The literature review carried on through most of the next year or so. The next phase was writing my research methodology chapter. Now of all the writing this was the one I was dreading the most! Why? Am not sure but it could be that I always thought research methodology theory was dry and complex and hard to grasp. Maybe I had set up barriers for myself. I had difficulty with this chapter even when I did my masters. I used to shy away from teaching the research process as well. However I did make effort and support masters students and so kept myself from totally avoiding research.
I was thinking that I would be using the action research process as the plan was to roll of the online workshop I had developed. It would be evaluated and redelivered. The initial pilot would allow me to see if the tools of real time discussion as well as the data gathering were appropriate. But Rupert suggested that maybe I should be looking at the design based research approach as I was specially developing the experiments to gather my data. The idea was that this would be a formative experiment and then a series of workshops as further formative studies with the final summative one. I went around asking colleagues if they knew anything about this research methodology as this is comparatively new approach having been first developed in 1992. I found a few papers and started reading about it. Having made up my mind to learn about the research process and various theories I managed to read and understand various literature. Generally I found that I carried out lot of learning by myself and used my tutorials to clarify my understanding with discussion with Rupert. It was liberating to find that I did understand most of what I was teaching myself. I wrote up the chapter and left it to one side mistakenly thinking I had done a good job!!! Little did I know. But at this time I got engrossed in carrying out the experiments and coming across difficulties which mean that I had to rethink not only for my research but also in terms of the Argunaut project.
The workshop got participants from all over the world but things came unglued when people and to download and install specific tools which were MSN and Digalo. The workshop was of a short duration and so time could not be spent in preparing the participants to use the tools and to form a learning community. Despite these limitations it was a useful pilot and helped in developing further experiments. It also helped to gather initial information about my research questions. Again working in a research team was helpful in understanding how research projects are developed and gain the skills of carrying out research.
I took part in developing the experiments and data gathering. This participative approach within collaborative research is very good as I truly learnt working with the experts and took on more and more responsibilities. I found it helpful to write the first draft report of the analysis. Getting feedback from my supervisors who were team leaders for the research allowed me to gain confidence in my writing and analytical skills. During the Argunaut project I had yet another change of second supervisor as Maarten went to work in another university. I was introduced to Nasser Mansour who took over the research project from Maarten. Nasser is meticulous about detail and has passed on this obsession to me. The reports were written up and a lot of my thesis form parts of various reports of the Argunaut project.
Then I had to begin to think what linear text display tool would I use instead of MSN? Luckily at this point the research team got involved in another project called InterLoc. This was a linear text display tool and was ideal for my research. It had formed part of my literature review but at that time I did not have an opportunity to implement it. But with the InterLoc being run as a research project I could again use the opportunity to gather data relevant for my research questions from the experiments set up. I followed the same process as for the Argunaut experiments to gather and use the data for my research. The report writing followed and this time felt a little bit easier as I had got more skillful at writing. Not that I did not need the feedback for polishing the reports before submission.
These experiments formed three of the chapters of my thesis. These were written and rewritten a few times. The data is fairly wide and address many issues. How do I organise and structure the chapters to provide an easy read of the findings and also which will ensure all the research questions are addressed?
Sunday 3 January 2010
Baby Steps on the Road to PhD
The biggest hurdle in starting a PhD is finding the topic. This has to keep you interested, motivated and also be something that is worth pursuing and needs to be researched. Remember that the research has to make contribution to many areas such as knowledge, practice and research methodology if possible. So just having a topic is mind was only the first part to getting myself registered on a PhD.
Then started the delicate and difficult part of working through what exactly I wished to research within the topic. I am interested in so many things and there is a limit to what can be achieved within a PhD. This is where I needed the support of my supervisors. Rupert Wegerif was my first supervisor and Patrick Dillon was the second supervisor. This initial period is important also in developing a relationship with your supervisor. You need to be able to understand each other and appreciate the each other and so know give and get support that is beneficial. It was interesting to meet and talk about what I wanted to do, write up drafts of proposal and keep reworking the research questions to get a better focus. I was able to get across to my supervisor that I was not a scatterbrain but just interested in too many things. I needed the discussions with him to work out the specifics. The writing also had to be discussed as my style is totally different from my supervisors. At one point it was an eureka moment when we understood that I was very much grounded in praxis while he was very much theory oriented.
Also a new thing for both of us was that I would do a collaborative PhD. There was a research project being carried out in the School of Education. This was the Argunaut Project an European collaborative research project set up to develop software that would support facilitator in moderating synchronous online tool called Digalo. I was to work with the research team and participate in the development of the experiments, data gathering as well as analysis and report writing. The data that was relevant to my research questions could be collected at the same time as some of the data gathered for the project was also necessary for my research. Then there were some aspects of research questions which had to be specifically incorporated into the data gathering.
This was a very challenging and exciting new experience for me. Working at a completely different level from what I was generally used to. It suddenly made me realise that I had not been intellectually stimulated in the last few years. I had got into a rut intellectually and academically. The first stirring of interest was when I started teaching myself the concept and principles of using technology in learning and teaching. I was invited to submit a proposal for an international conference. Presenting at that conference seemed to click on a switch and I knew what I needed to do to improve myself and challenge me.
The first thing I had to do as the research team member is develop an online workshop with two different tools to carry out the real time discussions. At this point my second supervisor was changed to Maarten De Laat as he was the research project leader in the department and was better placed to support me. This started my exciting journey into the world of research. Strange how I always thought research to be boring…… I think I was naive. The developing of the workshop as a pilot study was not very difficult as I have developed similar modules in my work. The refining of research questions and beginning of literature review was what had me tearing my hair out… There was so much to read and so much to include in the literature review – pedagogies of online learning and teaching, facilitating learning online and the tools available both linear text display tools and graphically and spatially displayed text tools. I actually learned so many tools during this period and realised it was fun to learn about these different software which I could use in my work.
Writing the literature review was the next important hurdle. It is easy to be descriptive and just identify what different theories explain. Having to be clear about what the theory says and what are the strengths and limitations of each one is where the critical thinking needs to be applied. You need to bring together all the literature and arrive at your own theoretical conceptual framework to show your understanding of the theories. This part has always been hard for me as I need to spend a lot of time thinking before I can develop a conceptual framework. This writing had to be refined and revisited and reedited many times….. Rupert says rewriting is the secret to good writing!
Then started the delicate and difficult part of working through what exactly I wished to research within the topic. I am interested in so many things and there is a limit to what can be achieved within a PhD. This is where I needed the support of my supervisors. Rupert Wegerif was my first supervisor and Patrick Dillon was the second supervisor. This initial period is important also in developing a relationship with your supervisor. You need to be able to understand each other and appreciate the each other and so know give and get support that is beneficial. It was interesting to meet and talk about what I wanted to do, write up drafts of proposal and keep reworking the research questions to get a better focus. I was able to get across to my supervisor that I was not a scatterbrain but just interested in too many things. I needed the discussions with him to work out the specifics. The writing also had to be discussed as my style is totally different from my supervisors. At one point it was an eureka moment when we understood that I was very much grounded in praxis while he was very much theory oriented.
Also a new thing for both of us was that I would do a collaborative PhD. There was a research project being carried out in the School of Education. This was the Argunaut Project an European collaborative research project set up to develop software that would support facilitator in moderating synchronous online tool called Digalo. I was to work with the research team and participate in the development of the experiments, data gathering as well as analysis and report writing. The data that was relevant to my research questions could be collected at the same time as some of the data gathered for the project was also necessary for my research. Then there were some aspects of research questions which had to be specifically incorporated into the data gathering.
This was a very challenging and exciting new experience for me. Working at a completely different level from what I was generally used to. It suddenly made me realise that I had not been intellectually stimulated in the last few years. I had got into a rut intellectually and academically. The first stirring of interest was when I started teaching myself the concept and principles of using technology in learning and teaching. I was invited to submit a proposal for an international conference. Presenting at that conference seemed to click on a switch and I knew what I needed to do to improve myself and challenge me.
The first thing I had to do as the research team member is develop an online workshop with two different tools to carry out the real time discussions. At this point my second supervisor was changed to Maarten De Laat as he was the research project leader in the department and was better placed to support me. This started my exciting journey into the world of research. Strange how I always thought research to be boring…… I think I was naive. The developing of the workshop as a pilot study was not very difficult as I have developed similar modules in my work. The refining of research questions and beginning of literature review was what had me tearing my hair out… There was so much to read and so much to include in the literature review – pedagogies of online learning and teaching, facilitating learning online and the tools available both linear text display tools and graphically and spatially displayed text tools. I actually learned so many tools during this period and realised it was fun to learn about these different software which I could use in my work.
Writing the literature review was the next important hurdle. It is easy to be descriptive and just identify what different theories explain. Having to be clear about what the theory says and what are the strengths and limitations of each one is where the critical thinking needs to be applied. You need to bring together all the literature and arrive at your own theoretical conceptual framework to show your understanding of the theories. This part has always been hard for me as I need to spend a lot of time thinking before I can develop a conceptual framework. This writing had to be refined and revisited and reedited many times….. Rupert says rewriting is the secret to good writing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
