Category: Research Methods

“Where Am I Now?” Final Blog Post

July 26, 2019 / lhuston

The Introduction

I recall a story I shared with my students, one you have probably heard before; of the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, each man was touching one part of the animal and using what they felt to create an overall impression of the animal; this led to arguments. Each person was convinced that they were right and the others were wrong. They were unable to listen to anyone else’s point of view. The discussion I had with my students centered around only seeing one perspective and not opening your eyes to other perspectives; being blinded by beliefs. This idea of perspectives and blinded beliefs has intertwined itself through many of the research papers, class discussions, my blog posts and my many late night ponderings.

The Beginning

We always start somewhere. My start was with a pile of enthusiasm and a jarful of ideas and biases I held about research and social media, amongst other things. These were not verbalized or highly passionate ideas, they were simply beliefs that resided quietly in the periphery of my mind only coming to the forefront as we began to explore ideas. My ideas about research were simple. Researchers researched to gather data and information that created knowledge. Quantitative and clinical studies were superior, the best and most trustworthy sort of research, and qualitative, perhaps they shared some interesting ideas about people’s thoughts, but they were not the gold standard and were certainly not as rigorous and valid. The researcher along with their research were the most important aspect of all this; I liken this to “Folke on his towering chair in the corner of Isak’s kitchen in the movie Kitchen Stories.

My ideas about Social Media were apprehensive and filled with a combination of wariness, untrustworthiness, and a conviction that it was a waste of time. I had no interest in putting myself out there on Twitter and couldn’t see any reason to do so. Shortly after, I found myself reopening my Twitter account and talking about PLN’s. A what, I thought? Personal Learning Network. What do I need that for? And now a blog? Okay, and we can choose to make it public or private, and we can choose to go on Twitter or not. And, I begin thinking and remembered that I came into this program to learn, to try new things, to take risks. So, I and my jumbled piles of ideas and beliefs, jumped on. We jumped into exploring research with new lenses, we jumped into new ways of thinking about learning and teaching and sharing through social media.

The Middle

I began working through papers and connecting on social media. I remember the nerves around sending the first tweet; Is there a, “this is a terrible tweet” button? Can I delete it? I recall discourse around social media and privacy and open learning. I recall one of the first presenters we had, Dr. Christine Younghusband. She talked about creating an online presence and the importance of including an image and some information about yourself. So I added these components in.

I remember reading through the first few research papers on Research Diaries and Autoethnography and my discussion around journaling and writing; how this can lead to greater reflection. I made some interesting assumptions with regards to my discussion around the written word; now when I look back I can see some of my biases connected to the written word. Were I to read this article now with the understandings I have gained, I believe my response would reflect this changed point of view. I would hold the spoken language in as high regard as the written. I might also argue that each has its own inherent value and that they should be examined independently rather than compared to each other.

I recall the visit from Dr. Shauneen Pete, the discourse about her work, and the impact this made on me. I had never thought about indigenous perspectives this way; I had never thought of myself as a settler. And I began to wonder what other knowledge I was missing. I recall the inspirational visit from Jeff Hopkins that had me looking at education with a new lens, that had me wondering how I could try this out, how I could find out more.

In the midst of all this, in the midst of learning about teaching pedagogies and educating students about digital citizenship, I suddenly realized that I was tweeting and asking questions and beginning to connect with others online. And, I was enjoying it; I was seeing the benefit of it.

I then recall the visit from John Willinsky and the public knowledge project (PKP) and how my mind opened up to this idea of open access. And I thought; yes, research should be public; globally available to all. This is amazing; amazing for learning, for sharing, connecting and researching. Research is so important for improving practice, for opening minds. To have open access, what an impact this can make!

In one of the last classes we looked at Métissage reading, the idea of braiding by breaking apart, by breaking pieces down and then taking these pieces and re-braiding; creating something new. And I thought, this is what this learning has been like, I think back to the ideas I came in with and the ideas that were broken apart, and the new ideas that began to enter and the re-braiding of these new pieces.

The end and a new beginning

I was introduced to new ideas and ways of thinking, of sharing and of learning, the community within the class, the new community I am building on line, the discourse that keeps me thinking and wondering, the new teaching pedagogies, the learning from research, the new types of research that I didn’t realize existed: the mixed method studies, the action research, the narrative research, phenomenology. The different perspective’s; the 4 R’s. Through all of this I learnt about myself, what I want my teaching practice to be. I learnt that there are multiple ways to understanding and of understanding and viewing. I reflect back on a quote that really impacted me from the reading, “Indigenous knowledge systems and science and technology education: A dialogue”,

“ I am suggesting that the two systems are different and therefore require different forms of verification. These verification methods and processes can actually be equated and be made to be of similar standards, however they have to be appropriate for each system, otherwise we would compromise one system at the expense of another and in the process lose the beauty of what the two systems could provide alongside each other.”

Onwu,G & Mosimege, M (2004)

When I think about my teaching, I realize this quote applies to my students as well. The work and assessment that takes place for each student needs to be appropriate for each student; it does not need to be the same. I reflect on the beauty of teachers and students working alongside each other. And I am suddenly brought back to the elephant story told at the beginning and I wondered…

What if in fact, these people talked to each other and shared their ideas. What if one man said, rather than you are wrong because I am right, what if they said, take me, show me what you feel. Show me what you see. Tell me what you see.

This same idea is illustrated beautifully in the following statement taken from the podcast below.

“We’re always coming from a mindset of where we know best and we have an answer, and we’ll consult on it, but it’s what we come up with. And so to me, until we can actually say ‘We don’t know what this answer is. What do you think?’ and talk together to build something… I don’t know if that’s even do-able. I mean, obviously it’s a very scary thing.”

Duration: 34:08 minutes

Had the individuals feeling the elephant used this idea, had they said, I don’t know what the answer is, what do you think? Had they talked together, they may have been able to build the whole elephant in their minds. For is it possible to know the other side if your voice is the only voice you listen to, and the only voice you hear, is your own? In my teaching, this connects to listening to student voices, to think, is this what I think the students need or is this what the students need?. It’s asking, what do you think?, It’s saying, I don’t know, let’s see if we can find out, let’s see if we can find someone who does know, and, then it’s building together.

And I reflect again on research and on social media and I realize that both allow for the listening of other ideas, both allow for the voicing of ideas, both allow for the creation of new meaning and understanding; the creation of a voice online, a practice informed by research. Both build connections. This simple word with so many meanings. And I looked back at the picture I had just changed on my blog’s header. The picture that, to me, seemed to communicate both knowledge and technology, but was missing the essence of teaching, the essence of learning. And, I found a new image, one that showed connectedness, community, communication, and collaboration because this is what ties it all together. This is important.

I am filled with excitement. Excitement for how I will learn and grow over the next few months and years. Excitement for how this will impact and change my teaching. Excited for the questions I want to pursue; excited, scared and apprehensive, I’m not sure what this will look like at this point, I’m not sure how messy it may get, I’m not sure how comfortable I feel about any of it, but, as a friend once told me, “at times you may feel uncomfortable, lean into this as that is when your growth will happen” (Burnham, L).

My New Lens

July 25, 2019 / lhuston

Photo by Oleg Magni from Pexels

I chose this image because it connects to how I imagine my research in a number of ways. The first connection is fairly obvious, and that is the lens. To start with the lens illustrates my new understanding of research as I, like many of you, came from a place of understanding “good research “to be clinical and quantitative; if you look closely you will see that the image within the lens is flipped. This connects to my flipped (new) understanding of what research can be. I now know that good research comes in many forms. This lens also allows me to look closer at something, to look deeply into something to gain a new insight or understanding. It allows me to see things in a new light, from a new angle; a new viewpoint. It also gives me the ability to put it down, to look around, walk around, turn around, breathe in the air, feel the air, and then zoom in on something.

“This looks interesting, let’s take a closer look at it.

I also think the lens allows for examination without judgement. This in turn opens up the possibilities and allows for new knowledge and understandings. This naturally connects to the idea that this lens can be used to explore research from each of the 4R’s (the research, the researcher, the researched and the reader); these would be different filters/ lenses.

I made two other connections to this image. The first connection is to the road; to the journey. The feeling I had when I first looked at this image was that this was the beginning, the beginning of a journey. This is where I am; at the beginning of my new research/teaching journey, at the beginning of my journey through this program, and its exciting. The second connection I made with this image was with the trees. In fact, when I first started looking at images, I was looking at trees; trees with roots that were deep and intertwined. This to me illustrates the intertwining and connectedness of ideas, the messiness that can come with research and teaching, the intertwining of different methods, of relationships, and the beauty of all of these, and perhaps if you were to close your eyes, you could imagine me moving the lens in that direction and zooming in to see this beauty.

The persistent idea I will carry forward, is that of the lens, both within my teaching practice and within my research journey in this program over the next two years. This idea of looking from many angles, zooming in and then out, trying on different filters, different viewpoints and then putting the lens down, looking around, seeing, touching, listening and then pulling it up again. Within my practice I may be thinking…is that what the student needs or is that what I think they need? I may be thinking… It’s always been done this way; but maybe there’s a new way, a different way or a way to blend ideas together. I may be thinking this can’t be done…but maybe it can, what else can I look at, who else can I talk to? So ultimately, I want to use these ideas and new understandings to continue my journey and further build my practice by exploring the use of further technology within my classroom, cross-curricular teaching, inquiry, and problem-based learning. I want to use this lens as a tool to guide me as I work towards reaching my goal of preparing students for the future. As Tom Whitby said, “We as educators need to shift the education dynamic of teaching kids what to learn to teaching kids how to learn. This is the best way we can provide for them a way to live in their world and not ours.”

Tell me a Story. 515 1a. week #3

July 20, 2019 / lhuston

“Wilmi en haar Wolfman” by Arnelle Woker is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Tell Me A Story.

“Left hand driving is much safer than right hand. That’s scientifically proven”

This excerpt from “Kitchen Stories”, written and produced by Bent Hamer and Jorgen Bergmak, and directed by Bent Hamer shares a tale of a research project that had kitchen optimization for Norwegian men living alone as its goal. The research plan was to situate a male observer in the corner of the kitchen in a towering chair to observe the single Norwegian man as he moved around the kitchen. The researched (Isak) is lured in to participate through the offer of a horse; sadly, the horse given to him is not that of a living breathing horse but rather a small artifact that may be housed on a shelf somewhere. This initial incident, what would now be considered an ethics violation, leads to a multitude of further research/ethics violations, according to the way the research was structured, and also leads the researched (Isak) to also become a researcher as he stops using his kitchen and observes the researcher (Folke) at his high station through a hole he has made in the ceiling. These violations, while set in a humorous context, illustrate a deep disfunction and one cannot help but feel sadness for both the researched (who ultimately dies) and the researcher who develops a strong friendship with the researched. This movie does not specifically shed light on the experience the reader might have had of this particular study, although one may imagine that if the study was not deemed invalid due to many critical errors, the readers may have a perspective on the situation that could potentially be full of inaccuracies. Or perhaps the ‘reader’ in this case could be applied in multiple ways; as the viewer of the film, as the researcher who comments at the end of the movie, ” I have some observations here that should interest you. He’s hit on something essential here.”, and, as the reader previously discussed. The movie brilliantly addresses themes connected to friendship and human nature while simultaneously addressing the inherent flaws of research in a satirical manner.

Although today there are ethics boards and research committees, policies and procedures to prevent these types of violations from occurring; research may still be fallible. According to Brown, Kaiser, & Allison, (2018) in, “Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions”, there are a variety of errors that may occur within a study.

“We have noted errors related to measurement, study design, replication, statistical analysis, analytical choices, citation bias, publication bias, interpretation, and the misuse or neglect of simple mathematics, reporting, collaboration, data collection, and study design”.

(Brown, Kaiser, & Allison, 2018., 2564)

This quote reinforces the idea that just because something is “scientifically proven” does not mean it is true or true forever or in all circumstances. It may be true, or it may be true at that time and place; or may be true for a particular person or group but may not be a universal truth. Some of the reasons for these errors are simple to explain. For example, a calculation error may be as simple as one incorrect number. Whereas other reasons for errors can be a lot more complex. A more complex error that may occur is researcher bias. Interestingly, a few articles I read this week, connected to social media, provided some interesting discourse around this phenomenon.

The first article, titled, “How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail” by Michael Shermer (2017), discusses belief systems and how people will hold on to beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. This could directly impact the work of a researcher because their overriding beliefs (particularly those who are very passionate about their beliefs) about what the outcome should be or how the participants should respond may be realized through intended or unintended actions. This may also impact the reader as despite what they read and despite how much evidence there is to support an idea, the mere fact that they hold another truth in their mind, may not allow for belief in anything that opposes this. In fact, according to Shermer, the more an individual reads opposing views, the more they listen to opposing views, the more they see opposing views, the stronger they will grasp and hold on to their previously set beliefs. Given this it would be fair to say that a researcher may be blinded by their beliefs.

Mike Caulfield addresses this same idea in his article, “Network Heuristics” (2019), as he shares a personal experience he had with colleagues/students. He would show them a site and then ask them to identify all the components that made it fake. After they had come up with several items proving the site was fake, he would reveal that, in fact, the site was real. What he discovered was that once people had made up their mind about something it could be very hard to change it, despite all the evidence he provided. In fact, he found that a certain number could not be convinced that the site was real and would become argumentative. Caulfield referred to this as cognitive dissonance.

When thinking back on the speaker we had in class this week, Dr. Shauneen Pete, the term cognitive dissonance could also be used explain the long-held biases some Canadians have and why they may refuse to let these go despite evidence to the contrary. It may also be why, when stories of injustice regarding indigenous people arise, and when stories about their history are told, that some people still hold to these beliefs/biases about indigenous people and may in fact become argumentative. I recall a comment that arose in a discussion about indigenous people that shocked me but could perhaps be explained by this phenomenon. The argument made in response to a discussion about residential schools was that, “their children were taken away from them because they couldn’t take care of them; they are/were drunks.” Long held biases like these need to change, but as previously mentioned are very hard to change. These biases, again may affect all aspects of research.

At this point I stop and reflect wondering what biases I may hold. Wondering how these impact me as the reader, the research, the researcher and the researched. I search my mind for arguments I have had with others about beliefs I hold and I being to look at them as I think about bias and I think about cognitive dissonance.

And again, this idea of bias appears an article by Bowers. C .A (2018), “The Digital Revolution and the Unrecognized Problem of Linguistic Colonization” when Bowers discusses in great detail the concept of print and the value we place on a method of documentation that is: “ abstract” [and] “ is inadequate in communicating ongoing relationships, and reduces the importance of learning from all the senses and giv[es] special attention to local contexts” (Bowers, 2018., p.193). Bowers believes this reliance on print (he also connects this to digital systems as they are all print based as well) and this belief about the written word as a “high-status knowledge” system leads to “abstract and surface thinkers”(Bowers, 2018., p.194). He also discusses the, “importance of oral communication” stating that lived experience results in more complex and context-based knowledge (Bowers, 2018., p.193). Bower notes that this intricate and complex form of communication is represented as inferior to data as it is not objective. Bower explicitly discusses bias within this context when he says,

“The long-standing bias against oral traditions can be seen in how the word “illiterate” carries the connotation of backwardness and ignorance.”

(Bowers, 2018., p.196)

Again, those who hold this bias, may be influenced by it and may struggle with accepting this alternate viewpoint. The bias Bowers discuses directly relates to another paper viewed this week by Onwu,G & Mosimege, M (2004), “Indigenous knowledge systems and science and technology education: A dialogue”. The dialogue between the two speakers is a discussion regarding Indigenous knowledge systems and education. There is discussion around the lack of documentation of belief systems and practices with an agreement that this is a step that needs to be taken. This connects to Bowers paper and I would be curious to know what he would think about the documentation of these ideas. After reading Bowers paper I suspect he might have some concerns about transferring what would be, “complex and context-based knowledge” to the abstract and disconnected print form (Bowers, 2018., p.194). I also think, based on the ideas included, that transferring this knowledge to print form could be impossible as some aspects of this knowledge would be lost. I think Bower may appreciate the following comment by Mosimege, M when he says,

“I am suggesting that the two systems are different and therefore require different forms of verification. These verification methods and processes can actually be equated and be made to be of similar standards, however they have to be appropriate for each system, otherwise we would compromise one system at the expense of another and in the process lose the beauty of what the two systems could provide alongside each other.”

(Onwu,G & Mosimege, M, 2004., p. 6)

This comment resonates with me, in particular, the ending where it discusses the beauty that could be lost by trying to have the same verification process for two different systems. To hear it expressed in this manner, creates clarity; it seems reasonable and logical. I have found in discussions over the last few weeks that there may be many right ways rather that just one right way. This idea is reiterated within the Onwu & Mosimege dialogue as one of the questions that arises is; Why is Western science is considered to be the “only true science”; and, why it is considered to be the superior science? (Onwu,G & Mosimege, M 2004., p.11. This again connects to the idea of bias, as a researcher who holds these biases; that of the printed word and of western science may occlude items as a result and may create research that reflects and perpetuates this bias. It may be true that all aspects of research: the research itself ( methodology chosen or research question), the researcher, the reader ( preconceived bias that affects the meaning they may make) and the researched ( selection of participants, derived meaning/translation of oral to print language) are subject to bias.

And, I pause again as I think about my history, my story connected to these ideas and my beliefs around these ideas. And I wonder again about biases, my biases connected to science, connected to the written language, connected to the very word “illiterate”.

While I did not set out to engage in an intense discourse around bias when I began this post, ultimately that is the link that connected each idea to another and thus I was led down this path. As the research, researcher, researched and the reader, the understanding of bias and the effects it may have is important. Perhaps some of our beliefs are purely, “stories”. Perhaps some of our “stories” are purely facts.

“We’ve often convinced ourselves in higher education that there is something called “critical thinking” which is some magical mental ingredient that travels, frictionless, into any domain. There are mental patterns that are generally applicable, true. But so much of what we actually do is read signs, and those signs are domain specific. They need to be taught.”

-Mike Caulfield (2019)

“Network Heuristics”

Research Methods 515: Assignment#2

July 15, 2019 / lhuston

Description of Action Research, A Qualitative study and An Examination of both with Respect to the Researcher, the Research, the Researched and the Reader.

“Shenandoah River State Park”by vastateparksstaff is licensed under CC BY 2.0

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both …” (R, Frost , Foundation, 2019)

Robert Frost captures the idea of choosing between two equally appealing paths in his infamous poem, “The Road not Taken”. Much like the decision before the reader as to which path to take, the researcher also has a choice as to which method to choose to conduct their research: quantitative or qualitative. The variety of research methods within these two categories that are available to a researcher can be overwhelming. One should determine what they are interested in, what their questions is, what resources they have available and then which research method would best fit the proposed question. The difficulty lays in the fact that sometimes there may be more than one “right” way to conduct the research.

One type of Qualitative Research a researcher may decide to use is that of “Action Research”. Action Research (AR) is described in detail by Mary McAteer as “ a methodology, a way of understanding and generating knowledge about the complexities of practice.” (McAteer, 2013, p.2) What does this mean? What does this look like? According to McAteer (2013), this type of research is moral, philosophical, messy, the merging of theory and practice and is also rigorous and grounded in research. McAteer (2013) illustrates the concept with images that show the cyclical nature of this type of research: Begin with a question, plan, act, observe and reflect back to the original question. The question may then be revised as needed, and the process begins again. In this way the research does not have a set end; it may carry on for a few cycles or for many. The research gathered from this process is authentic and intellectual (McAteer, 2013). The perceived weakness of AR by both the reader and researchers is the illusion of an unstructured method and concerns/critiques about the subjectivity of it (McAteer, 2013). McAteer, (2013) argues that this type of research, like all good research, is founded in theory and is systematic and rigorous. The underlying characteristics of AR and justification for the validity of it is clearly illustrated when McAteer (2013) states,

Having an appropriate mindset is as important as having a road map. A willingness to listen to the data with an open mind, to uncover, articulate and challenge assumption, to consistently question ‘the way it is’, and a preparedness for uncertainty, will be of more use than having a clear set of rules and procedures which could be applied with little understanding. (p.19)

In addition, McAteer (2013) makes a strong case for the validity of the subjectivity within this type of research when she mentions that,

It would be difficult to imagine them describing knowledge of and in the classroom as objective, value free and not strongly bound up in the individuals involved. How should we begin to understand our role as educators were we to dehumanize it.

(p.16)

These two quotes leave no doubt that this research can be valid and reliable, and therefore may be a good option for the researcher who likes to get a little “messy”.

Using the framework of one type of research, like AR to do a side by side comparison of other types of research may be helpful when critically analyzing the four R’s within research; The Research, The Researcher, The Researched and The Reader. The following study, a quantitative research project will be overviewed and then analyzed through this lens.

The Study

The research, “The Impact of Teaching Presence on Online Engagement Behaviors” (Zhang, Lin, Zhan, & Ren, 2016) , identified a gap in published literature with regards to online learners and engagement; this study was conducted as a means to shed some light on this phenomena and is particularly important given the increasing number of online students worldwide (Zhang et al., 2016). “The purpose of the study was to investigate whether teaching presence would impact online learners’ passive, active, constructive, and interactive engagement behaviors”(Zhang et al., 2016, p.887 ). The researchers asked the following research questions:

Research questions:

(All questions were controlled for the potential effects of the demographic variables)

1. Does teaching presence impact online learners’ passive engagement behaviors,?
2. Does teaching presence impact online learners’ active engagement behaviors,
3. Does teaching presence impact online learners’ constructive engagement?
4. Does teaching presence impact online learners’ interactive engagement behaviors?

(Zhang et al., 2016)

218 middle school English teachers volunteered to participate in the study (Zhang et al., 2016). Of those 17 were males, 201 were females, 89% were married and 87% had participated in a online professional development course before (Zhang et al., 2016). Participants were not rewarded or penalized for their participation or lack thereof (Zhang et al., 2016). The online facilitators designed the courses that included lesson plans, videos, slides and scholarly publications (Zhang et al., 2016). Participants were asked to participate in a variety of different tasks: “studying learning resources, completing assignments, contributing to blog postings, contributing to voting activities, and participating in online discussions”(Zhang et al., 2016 p.891). Students had from March until December of one calendar year to complete the course (Zhang et al., 2016).

Data was collected from online surveys (personal demographics questionnaire/teaching presence questionnaire) and from log files (Zhang et al., 2016). Log files were categorized as passive, active, constructive, and interactive; teaching presence was measured by 13 self-reported items, and the website tracked user-interface behaviors (Zhang et al., 2016). “Online students were asked to participate in a series of tasks: studying learning resources, completing assignments, contributing to blog posts, voting activities and participating in online discussions” (Zhang et al., 2016, p.891). Participants were given a personal website and access to a class website (Zhang et al., 2016). The online facilitators interacted with the students through moderating, posting content, comments, messages, encouraging participation and responding to questions(Zhang et al., 2016). Table one and two below show the “Teaching Presence Measures” and “Categories of Engagement Behaviors” (Zhang et al., 2016).

To determine the results, “regression analysis was used to assess the impact of teaching presence on active engagement behaviors” (Zhang et al., 2016 p 895). The findings showed that for behaviors classified as Passive (totals for login frequency/time) and Active (total frequencies uploading/downloading assignments and participation in voting activities), the impact of teaching presence on these engagement behaviors was not significant. For behavior’s classified as Constructive (launching voting activities, creating: blog posts, personal and class resources, and commenting in all areas) and Interactive (“participation in online synchronous discussion activities” (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 894)), “the positive impact of teaching presence on the interactive engagement behaviors was significant”(Zhang et al., 2016. p. 896).

The authors conclude that the results indicate, “that significant teaching presence can lead online adult learners to enhance communications in the learning environment and to generate a substantial number of outputs that are beyond the learning materials.”(Zhang et al., 2016, p.897 ) More specifically the results showed “that teaching presence had a positive impact on learners’ constructive and interactive engagement behaviors” (Zhang et al., 2016, p.887 ). While this study focused on adult learners who would likely be more motivated and self-disciplined than high school learners, it could be argued that, given the results, further teacher presence in high school online classes through increased communication with students, blogs and other forms of communication (eg forums) might also lead to an increase in engagement. What this study does not test is whether the increased engagement also results in an increase in learning. However, in the pertinent literature shared by Zhang et al., (2016) it was noted that,

“when students are interactively engaged in learning, they receive information, activate prior knowledge, integrate new information, and make inferences by having a mutual dialog with others. Therefore, learning outcomes associated with interaction is believed to be better than learning outcomes associated with construction, which is better than activeness, which is superior to passiveness”

( p.888).

Given this information, it may be beneficial for students to spend more time involved in interactive and constructive tasks. The results of this study show that teacher presence is instrumental in the attainment of this and that this may lead to resulting successes for students.

The 4 R’s

The Research

“The Impact of Teaching Presence on Online Engagement Behaviors” (Zhang et al., 2016) is designed as a quantitative study that is rigorous, controlled, data driven and based in theory. Relevant literature was reviewed, justification for the research was given, a research question and hypothesis were formed and data in the form of questionnaires and server files were collected. The nature of this study was artificial and controlled; however, the researchers did attempt an authentic task; that of an online professional development course. The research has a defined beginning and end and produces clear results. Discussion of this research alongside the framework of the AR method is one way to provide clarity to both forms with the potential to create further insights and ways of knowing. Within an AR framework, a researcher teaching online could create a study of this topic that would also be rigorous and set in theory; the difference would be in the execution. An AR researcher dealing with these same phenomena may attempt to respond to this observed phenomenon in their classroom or teaching with a question like: Will an increase in teacher presence improve student engagement in online courses? After developing a plan that may include the implementation of a blog or other forms of online media/tools that would increase teacher presence, the researcher would then observe, reflect and then the original question would be re-evaluated. This may lead to one or many more cycles as the researcher attempts to gain understanding and improve their practice. The final results for the AR research would be based on observation regarding student interaction in opposition to the numerical data obtained in the Zhang et al study (2016). It is possible within the context of this specific question that the theories developed through both types of research would be similar; however, the methodology to get there would be drastically different.

The Researcher

According to the author biography, the researchers involved in “The Impact of Teaching Presence on Online Engagement Behaviors” Huaihao Zhang, Lijia Lin, Yi Zhan and Youqun Ren, are all employed in the faculty of Education at East China Normal University. All show involvement with technology and teaching; all have direct interest in and knowledge of the design and facilitation of online courses (Zhang et al., 2016). Likely, as all have experiences within these environments, this led them to their research and ultimately to the research question. In this manner, this initial process may vary little from an AR researcher who has identified a similar need in his/her practice. The experiences, however, of conducting this research would be drastically different. On one side we have the AR researcher who is working closely with students and is continually reevaluating the original question and revising as needed. This researcher is connected emotionally, intellectually and is looking for ways to improve their practice. On the other side are researchers who are connected with the question and with the theory but are distanced from it through their research. These researchers, due to the nature of the research would also require funding and a specific skill set to run and analyze data. These researchers may be detached from the process they designed; they collect, define, quantify and describe the data. Many researchers may prefer one process over another based on these effects; some researchers enjoy the “messy” aspect of AR and the emotion of it, other researchers enjoy the distance, and, possibly the preciseness of Quantitative research studies.

The Researched

Those researched play a vital role as researchers often need participants in order to answer their research questions. All research participants are impacted in some respects, the effect may be almost negligible, but argument can be made that this is still an impact. In the (Zhang et al., 2016) research, the participants, at a glance, appear to be unaffected by the research. On closer examination regarding the nature of the study and the expectations for the participants, they may have been affected in the following ways: the loss of time to do other things due to their participation, the potential to gain new skills as part of the class and the potential to create a new community and connections due to the nature of the tasks and the runtime of the course. Did participants continue to communicate after course completion? What effect might this have? All of these impacts may be deemed neutral or positive impacts, but without questioning the participants, it would be hard to determine with certainty. If this study was created as an AR study, the students would be impacted, as they would be directly involved as part of the research. Students involved in AR research may be impacted by requests to try new things as the teacher explores ideas; students may feel obligated to participate or to complete tasks as a result of the teacher/student relationship or because peers are participating. Considerations of participation involvement in either case should be thoughtful and ethical.

The Reader

The reader may be another researcher, a student or someone interested in the topic presented. As a reader, personal bias and beliefs may impact thoughts and ideas throughout. Some readers may dismiss the Zhang et al, (2016) study as it is not “authentic”. Some may embrace the objectiveness of it. Some readers may dismiss AR research as it is biased, subjective and is lacking in practical application. Some may embrace the authenticity and insights it provides. As a reader all research should be viewed carefully for critical issues that arise within each methodology: eg. all research is subject to bias and error/ participants need careful consideration, reliable isn’t always reliable. Readers should disseminate research with this in mind. That being said, as a reader, both types of research presented can develop new meaning, new ideas, new questions and new application. The reader may see the benefits and learning that is created through both types of research and may apply knowledge from both to create new understandings.

The benefits and learning that come from different methodologies has led to the creation of mixed methodologies where both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to create a more complete understanding. This merging of methodologies, while challenging in nature, may ultimately be the most effective way to approach a problem. Perhaps Robert Frost was wrong; one can travel both paths.

References

Foundation, P. (2019, July 14). The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost [Text/html]. Retrieved July 14, 2019, from Poetry Foundation website: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44272/the-road-not-taken

McAteer, M. (2013). Action Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913967

Zhang, H., Lin, L., Zhan, Y., & Ren, Y. (2016). The Impact of Teaching Presence on Online Engagement Behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116648171

Knowledge is Power: “Scientia Est Potentia (1A:Week 2)

July 14, 2019 / lhuston

Reflection on the use of social media, video, animation, research methods and literature reviews through a discussion and analysis of, “Public comment sentiment on educational videos: Understanding the effects of presenter gender, video format, threading, and moderation on YouTube TED talk comments”. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Larsen, R., Dousay, T. A., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018).

The topics and research reviewed this week led me to a discussion of this paper as I made connections with the ideas presented and discovered applications that would be useful in guiding my future research as well as current teaching practices. In addition to this, this paper reflected specific topics presented and discussed throughout course discourse this week, leading me to the belief that it would be particularly useful and relevant to discuss multiple aspects of this research.

We were able to have a face to face visit with one of the authors of this paper, George Veletsianos. The visit was beneficial in many ways as we were given the opportunity to engage with him regarding his research through questions and discussions. When discussing the 4 R’s this is directly relevant as it gave insight into who George is a researcher and what has led him to become involved in the work he does. According to his “About Me” page on his blog, one of the larger influences for his work was his parents’ direct experiences with war and their beliefs in education. Veletsianos shared as part of class discourse how within his research he wants to know people and hear their stories. “My research aims to understand and improve teaching, learning, and participation in digital environments” (Veletsianos.com/About Me). This study does exactly that.

In the introduction, Veletsianos et al (2018) reviewed current literature to provide background research justifying why this study was important and needed. The discussion of relevant literature led to the conclusion that there was a gap in the research and this experiment was justified in that manner. As a reader, I found this literature review to be interesting in a new way as I was now reading through it with a deepened understanding of what a literature review was.

After exposing this gap, their research object was stated as follows.

“To investigate these issues, we examined the strength of positive and negative sentiment expressed in response to TEDx and TED-Ed talks posted on YouTube (n = 655), the effect of several variables on comment and reply sentiment (n = 774,939), and the projected effects that sentiment-based moderation would have had on posted content.” (Veletsianos et al,.2018)

The importance of this research is discussed in a practical manner as more and more students, teachers and others are encouraged to go online and to build online digital identities. Further research that outlines these ideas as well as a discussion around the practical implications and application of the findings of this study are discussed. Based on discussions and topics covered this week in class regarding Twitter, Blogging, using social media in the classroom and creating professional online digital identities; I agree, this research and future connected research is needed.

Sentiment is the topic [term] primarily under investigation for this study and as such Veletsianos et al (2018) spend time discussing the term so the reader is familiar with it. In addition to the discussion of sentiment, Veletsianos et al, (2018) go on to explore the concept of moderation in depth. Again, as a reader, I am connecting to the literature that is reviewed through these sections.

……I wonder why people choose to post negative comments, I wonder why these begat further negative comments, I wonder about the ease with which one person can post a comment that can make or break another human, I wonder about the disassociation with humanity, the lack of kindness/of thoughtfulness, and then I wonder about the rich and deep connections people build…..

This literature review gives an overview of some of the current and past research associated with both sentiment and moderation as well as some of the general findings resulting from this research further establishing the necessity of the research they are conducting. This is important because it not only gives the reader (myself, and other educators, researchers) a broader understanding of the terms, it also addresses connected and relevant research.

The research investigated Ted-X and Ted-ed talks and resulting comments to answer their research questions. Those researched were not directly impacted in anyway; only data they had posted or responded to was included; personal interviews, questionnaires or any other form of communications with those involved was not a part of this study. Interestingly, this contrasts with another Veletsianos study we investigated this week: Women scholars’ experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame by George Veletsianos, Shandell Houlden, Jaigris Hodson and Chandell Gosse. This study focused on a small group of participants who were interviewed individually. In this study, both the researcher and the researched would have been impacted through their participation in these interviews. For the researchers, conducting this research may have provided a sense of connection with these women and a deeper understanding of the issues they had faced/were facing. It may have impacted them on an emotional/personal level. For those researched, the interviews may have become a coping skill itself as their voices are heard (their stories are important) or it may have been therapeutic or may have created further anxiety. Given Veletsianos’s background information as well as insights gained in class, I am curious about his experiences with both studies as the research methodology differed. I am also curious about whether the unknowing participants of the Ted-X and Ted-ed study would have been affected had the result of this study been shared with them. What, if anything would they change going forward? This would be interesting to explore further.

Within this study, justification is given for using only Ted-x and Ted- ed talks; however, I do find it to be a limiting factor as they look at only one type of video and arguably, one type of audience. The three research questions for this study were then given:

RQ1. What is the strength of positive and negative sentiment in response to TEDx and TED-Ed Talks posted on YouTube?

RQ2. How does the gender of the video presenter, the delivery format (presentation vs. animation),

and comment threading influence the sentiment of comments and subsequent replies?

RQ3. What would be the likely impact of moderating negative comments upon community participation?

One thing I wondered about these questions is: Are three questions too many to address within a piece of research? Does it make more sense or is it more appropriate to delve deeply into one question? It makes some sagacity to include the first two questions are they are explicitly connected. I do wonder about the reasoning and validity of including the third question as this seems to begat its own study.

My other question, as mentioned previously, was the limiting factor of only using one type of video for the study. I questioned whether it had to do with the amount of data being analyzed but upon further examination of the methods of analyzing the data I noticed that they used a piece of statistical software called “SentiStrength”. “We then generated sentiment scores for all comments and replies in the dataset, by using the open source sentiment analysis tool SentiStrength” (Veletsianos et al., 2018). According to http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk/, SentiStrength is capable of analyzing “up to 16,000 social web texts per second with up to human level accuracy for English”. In this case, why not analyze a larger data set that includes multiple types of educational videos? Perhaps this had to do with the manual coding that also took place as well as the fact that they were examining both quantitative and qualitative data. This limitation was addressed within their study leading me to the belief that the researchers felt, that despite this limitation, the study would still provide valuable information. Upon reading through their results, I would agree.

The results of their study are listed below:

1. Overall, comments and replies were categorized as neutral.

2. Some video topics were more likely to lead to positive comments and replies (beauty, passion, career) and some were more likely to lead to negative comments and replies (cancer, college, pain).

3. Male presenters were more likely to receive neutral comments and replies.

4. Female presenters were more likely to receive positive and negative replies.

5. “Animations neutralized both the negativity and positivity of replies at a very high rate”

6. Positive responses were more likely to lead to further positive responses. The same was true for negative responses.

7. Comment moderation did not significantly reduce negative responses.

The conclusions went on to discuss each found phenomena in further detail along with potential applications and a call for more research in some of these areas. These results, as the reader and an educator impacted me in multiple ways. I was surprised, especially given pre-existing research, that the results found for comments overall were categorized as neutral overall. I wonder if the researchers had chosen to view multiple types of educational videos, if these results would be the same. I also wonder, if other educational videos were examined, perhaps the same results would be found as it may be that all educational videos would have the same specific type of viewer. I found the results regarding topics interesting. This could lead to a greater understanding of what topics may cause negative or positive responses within the classroom OR when educational videos are viewed. The information regarding gender is applicable in many ways, both as a female venturing into the online world …..this can feel scary at times…. and as a teacher with both male and female students. It is important to understand that online experiences for males and females is not the same. It is also important to remember that social media as a tool can be both a positive and a negative experience. This reminds me of a recent twitter feed post:

Joanna Lake @JoannaTeaches

Relevant read from this week’s classes. #tiegrad @veletsianos @ChristineYH

Lorna M. Campbell @LornaMCampbell

This is important. When I teach about academic blogging now, I highlight the benefits of social media but also mention the drawbacks and make it clear that no one should feel obliged to engage with social media. #femedtech twitter.com/KAMWright/stat…

I think this post contains vital information. It is so very important to remember that no one should feel obliged to engage with social media. I view this idea with a new lens now as recently, as a result of discussions and readings in class, I had begun thinking of the ways I could incorporate social media in my blended and online classes as a means to engage, promote discussion and community within the online learning environment. Keeping this idea close as I begin to explore the use of social media in my classes is very important. This also connects to concepts and ideas presented this week in class through both the readings on privacy and through the information shared by the guest speaker Jesse Miller from Mediated Reality

One idea for application that arose as part of this study is student use of animations to share information rather than a video or live presentation of themselves. This eliminates the male/female phenomena and, according to research presented as part of this study, also creates anonymity which can increase overall participation. This would benefit the student as they would be given a voice. This would benefit other students in the class as they would have new ideas to listen to. And with that I circle back to my thoughts at the beginning and my purpose for writing; that of knowledge.

Knowledge is power. Education is power.

Image from Pixabay

Writing to Extend Thinking

July 2, 2019 / edtech

My past experiences with research methods focused primarily on one of two types: qualitative and quantitative. Curious to explore new ideas, it was with much interest that I read through two research articles that introduced me to a specific type of qualitative research (autoethnography) and to a research tool (the research diary). Both articles presented me with new information.

The first article, taken from the “International Journal of Qualitative Methods”, “Research Diary: A tool for Scaffolding” by Marion Engin (2011) discussed the benefits of journaling while researching. According to Engin (2011), the act of journaling experiences, connections, thoughts and questions while researching leads to deeper understanding and allows for greater reflection. Engin, (2011) discusses how the mind will forget what it was feeling or thinking at a particular time and aptly uses a quote by Durkheim (2006) where it is “suggest[ed] that we can only think about a topic when we have named it, and this can only be done verbally: …without language, we would not have, so to speak, general ideas; for it is the word which, in fixing them, gives to concepts a consistency sufficient for them to be able to be handled conveniently by the mind” (Engin, 2011 p). It would be fair to assume, given the context, that “verbally” would also include the written word. The benefit of writing ideas down is that you can go back to them multiple times; they are not lost. The spoken word, unless it is recorded, is lost the moment it ends. My personal experience with journaling while reading research papers it that the act of recording my thoughts and understandings as I view that article gives me a deeper and more thorough understanding of the article. As part of my journey through this grad program, I will have many opportunities to continue to experiment with research journaling and to discover the benefits for myself. This will be an ongoing discussion throughout my time in the program.

The second article, from the, “Forum: Qualitative Research”, Autoethnography: An Overview by Ellis, Adams and Bochner (2011), defines and discusses Autoethnography. According to Ellis et al. (2011), “this approach challenges canonical ways of doing research and representing others and treats research as a politically, socially-just and socially conscious act” (abstract). This article got me thinking about my past experiences with research; in all my experiences it was drilled into me that research, in order to be good, it must be unbiased. Words like “double blind”, “control group”, “experimental group” and the negative connotations associated with researcher bias come to mind. Past encounters with research have trained me to believe that this type of research is superior. So, it was with great interest that I viewed and journaled my way through this article. Ellis et al. (2011) discuss the authenticity of this type of research and how it, rather than ignoring bias, accepts that this is a part of the research and uses it and attempts to understand it. However, they also argue that this doesn’t mean that the research is unsubstantial and state that it is still: “rigorous, theoretical and analytical” (Ellis et al. 2011. p.11). The discussion also includes a well-reasoned and thoughtful exploration of how culture, bias, age, location, experiences and many other aspects do affect both the researcher and the researched. Interestingly, this research connects directly to the previous article by Engin, (2011) on journaling. When Ellis et al. (2011. p.7) cites Richardson’s (2000) statement that, “writing is a way of knowing, a method of inquiry” and Kiesinger (2002) and Poulous‘s, (2008) statement that “ we write to make sense of ourselves and others”, one can see that discussion(s) around the benefits of writing is expressed by the authors in both articles.

Both autoethnography and research journaling discuss the importance of writing and the benefits that come from engaging with writing. In both readings the act of writing is shown to divulge truths, create meaning and extend thinking. This reinforces my thoughts around the practice of journaling and it’s potential benefits. This also lends itself to classroom practice as if journaling is a benefit to researchers, it seems plausible that it would also benefit students. Future ideas for research and classroom implementation may include using journaling to extend students understanding of what they are reading and as self-assessment.

Clearly the benefits of journaling are well documented. But I wanted to see what other connected information I could find on journaling. A quick google search led me to some information on bullet journaling and the benefits of this style of journaling. I have used this with my English students but could use it in a more focused, authentic and ongoing manner throughout the year.

Link to TEDx video on bullet journaling

Another type of journaling I found some information on was video journaling. This could be an alternative to writing thoughts down. Students could include these in a blog to showcase their learning and progress or could record and keep them for personal use, perhaps reflecting upon them at certain points during the year/semester/project. One of the reoccurring themes that came up is that journaling in any form fosters creativity; creativity has been acclaimed as a 21st century “soft skill” that will help prepare students for the future.

Change in Your Pocket: How a Video Journal Can Help You Grow