This module was a real challenge. Probably because I hadn’t considered the role of research before. Yes I had written small projects and taught basic research methods but looking at in a greater context and therefore also considering the thoroughness with which foci and literature reviews should be completed with. It was engaging and the fact it was entwined with a personal pursuit meant the outcomes were extremely focused, driven and important.

2.  What did you like least about this module? Why?

The lit review was the hardest – but the say it was least liked was not appropriate. The most uncomfortable part was not knowing whether I was on the right track. I didn’t get the lit review started in time so didn’t take advantage of the good support offered. When I needed it most tutors were on hols, but as I say that is my time management because opportunities were there.

3.  What advice would you offer students who will study this module in its present form?

Just start writing. Show people with confidence even if it turns out wrong. Take advice.

Don’t take more than one week hold and avoid it if possible! (unless you are duper organised).

4.  What advice would you offer the module team to improve the student experience?

These are in no way a criticism; I’m just trying to think of things to write!

• Over emphasize starting to write early.
• Over emphasize the show and tell stuff.
• I got a lot from the research papers Panos advised so maybe a scenario where ten research papers are checked ok’d e.g assignment 1b?!
• Suggest only one week holiday from the course. I regret missing the last week on data analysis as it didn’t work squeezing it into a couple of days, again my fault!
• Make presentations available in pp form – thanks Panos for emailing me.
  Vodcast for presentations? Downloadble to iTunes?
• The method of analysing the literature (which I completely missed at first!) was excellent. Offering an approach to tackle a task like that is really hood support.

All in all I had a very good experience and certainly prepared me for the dissertation.  Excellent personal support from Panos re:  resources and flexibility.  Thanks.

The mixed methods slightly slants towards the quantitative because of the quantification of the qualitative responses. In this process, at some point, a subjective judgement is made.

For me, given that either approach has flaws. But those flaws are not as strong as the benefits gained from “the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”.

Certainly, an early start to reading would have been wise.  Right from the start.  Absence – I was away for just over the week – meant that I missed a valuable resource (video tutorial of a students table plan of quotes etc..) and partly influenced my inability to get something onto the discussion board to see if  I was going in the right direction.

That said…. very enjoyable and where are those tutorials for unit 4/ assignment 3!

An interesting conclusion given the focus was on the perspectives of self regulated learning.  The difference itself asks questions about the vailidity of inferences from research conducted at university level down to other levels.  Most of the research found on the use of asynchronous online discussions has been from university levels.  Can the concepts, models and assertions be transferable?

There is also the question about the differences between the two education systems.  At present the UK government is pushing for a more personalised approach to education so this may hold true.

Interesting points include:

• there has been no empirical study comparing university and secondary teachers perspectives however several bits of research was presented individually
• different ways of preparing, the different ages, experiences and development of the learners were all seen as differences.
• essentialy they were both involved in teaching and learning
• the study involved self regulated learning which is “the degree that students are meta cognitively, motivationally and behaviourly active participants of their own learning process”.
• the results showed that secondary teachers regard development of students and pedagogy as important goals in teaching.
• university teachers view both opinion and independence as important goals.
• regulation of the learning process was seen as the same – to involve teachers and learners

Does what teachers find important mean that they aren’t developing other aspects?  Given that both perspectives indicate good teaching and learning practice the differences in perspectives identified might come from the level of central policy, level of training and quality of monitoring.   The contexts which the two types of teacher work in are different – which in itself suggests that both sets of teachers focus on the learners needs.

This is a significant conclusion for any inferences made from HE research and secondary school research.

Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2006). A breed apart? A comparison of secondary and university teachers’ perspectives on self regulated learning.  Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(5), 593-614.

Empahsises that asynchronous lacks non verbal cues and delays in reply.

In discussing collaboration the author disnguishes between coperation and collboration.  Collaboration expects greater quality and frequency of exchanges.

Moore 1993 – three types of interaction: interaction with resources, with teachers; with peers.

Focus of this study is on asynchronous interaction involving email, discussion boards, file uploads.

Conclusions:

• evidence of effective collaboration
• notable difference in interaction (cf to face to face) is a lack of “challenge and explain” cycles.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1), 21-34.

It points out:

• particpation requires students to be present and interact with others
• lurking may be of value but is not enough if peopole are to develop individual skills and confidence
• and presents a range of reasons why students might not contribute to the community
• the teacher has a responsiblility to design engaging activities.  This will develop confidence for particpation where it does not already exist.
• students must understand the purpose of different types of discussion and what they will be learning.
• motivation of assessment is not enough
• students fail to engage through lack of excitement
• personal interest and need is key to unlocking each individuals motivation to particpate

It concludes:

discussion has many benefits

failure to particpate leads a missed opportunity to develop personal growth

poorly designed activities  lead to lack of motivation

preference for students to discuss their real passion in a subject

The last point is very applicable to university where a foundation of knowledge means they have a repository of experience.  What about new subjects?  What about GCSE level?

Is this personal touch a form of reflection or meta cognition?

The idea of engaging fits in with Hew and Cheung stages for facilitation.

The research focused on proving what didn’t work as opposed to offering proof of what does work.

A more detailed analysis of what “personal” is and how this can differ with different age groups will give a little more insight into how one can make it more “exciting”.

Skinner, Elisabeth (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: a case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17 (2), 89-100. Accessed August 09, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09687760902951599

It highlighted that for increased participation research has focused around the role of the instructor who might a) facilitate b) encourage and c) support learners so that they can access discussions.

It also highlighted that students could be used as facilitators.

It identified 7 facilitation techniques:

• giving own opinion or experiences
• questioning
• establishing ground rules
• showing appreciation
• suggesting new direction
• personally inviting people to contribute
• summarising

It also identified question of clarification and questions of viewpoints as successful ways of sustaining discussions.

It suggests the following sequence of facilitation:

• introduction
• engagement
• monitoring

and further suggest that the 7 techniques listed above fit into those stages.

The research students are indeed adults embarking on a teaching career and this is the obvious gap to see if the structure works as teachers and for student led discussions.  These adults are more likely to emabrk on indepth discussions.  What are the implications for a secondary school?  what depth is necessary and what would the corresponding level of facilitation?  One of the limitations placed by the researcher related to the subject.  How would this model be applied to business studies?  could the same faciliatiion techniques be used in the application of theory to cases, the analysis of the impact of a business strategy, and the evaluation of arguments which then influences a business course of action?

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124.

The paper points out the advantages and asks questions about what online discussions might promote, e.g. critical thinking, knowledge construction and learning autonomy.

There are differences in terms of access, timing, mode of expression and visual cues.

It points out that students have more time to write, edit and rewrite sentences which reemphasises the purpose of Web 2.0.  However to what extent is this appropriate for the future working environment for those students.

The paper responds to the advantage of timeliness by stating some research suggests learners did not see this as an advantage however I’m assuming this wasn’t representative of all learners.

It was emphasised more than once that discussion boards promote the higher order thinking skills.  to what extent is this applicable to GCSE?  Surely such level of explanation and interrogation will develop understanding, analysis and evaluation.

The paper reported that different studies report different conclusions relating to the quality of relationships e.g. aggressive or agreeable.  Maybe further research into whether there are differences between when learners first start with the technology compared to experienced learners or learners with clear guidelines.  This in itslef is surely a digital literacy skill.

The writer identifies that online discussion experienced delays after the organisation of groups went wrong.  Could this be overcome by better design and planning?

One of the clear conclusions related to personalised learning.  that is “online discussions were more comfortable, less aggressive, and offered more equal opportunities for group members to voice their opinions”.  This helps if the group is mixed with introverts/ extroverts, submissive/ dominant.

The study did focus on HE which may have a more discursive element.  Additionally the research was focused on discussions online in class, so there are variables that could affect the quality of the discussion.  Are the same conclusions applicable to out of class online discussions?

The study concluded that atmosphere, response, efficiency, interactivity and communication were the top five themes that had significant difference in opinion when comparing online and face to face discussions.

Online discussions had a better atmosphere, slower response, less efficient, less interaction and worse communication.

It does the suggest the two should be seen as separate and achieving separate aims.  The writer suggest the themes are interconnected.  Maybe the face to face discussion and online discussion should be connected in order to gain the full set of advantages.  Although the main advantage is to allow everyone equal access to the discussion.  Linking to other research one might also consider the benefits to the lurker.  Finally, if one perceives the atmosphere (and its constituent parts) as important in building the confidence of the learner then maybe the longer time frame discussions have an important role.

The paper does suggest that online discussions do need a longer time frame and strategies for this could be researched further.

Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 2,272–286.