edde 802 - assignment 1

Running head: POTENTIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS 1

Theoretical Paradigms and Potential Research Projects

Koutropoulos, Apostolos

Athabasca University

Professor: Dr. George Siemens

Assignment 1

February 17, 2015

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects 2

Assignment 1: Theoretical Paradigms and Potential Research Projects

PositioningSubject of Inquiry

An area of research that is of interest to me deals with a relatively new phenomenon called the Open Online Course. I am hesitant to say that I am interested in “Massive” Open Online Courses (MOOCs) because what one considered “massive” is relative. Stephen Downes, in early connectivist MOOCs (cMOOC) considered the optimal size of the MOOC to be 150 active participants, or Dunbar’s number (Downes, 2013). In xMOOCs however, MOOCs that follow a different model of delivery than the original cMOOCs, we see that that enrollments are well above the 150 registrants discussed by Downes as an optimal number of participants in the MOOC. How many of those registrants are active, and how one measures activity is currently subject to debate.

Open Online Courses, massive or not, have quite a few areas that make them interesting and important to education. The specific areas of interest within Open Online Courses depend on which perspectives frame your world view and where you are situated within the academic apparatus. They are simultaneously the cause of great cheer, and great jeer within academic circles. Those who support them see them as a democratizing force, while those who critique them point to Noble’s (1998) work and warn of the potential for MOOCs to become the new diploma mills. As a researcher, and as someone who’s participated in a variety of MOOCs since 2011, I am confident in saying that neither of these sides gets its 100% right, and that a more accurate estimation of what is happening with MOOCs lies somewhere in-between these two polarizing positions.

From a research perspective this is an important topic to research for a variety of reasons. For instance, campus administrators can learn how to use Open Courses to increase enrollments, enhance their alumni outreach, or examine ways that an alignment with the open movement can enhance their branding. Despite the business applications and implications of Open, I am more interested in the pedagogical aspects of Open Courses. I am interested in examining the current research literature in online and distance education and applying it to Open Courses in order to determine where the gaps are. I am also interested in examining how Open Courses differ from Traditional Courses. Wiley (2014) writes about the blurred lines between MOOCs and Traditional distance education courses. One of the areas to examine is whether those lines can be un-blurred, or whether this is the new normal. Lessons learned from Open Online Courses can potentially benefit what we do in our traditional online courses that exist behind the walled-garden of the institutional Learning Management System. While some courses, like nursing courses for example, might still need to remain behind access-controlled mechanism in order to protect subject privacy, not every course might need to remain behind an institutional LMS.

Ontological and Epistemological PositionsOntological. Cohen et al. write that ontological assumptions are “assumptions about the

nature of reality and the nature of things” (2011, p. 3). I used to think that knowledge, and the nature of things, were binary in nature: they exist or they do not exist; it is or it is not. However, at this juncture of my personal and professional development I am somewhere in-between the subjectivist/objectivist divide. Barr Greenfield breaks down subjectivism and objectivism into two philosophical camps as well. Objectivists see the world as essentially knowable and its essence isn’t altered depending on who’s viewing it. On the other hand subjectivists see the


world as existing, but the ways in which people perceive and construe it change its meaning (in Cohen et al., 2011 p. 8). When faced with such a binary divide, it’s hard, and in my view imprudent, to pick a side. While I do think that it is important to discover general laws (a frame from which subjectivists view the world) and while it is important to understand the unique and particular ways each individual engages in a topic of inquiry (a frame from which objectivists view the world), I think it is important to find a midway point between the two. I do believe that it is possible to arrive at generalizability using individual cases. Individual cases can be examined in order to determine what makes them unique. From a variety of unique cases general attributes, that are in-common for all these cases, can be extrapolated. This provides for the conditions under which generalizability may be possible under certain circumstances.

I think that the term that best describes my position is “subtle realism.” This term was coined by Hammersley when he wrote that there is a reality independent of our own knowledge of it, yet we can only know reality from our own personal perspective in it (1995, as referenced in Angen, 2000). An illustrative example of this is the classroom. In a western context a classroom usually means four walls, some desks, and a communal writing surface as a minimum requirement. The interior architecture does have attributes that can be described and quantified, and thus objectively measured and reported. However, how this interior architecture is perceived by the learners, based on their existing mental schemata that have formed from previous experiences with such spaces, can influence how learners interact with those spaces. It also affects how those learners interact with others in those spaces. Thus, knowing that something is a classroom only gets a researcher so far when it comes to really knowing what that space is.

Epistemological. Cohen et al. write that epistemological assumptions are “ways of researching and enquiring into the nature or reality and the nature of things” (2011, p. 3). Given my affinity to find a balance between subjectivist and objectivist worldviews, I think that ways of researching should address both the quantifiable and the qualitative aspects of existence. These two parts should come together to be analyzed and interpreted into one whole. The qualitative and quantitative need to make sense when viewed together. I do think that there is room for Critical Theory in this view of research. I think Critical Theory is important to identifying underlying power structures in the environments that research, and teaching occur, and to help learners take control of their own learning. However, I do think that not all research can be Critical in nature, and it is important to acknowledge the validity of non-Critical, Interpretivist and Positivist, research despite the potential issues with power differential in the respective studies.

In my own research there are certain polarizations that I would like to avoid. The following is a case in point: I’ve been a member of the audience during job interviews for new faculty positions. Here the candidates were explaining their recent research to existing faculty members of the department that they wished to join. The candidates’ research followed qualitative or mixed-methods research methodologies. All of the research focused on K-12 environments and in some cases specifically on technology in education. Instead of focusing on the research setup, process, and findings, some of the critical theorists appeared to lambast the applicants because the researcher failed to address the power differentials and underlying assumptions of access to, and the fit-for-use, of the technology based on socioeconomic factors. The unspoken sentiment, therefore, was that the findings of this research were almost meaningless because technology in the classroom was used, in the critical theorist’s views, as a way to perpetuate cultural and socioeconomic hegemonies. While this may be true at some level,


just because there might be inequity and in technology diffusion this doesn’t mean, in my view, that such research isn’t important to undertake, and that these research results were invalid because of it. I think it is important to acknowledge power and access aspects in our research, and people do, in the limitations sections of their research, but just because research has limitations, it doesn’t mean that the process and the associated results of that process are not useful.

Research ParadigmsCohen et al. (2011) list a variety of paradigms in their text, from a simple three paradigm

list in Chapter 2, to a more expansive list in Chapter 7. The two research paradigms I am closest to are interpretive and critical theory. I don’t think that a positivist view on research is compatible with my own epistemological underpinnings. From the interpretive paradigm I am attracted to the notion of understanding the world through the actors in it. Cohen et al. write that positivists paradigms aim to understand phenomena through “measurability, predictability, controllability, patterning, and the construction of laws” (2011, p. 31). While I do acknowledge that some aspects of human beings can be measured and studied quantitatively, I am not convinced that all variables in human experiments can be accounted for and controlled. And, in instances where they can be controlled, it may not be ethical to do so, therefore making the discussion of controllability of certain variables in human research a purely hypothetical matter. By examining the world through individuals we may not get predictive patterns with one, or two, or a handful of studies, but I do think that by examining multiple similar Interpretivist paradigm studies that use different learner populations we can start to gain an understanding of the overall ideas and patterns in action. It is through this successive estimation that we can seek to propose broad theories that we may then be able to test.

What attracts me to critical theory is the transformative nature of this research. By uncovering interests, and underlying power structures, at work, and challenging their legitimacy we can identify how they serve the purpose of a more equal society. Through critical research we have the potential to change both individuals and society. Understanding these underlying relationships is important because it also helps illuminate how the results of other research, non-critical research, are relevant and applicable to making an impact on society. From a MOOC research point, one of the unspoken assumptions is that learners come to MOOCs with certain knowledge that allows them to engage in the course. Courses may not have formal, listed, pre-requisites, but the truth is that this “hidden” or “assumed” knowledge is something that people would need in order to be successful in a networked environment. Critical paradigms of research can help uncover those unspoken assumptions.

Even though I am interested in exploring research through Critical Theory, I have to admit that there are two elements that prevent me from fully embracing it. First, it appears to me that with critical theory one can have an opinion and pass it off as research, and other researchers may be left without the ability to rebuff these findings because it could be claimed that they are just part of the status quo power. I don’t find that attitude helpful, and it’s hard to be part of a research community that might be, to use a colloquial expression, drinking their own kool aid. Second, I am not fully convinced that critical theory is a separate paradigm. I think one can maintain a level of critical inquiry while using other paradigms. For instance, whether you are using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research methodologies, I think that research findings should be available, in a format that is accessible to members outside of the research


community, so that others can use and act on those research findings. In short, I like the philosophy of Critical Theory, but I am not yet convinced that it can stand on its own.

Research QuestionsDue to the relative newness of MOOCs there are a variety of questions that come to mind

as important to research. These questions deal with a variety of lenses through which a university operates, such as teaching and learning, business aspects of the university, sustainability, and ethical dimensions of education – just to name a few. My interests lie in examining MOOCs through the teaching and learning lens. Some of the broader questions that have come up over the past six months that are of interest are as follows:

What Motivates Learners in MOOCs and what enables a perseverance to complete them?What motivates learners to complete a MOOC? The notion of completeness is a

problematic construct in relation to the MOOC in that it is hard to determine when a learner has completed a MOOC. One definition of completion might be when the learner feels that he has completed a certain body of work, and the completion is based on learner-specified criteria. This definition might be different from the definition that the course designer has in mind when they are designing a MOOC. This question aims to explore not only the reasons behind learner motivation to complete certain work in MOOCs, but also why they might, or might not, persevere and complete the MOOC the way that course creators define completion. This research could follow an Interpretivist paradigm by first having MOOC participants complete a survey that covers the three areas of interest: what do they consider completion? Did they attain it? And, what pushed them toward completion? Then follow-up interviews could be scheduled with a representative sample of participants.

What are ways to effectively on-board learners in cMOOCs?One of the virtues of the cMOOC is the ability of learners to own their own learning

spaces and participate in ways that are more open, as compared to MOOC learning management systems like edx and coursera. Being able design effective on-boarding for those learners new to cMOOCs could aid them in better navigating the landscape of such MOOCs, and perhaps enable them to be more successful learners in those environments. The broader questions here are not only about designing and testing new on-boarding mechanisms, but also determine whether, in-fact, they are effective in their implementation when considering the broader goal of making cMOOCs more accessible to learners. Some basic aspects of this on-boarding are the mechanics of networked participation, underlying critical skills, and workflow management of participation in a cMOOC – in essence developing, what Siemens terms, sensemaking and wayfinding skills (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens, Cormier, 2010). Through Design Based Research it could be possible to iterate through a specific cMOOC topic and successively design, implement, and test on-boarding methods. Most cMOOCs appear to have a few weeks of early access, seeing that they are open, and this pre-MOOC period could be used as a way to deploy and test on-boarding interventions. The method of data collection could direct observation of MOOC participants, surveys, and interviews - especially of those who “dropped out”.

What is the wider applicability of Rhizomatic Learning in Online Learning?Cormier has written about Rhizomatic Education (2008), and more recently in 2014 he

facilitated a MOOC on the topic of the community as curriculum. This MOOC is known, in


short, as rhizo14. This notion of the community being the curriculum may have connections with other thinkers in the field of adult education, such as Knowles and his concept of Andragogy (1984). While Rhizomatic Learning sounds appealing, as an educator it may appear like a chaotic and un-productive way to structure a course, given the existing constraints in Higher Education such as accreditation. With this in mind, the question is: how does one take Rhizomatic Education from the current incubation stage and make it more widely applicable in Higher Education? Is this possible? If yes, under what circumstances? This question could be explored through a critical paradigm where power relationships in the classroom can be analyzed in order to determine which areas of the existing educational setup could support, or hinder, rhizomatic-based learning.

What are the unspoken power relationships and power asymmetries that exist in xMOOCs?

While some may laud xMOOCs as a way of democratizing knowledge, from a cursory look at current xMOOCs, both the platforms used and the pedagogical practices, one is usually able to see that existing classroom power structures are replicated in xMOOC environments. Through a critical research paradigm researchers could examine a section of xMOOCs, in a variety of different languages, on a variety of different platforms, and in a variety of different disciplines to analyze how power, implied or actual, is wielded by course creators, and how power is, or is not, shared between instructors and participants, and in participant and participant interactions. This could be undertaken both as an analysis of the structure and design of the courses, but also through critical discourse analysis, examining both instructor provided texts, and participant created texts.

Ethical & Credibility ConsiderationsStudy Participants

The participants in the first two research questions would be learners in a cMOOC that is currently being offered. In this scenario I am making the assumption that the MOOC offered is the Design and Instruction of Online Learning MOOC which I would develop. This MOOC will be an open version of the course I currently teach for my institution. In such a scenario not only am I the researcher, but I might also potentially be perceived as an authority figure by those who are participating in the course formally and wish to receive a final grade for the course. This might be similar to University of Manitoba students in the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge ’08 MOOC.

In the third research question, following a critical paradigm, it is probable that the easiest environment to gain access to might be a higher education environment, specifically my own institution which is an urban higher education institution. In this environment the participants of the study would include the learners, the instructors, and the instructional designers that are helping faculty design their online courses. Additionally participants may be members of curriculum committees of the departments whose courses students are taking. Even with academic freedom, there may be underlying departmental or college policies that would need scrutiny in order to fully analyze the efficacy of rhizomatic learning in this environment. In this scenario the researcher would be a neutral observer, observing not only classroom interactions, but also looking at how interactions occur outside of the classroom between the various constituents involved.


Finally, in the fourth question, the main participants in the study would be the learners of the various xMOOCs that are selected for observation and analysis. Additionally, if the researcher analyzes the texts of the course, both spoken texts in videos, podcasts, and other audio visual materials, as well as written texts created by the instructors and learners in the course, then course designers could be considered as participants of the study, even if it is in an indirect way. In this case the relationship of the participant would be more removed compared to the first two cases. The researcher would be someone who observes what is occurring in the xMOOCs, but not interfere in the way that the MOOC is conducted. Ideally, in this case, the researcher would also have access to the course archive after a course has concluded in order to do a type of post-mortem analysis, however seeing how current xMOOC LMS platforms operate, this might not be a possibility.

Ethical ConsiderationsThe ethical considerations do vary across the four different research questions posed in

the previous section. The methodological paradigm, as well as the specific question to be answered pose different ethical aspects to be considered. For the purposes of this section I am describing all ethical considerations in one large section, but case specific considerations will be highlighted.

If the MOOC that will provide a test-bed for Questions 1 and 2 is the MOOC based on my currently closed-access course, The Design and Instruction of Online Courses, then chances are high that in addition to open learners there will be students who are taking the course for credit at my institution. In this instance, would the students signing-up through my institution feel obligated, or pressured, to be part of the study? Even if learners do not sign-up for credit, are they providing consent to be observed simply by joining a MOOC that will be used for research purposes? Or does the researcher have an ethical obligation to seek informed consent from each and every individual enrolled in the course? Furthermore, if informed consent is sought, does this in some way have implications for validity because the sample of learners that choose to participate in this study might be predisposed to certain behaviors that would make them more, or less, successful in MOOC learning environments?

Both with the case of a MOOC designed as a test-bed for questions 1 and 2, and historical MOOC “harvesting,” as might be the case in attempting to address question 4, should consent be sought from learners in order to observe their digital footprints in the MOOC? Is this a requirement for open cMOOCs that don’t have a username and password requirement to participate? Is this a requirement in closed xMOOC platforms that require password and username to enter and be part of that learning community? If we would like to analyze information from xMOOCs that have already concluded, it is most likely that learners did not sign some form of consent to have their data and interactions used for research purposes when they first signed up. Should we seek consent ex post facto? Or does this particular use of archived data fall under secondary usage of data and therefore if properly anonymized there might be fewer issues with their usage?

In all questions, where learners are observed, and their behaviors and postings are analyzed, is there a potential for any harm to come to the learners? Is there any way that learners might be exposed in some way; even though their data would be coded to mask their identities is there a risk of individuals becoming unmasked, exposed, and vulnerable in some way? The same line of questioning also holds true for instructors, professors, and instructional designers in questions 3 and 4. Is there any potential for harm to come to them? If the research uncovers


power dynamics that someone’s supervisor does not appreciate having associated with a school, could those individuals’ jobs be endangered if specific cases are linked to specific individuals? An example of this might be a school that preaches progressive pedagogy, but their MOOC design is based on a “drill and kill” approach. If results of such research identify specific schools, upper level administrators at those schools may not be too happy with the outcomes of the research.

Credibility ConsiderationsThere are at least two credibility considerations to keep in mind, and they both involve

questions 1 and 2 where the researcher would also be either designing an intervention (the on-boarding), or would be designing and facilitating a MOOC (the creation of the Open version of an existing course). As a designer of an intervention would there be a perceived credibility issue in that the researcher may be perceived as of only wanting to report positive results with regard to those interventions? For instance there might be a perception that researchers may bury negative comments or findings, or not acknowledge a potentially biased sample if this is the only sample the researcher has to work with? For a conscientious researcher this wouldn’t be an issue, but the perception of impropriety sometimes is much more potent than reality. In a research project there ought to be safe-guards against this so as to address both perceived, and potentially real, issues with credibility. One potential way that could be used to allay any fears of credibility issues with studies is to include more people in the design and implementation phase of the intervention, thus the design and implementation phases are distributed among more people and it’s a group effort rather than a lone designer and subject-expert. The research study would be a single-researcher effort, but the on-boarding, or Open Course offering would involve many more people than just the researcher. Another possible way of dealing with credibility issues is to involve a small random sample of the research subjects as a final check of the findings. Would the research findings explain their experiences in the course? Or do they sound incongruous with what occurred?

Concluding ThoughtsThe preceding sections represent some initial thoughts and considerations into the

potentials areas of inquiry on the subject of Open Online Courses, and how I might approach those subjects given my epistemological and ontological views. There is still a lot of work to be done on this, including the refinement of a set of research questions that can be undertaken in one study. The questions posed above represent distinct strands of inquiry and should be considered larger, over-arching, questions that will eventually contain sub-questions if the area of inquiry is to be pursued. With both of these paradigms discussed, Interpretive and Critical, there are still both practical and theoretical issues that will need addressing. One area that will need more exploration, in either paradigm, is the area of research ethics on the internet. The recommendations of the Association of Internet Researchers (aoir.org) should prove useful in further elucidating the ethical obligations of the researcher, as well as help with the crafting of a specific research plan that treats the subjects of the research in ethically appropriate ways. Furthermore, each paradigm has its own special set of areas to examine and consider further. Some examples of further consideration are as follows:


Interpretivist ParadigmThe questions briefly discussed in the Interpretivist Paradigm section require learner

consent. However, there is also an element of “buy-in” that needs to occur by various other stakeholders. For instance, if I convert my current closed course to an open course, would my academic department and/or college need to approve this? Would my offering of an open course, given my employment status, require some approval at higher levels of academic administration? This might be made more complicated by the fact that my regular work is in one academic department, but my adjunct teaching is in another, and both are in different colleges. There are instances where I think that I might require prior approval, and others where I might not. However, not requiring approval, and not asking, even as a token of consideration, are two different things. It may be politically important to ask, even though you might not have to.

In addition, letting learners know that the course will be observed for research purposes, even though individuals will not be named, and data will be analyzed in aggregate, would most likely be a good choice. Some learners might drop the course, ascribing this to a feeling of being creeped out by the some big brother researcher in the course. However it is better, perhaps, to lose some participants in the earlier parts of a study rather than risk alienating a big group of learners later if you do not disclose the purpose of the researcher in the course.

The textual data that will be collected from the discussion forums, twitter streams, open blogs, and so on, will need to be coded an analyzed. This coding will require not one, but a few, coders in order to ensure reliability. Should these research questions be pursued, it will be important to have more than one researcher, or to have a main researcher and a few paid, or volunteer, coders to assist with the task. Depending on how the research proceeds it may be necessary to employ a variety of methodologies including discourse analysis, computational linguistic analysis, social network analysis, and ethnographic research as part of a mixed methods research approach. In this case there is more preparatory work to be completed in order to have the researcher attain a comfortable level of familiarity with these various methods and approaches.

Finally, as far as the review of the literature, it is important to review the existing research not only into MOOCs and learning, but also on learner motivation, retention, and even satisfaction in courses. While the extant literature on MOOCs may only now be taking off, we do have research as it relates to traditional face to face and traditional online courses. Some of this research literature should be illuminating with regard to MOOC applications.

Critical ParadigmThe critical paradigm is most likely going to be explored through the lens of critical

pedagogy. In this case the review of the literature will need a healthy dose of critical pedagogues such as Paulo Freire, Henri Giroux, and Donaldo Macedo – among others. Fortunately half of my academic department are critical pedagogues, some of whom have actually met and worked with Freire, Giroux, and others, so the task of finding relevant readings, for a review of the literature, may be easier than initially thought. The challenge will be finding and tying the relevant readings to specific areas of open course research.

For the Rhizomatic aspect of research, Dave Cormier (2013) has indicated that his conception of the rhizome comes from an idiosyncratic reading of the work of Deleuze and Gautari (1987). For this reason it would be important to review the original work of Deleuze and Gautari before proceeding with further explorations of Cormier’s work, and my own conception


of Rhizomatic learning. This would be in addition to going deeper into Knowles’s work on Andragogy (1984) and other works in critical pedagogy.

Finally, gaining access might a double edged sword. It may be easier to gain access to your own institution, but it’s also potentially perilous. The potential repercussions of using your own institution would need more exploration. Cohen et al. indicate that people who open the doors of an organization might expect you to be an ally and provide results in their favor (2011, p. 83). This is a potential pitfall that needs to be kept in mind as doors are opening for this research. Some organizations may feel that they are really progressive, especially when it comes to the MOOCs that they produce, but the findings might indicate something to the contrary. In addition to potential harm of the people involved, and harm to institutional reputation, it is important to keep in mind that the researcher needs to be impartial, regardless of what the group that opens the doors to the organization expects.


References

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th Ed). London: Routledge.

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education. 4(5).

Cormer, D. (2013, December 27). Rhizomatic Learning – An open course #rhizo14 [Weblog post]. Retrieved from: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2013/12/27/rhizomatic-learning-an-open-course-rhizo14/

Deleuze, G. & Gautari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.Downes, S (2013, January 17). What makes a MOOC Massive? [Weblog post]

http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-makes-mooc-massive.htmlKanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), Article 2.Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.McAuley, A, Steward, B., Siemens, G., and Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital

practice. Retrieved from: http://www.davecormier.com/edblog/wp-content/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education. First Monday. 3(1). Retrieved from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Watters, A. (2014). Un-Fathom-able: The Hidden History of Ed-Tech. Keynote presentation at CETIS Conference, Bolton, UK. June 17-18. 2014

Wiley, D. (2014, December 31). Koller, Thicke, and Noble: The “Blurred Lines” Between Traditional Online Courses and MOOCs. [weblog post]. Retrieved from: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3703

edde 802 - assignment 1

Documents