis in depth although the researchers raise concerns about missing subtle cues. The other two readings used frameworks to examine a broader field and both sets of authors raise concerns about the coarseness of the analysis. Reading 9 (Crook & Dymott) uses a cognitive framework with its emphasis on individual interactions with different tools and Reading 10 (Greenhow & Belbas) uses a constructivist framework with its emphasis on cultural-historical context and how human consciousness effects behaviour. This framework is used to study group interactions.

Activity 9.4: Re-examining your taxonomy of theories (2 hours)

Look back to Activity 7.5, in which you attempted to develop a taxonomy for the theories in the wiki. How do Readings 8, 9 and 10 fit into this taxonomy? Share your reflections in the tutor group forums.

I looked at the reports of the collaborative activities used by the three papers and fitted them into the HLM model that I developed for the taxonomy I used for activity 7.5. It surprised me a little to see that it actually worked! Reading 9 came into line with the cognitive approach and the other two were more closely matched with the constructive and socially situated approaches. This could be claimed to be a good result but I am not happy with it. I have been doing some research this week on different learning theories and I have come up with the following:

I am still feeling my way with all this and not sure I am correct. I would really welcome some input from other people on this before I approach the TMA. My current thoughts are that socially-situated learning and experiential learning are sub-categories of either congitivism or constructivism, depending on how they are approached.

If I am correct, then the taxonomy I devised distinguished well between the main paradigms but is not good for differentiating between the theories.

Tolmie, A. (2001) 'Examining learning in relation to the contexts of use of ICT', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235-41.

Crook, C. and Dymott, R. (2005) 'ICT and the literacy practices of student writing' in Monteith, M. (ed.) Teaching Secondary School Literacies with ICT, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Table 8.1: Comparing perspectives and methodologies

1. Does learning happen within the head of an individual, or is it mediated, situated and distributed?

I believe that learning is mediated by tools and that, by using these tools, we alter our learning experiences. To that extent I concur with distributed learning but I also believe that learning is situated in a historical and social context and affected by our past experiences with similar activities and tools.

2. What does a test or exam measure?

The ability to memorise facts and apply them under time pressure.

Tolmie, A. (2001) 'Examining learning in relation to the contexts of use of ICT', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235-41.

The individual as being the focus of research into learning (Shweder, 1990).As the focus is on the individual and what is happening in their head, this perspective views the individual's context as surrounding them. The individual is surrounded by, for example, books, computers and a classroom that exist separately from themselves; therefore, the context is theorised to affect things that individuals do. A computer affects the way a pupil learns, the classroom environment affects the behaviour of children within it, etc. This cause-effect model is an aspect of a positivist approach to learning.

1. Take particular notice of how 'context' is conceptualised in Tolmie's paper and make notes of, or highlight, the words and sentences that do this.
2. In the study about gender effects, discussed in the section headed 'The effects of context', note the links between the theoretical perspective, the way in which gender is conceptualised as context, and the way in which learning is assessed quantitatively.

Following well-established patterns of interactional behaviour wrt conflict management p.237

• Where is the learning located? 12-15yrs, school
• Where is the focus of enquiry? Physics- trajectory of falling objects
• How is learning assessed? Pre-test and post-test performance

Also note how gender is conceptualised. Is it something that surrounds a person? Is it something that a person 'has'? Or is it a set of cultural expectations enacted by that person?

Hard to tell from this but it seems to be suggesting that the pupils are performing to expected cultural norms.

3. The section headed 'Context effects and unintended consequences for learning' discusses the presence or absence of software prompts. In this study:

• Where is the learning located? 9-14yrs, school
• Where is the focus of enquiry? Fair testing with five factors
• How is learning assessed? Pre-test and post-test performance
• How are the software prompts discussed in terms of context?

Computer positioned alongside the apparatus suggesting that it is included as part of the equipment, rather than an addition. In test, warning prompts were issued but in control there were no warning prompts although data were still input to the computer reinforcing the fact that the technology is part of the context.

Activity 7.3: Reading the first part of the Conole et al. (2004) paper (2 hours)

'Introduction' (pp. 17-21).

1. Who do the authors see as the main audience for this paper?

Practioners: 'Our assertion is that a better articulation and mapping of different pedagogical processes, tools and techniques will provide a pedagogic approach that is more reflexive and consistent with practitioners' theoretical perspective on learning and teaching' p.17

2. What is the main aim of the paper?

To support e-learning practitioner's engagement with pedagogies and approaches to learning: 'as academics outside the field of education, they find the diverse array of theoretical perspectives alien and overwhelming (McNaught, 2003)' p.18

3. Try to fit the readings met so far in the module into Table 1

Reading 1: Hiltz & Meinke (1989)

"Learning is the structuring of a situation in ways that help students change, through learning, in intentional (and sometimes unintentional) ways" (Johnson & Johnson, quoted on p. 432)
Suggests a behaviourist view of learning in that the students' behaviours are modified in the desired direction. (Operant conditioning, Skinner)

The VC still employs a transmissive format with e-lectures although some self-determination in order of activities is indicated, some active dialogue is employed and presentations are assessed.
Other parts of the paper suggest a more social and participatory form of education following Lave & Wenger's theories.

Reading 2: Wegerif & Mercer (1997)

Mainly experiential - the children are using problem-based learning but it is also socially situated. It could also be suggested to be systems theory as the researchers are looking at the effects of additional coaching on the problem-solving.

Reading 3: Laurillard (1994)

Laurillard discusses context, culture and social aspects as well as interactions between tools and students. I would think this fits best with activity theory as it is 'action through mediating artefacts.....within a social setting' Conole et al. (2004). It would be just as easy to argue for experiential and socially situated learning.

Reading 4: Oliver et al. (2007)

Various perspectives are discussed but the authors come down on the side of socially situated learning with the comment that 'In a complex, contested area such as this, clarity about the researcher's position is a necessary condition for establishing the credibility of research findings.' p.37

Reading 5: Roschelle (1992)

Activity Theory - interactions between the two students and between the students and the computer.

Activity 7.4: Read the rest of the paper (2 hours)

Ok. Confession here - I absolutely hate this model. It clarifies nothing to me and I find the diagrams totally confusing. I had to use them in H800 and eventually gave up and discussed the concepts with my daughter who told me where to put the dots on the lines. She likes 3D diagrams and used them all the time in geology.

I did some research and found this journal article and the tabular format which I find a little easier to understand. My reservations about this model is that I think that many practitioners would also find it really difficult to understand and, far from simplifying things for practitioners, it will make them more complicated.

I have left out some of the points as no info. in the papers

Activity      Indiv.-Social      Non-Refl.-Refl.           Expr.-Info.

Reading 1   --X------------      ------X---------             ---------X-----

Reading 2   -------------X-      -------------X--             ---X-----------

Reading 3   ------------X--      -------------X-

Reading 4   ------------X-

Reading 5   --------------X-     --------------X-             -X-------------

Individual - Where the individual is the focus of learning

Social - learning is explained through interaction with others through discourse and collaboration and the wider social context within which the learning takes place.

Reflection - Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience is transformed into learning.

Non-reflection - Where learning is explained with reference to processes such as conditioning, preconscious learning, skills learning and memorisation

Information - Where an external body of information such as text, artefacts and bodies of knowledge form the basis of experience and the raw material for learning.

Experience - Where learning arises through direct experience, activity and practical application.

After: Conole, G., Smith, J. and White, S. (2007) 'A critique of the impact of policy and funding' in Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds) Contemporary Perspectives on E-learning Research, London, RoutledgeFalmer.

Added facts from:

http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html

Wikipedia

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/british.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1038820.stm

I designed a table comparing the social and political history of the UK with learning theories and e-learning practice (based on the Conole et al. (2007) timeline).

Looking at this table I can see a growing awareness of the importance of self-determination from 1950-1990 with a lessening of control as de-colonisation is mirrored by a move from behaviourism to cognitive theories where learning is located in the individual rather than imposed by the teacher. At this point e-learning practice is lagging behind with its concentration on behaviourist principles although functionality is improving.

Between 1990 and 1995 this concentration in individuals continues but is based more in context as Kuwait is liberated and the peace process in N. Ireland is started. Co-operation is beginning to show its effects as Britain becomes more involved in the European Union and the Chunnel is constructed. In educational research there is a rise of constructivism with its awareness of cultural history and this is also becoming a part of educational practice.

Moving towards the present, we see a concentration on autonomy with the referenda for Wales and Scotland and the stated aims of the Iraq war being to encourage self-determination and democracy. The current situation in Libya is another example of minimal interference to protect people in context and allow them to determine their own future. This social context is again mirrored by the research concepts of social constructivism and the educational practice of communities of practice.

H809: Activity 6.4 Research Ethics Policy Documents

Ethics principles for research involving human participants

Principle 1: Compliance with protocol

Principle 2: Informed consent

Principle 3: Openness and integrity

Principle 4: Protection from harm

Principle 5: Confidentiality

Principle 6: Professional codes of practice and ethics

H809: Activity 6.5 Exploring Ethical Issues Associated with Online Research

Diversity of views is mentioned. I am not sure I agree that the diversity of views is due to the fact that it is a new field. I have worked in sports coaching in the past and I currently work in student support and so I have attended many training sessions in ethics. I have always been surprised at the diversity of views on how to approach situations. Most trainings are carried out along the lines of discussions on how to approach various situations and people's views depend on many factors including culture and heritage.

Lurking. My daughter was involved with a very responsible website which supported young people involved in self-harm. I remember vividly how upset and betrayed she felt when a researcher, who had joined the site and been welcomed by the members, finally disclosed that she was involved in research. The harm caused was enormous as the members were no longer sure who they could trust. This was a well respected site, unlike some of the others, and it provided a great deal of support to young people and their parents but it closed a few months after this incident.

According to Eysenbach and Till (2001), the following issues should be discussed before studying an internet community:

1. Intrusiveness. Discuss the extent to which the research is intrusive (will it involve passive analysis of internet postings or more active involvement in the community by participating?);
2. Perceived privacy. Discuss (preferably in consultation with members of the community) the level of perceived privacy of the community (Is it a closed group requiring registration? What is its membership size? What are the group norms?);
3. Vulnerability. Discuss how vulnerable the community is (for example, a mailing list for victims of sexual abuse or HIV/AIDS may be a vulnerable community);
4. Potential harm. As a result of the above, discuss whether the intrusion of the researcher or publication of the results has potential to harm individuals or the community as a whole;
5. Informed consent. Discuss whether informed consent is required and how it will be obtained;
6. Confidentiality. How can the anonymity of participants be protected?;
7. Intellectual property rights. In some cases participants may not seek anonymity, but publicity, so the use of postings without attribution may not be appropriate.

BERA link not working but found it here:

http://www.bera.ac.uk/ethics-and-educational-research-2/

Activity 6.7: Contribute to a set of research ethics case studies (2 hours)

Using the wiki on the module website, contribute a research ethics case study. This means providing a synopsis of the information that relevant ethics committees or gatekeepers might need for a project addressing the empirical research question you outlined in TMA01. Obviously a committee or gatekeeper might need full details, but for the purposes of this exercise, keep it as brief as possible while including the salient information.

Central Research Question: Do first year undergraduate Earth Science students at Keele University exhibit a discrepancy between their actual and perceived core technological literacy skills?

Sub-questions:

SQ1:   What are the students' perceptions of their levels of expertise in word processing, spreadsheets and presentation packages?

o   Likert-type survey

SQ2:    How do students perform in analysis of their skills in word processing, spreadsheets and presentation packages?

o   An assessment in the computer lab

SQ3:    Is there a discrepancy between perceived and actual core technological literacy skills?

o   Analysis by researcher

SQ4:    What are students' opinions on their use of word processing, spreadsheets and presentation packages?

o   Open-ended questions as part of the survey

Participants:

First year undergraduate students in the department of Earth Sciences

Principle 1: Compliance with protocol

A protocol will be completed which specifies the procedures for recruiting the participants, gathering and managing data. It will be signed by all involved in the research.

Principle 2: Informed consent

The aims of the research and the protocol will be explained as part of the introductory lecture in fresher's week. Students will be asked if they will participate in the research and it will be explained that they will be identified by a research number that does not correlate with their student number. They will be informed that no lecturers will be involved in the research and that they will not be identified. They will also be informed that they can choose to withdraw from the study at any time and that they can choose not to answer any questions if they prefer.

No deception will be necessary

Principle 3: Openness and integrity

Students will be informed immediately in the case of any problem occurring that may be to the detriment of the student. For example, where a lecturer discovers the identity of students participating in the research.

No incentives will be offered to participants

Participants will be offered a copy of the final report.

Principle 4: Protection from harm

Participants may experience distress or discomfort if they have problems completing the assessment. The researcher will be prepared to recognise this and offer reassurance that the assessment results are for research purposes only, will not be shown to lecturers and will be anonymous. They will also remind the participant that they may withdraw from the assessment at any time.

Assessments will be held in freshers' week where it will have minimal impact on the normal workload of the participants

Principle 5: Confidentiality

It will be explained that they will be identified by a research number that does not correlate with their student number. They will be informed that no lecturers will be involved in the research and that they will not be identified.

Any disclosures concerning illegal or harmful behaviour which come to light in the course of the research will be disclosed to the relevant authorities. The participants will be informed of this disclosure before it happens if possible.

Principle 6: Professional codes of practice and ethics

Storage of personal data, in order to contact participants, will accord with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information act 2000. Participants will be informed of storage for this use.

Any students who are entitled to special circumstances in examinations and tests will be allowed to the same percentage of extra time in the assessment if required.

Screen reading software will be available for any student if required.