Peer review of my proposal

One of the pivotal elements of Design Based Research (DBR) is the feedback that is received throughout the iteration process (Herrington et al., 2007). This feedback by the users of the product or service and the practitioners in the field helps the project developer create a product or service that is designed to fulfil user needs (Leinonen & Durall, 2014). This is what happened during the development of my DBR. I received feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas in my proposal (Brown, 2008) from many of my former and current clients, and some of my former colleagues with experience in online learning. The following will outline how I sought feedback on my proposal and how that feedback informed the iteration process, and will continue to do so far beyond the scope of this proposal.

In the initial phase of my DBR I posted an issue that I was having with the online tutoring. However, after posting this to my blog, and having discussions with my clients and fellow colleagues, I reformulated my statement of the problem to how to deliver my service in an online environment but try to maintain the effectiveness that is achieved in a face-to-face context. To help inform the development of my DBR I sought feedback from individuals within the "strong" and "weak" ties of my network (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014, p. 27). To obtain feedback by peers in NGL (i.e. my weak ties) I tried to ensure that blog posts were appropriately titled to attract their attention in Feedly, such as "Seeking feedback on my research proposal." This attracted many peers, particularly Mari, Paul, Deb, Laura and Philip. I am grateful to these students as they each returned to provide feedback on my proposal when I completed Phase II. I also communicated via email, using both private and university email, and via Google Docs. Despite a few issues with the Docs platform, such as not allowing comments on my document or my own ignorance of the access process, many of my peers did gain access and provide valuable advice. I also sought feedback by colleagues (i.e. strong ties) that I had worked within the university setting, each with extensive experience with online learning.

Although many of my peers are not directly involved with delivering programs online, they each have experience with learning online, such as Mari, or are in a similar field, particularly Deb and Laura. Deb, who is employed in a higher education context, commented on how my proposal was of interest to her and that it has "mostly reaffirmed... the approach [USQ] has to supporting teachers in their online teaching." Her suggestion on using eLearning tools to "enhance social presence" propelled my further investigation in the use of new technologies to engage learners. Laura outlined my limited description of my context, and how it was necessary to situate the reader. She also emphasised the importance of providing justification of why I chose the media in my intervention, and how the literature supports my choice. Mari provided many suggestions on how to encourage learner collaboration, such as creating contexts for students to share their writing or comment on each other's posts. It was Mari's ideas about encouraging the co-construction of a task that informed the writing task in my intervention.

Feedback from clients was also constructive throughout each phase of my DBR. In accordance with "participatory design" in design thinking, where the people who are expected to be the beneficiaries of the design are involved in the process from the early stages (Leinnon & Durall, 2014, p. 109), during Phase I of my DBR many students had informed me about the importance of personal interaction with their tutors online. One student highlighted how "something transformational happens" after talking with their tutors - they no longer feel like just another student, they feel "known, understood and real." This was reiterated by many other students, who cited the importance of interacting with "real people" rather than using avatars or other similar virtual technologies to promote social presence, as suggested in my literature review. These students also revealed what teaching practices they felt was most engaging or effective for learning, such as the delivery of content that feels like they are in the classroom with the teacher, or learning through Youtube videos or even games, such as Grammar Ninja. One client highlighted how using gaming language, such as "challenge" rather than "task" made the learning seem "more fun" and less daunting. Most of all, clients or former students, highlighted how important it was to receive personalised feedback on their learning. Upon receiving all this feedback I made changes to my DBR.

Feedback from practitioners in online learning was also crucial for informing my DBR process. A colleague advised on researching the literature of design thinking and gamification, as they are both contemporary fields or ideas that provide many fruitful discussions on the latest in creating meaningful learning experiences. I was attracted to the design thinking approach, which appears very similar to the DBR approach, as they both emphasise the importance of the iteration process, and how having a problem-focused approach is essential if one is to create a solution that is designed according to user needs. Design thinking, like DBR, emphasises the importance of "deep understanding of and empathy with the user," and how this understanding will need to be constantly evaluated and integrated into the program." This colleague also highlighted how my problem is formulated from a socio-centric epistemological position that learning is social, meaning that I see "learning is [being] about connections, emotions, dispositions, [and] relationships," in alignment with a social constructivist position (Putnam & Borko, 2000). By informing me about my epistemological stance, I became aware of how I was shaping the questions to fulfil my own ideas about what constituted effective learning experiences rather than researching the range of literature that reveals dynamic approaches, particularly within NGL.

Another colleague who is an online learning coach reaffirmed many of the claims made in my proposal. She outlined how she feels socially connected to students because of synchronous and asynchronous tools. She outlined how synchronous tools allow for almost immediate feedback, as outlined in the literature (Hrastinski, 2006). However, she also finds that asynchronous tools, such as discussion boards, also help create an online social presence. This is because it provides students with "control and flexibility in the course content during the learning process," especially that many are "time poor." She also reaffirmed the importance of programs that provide an "intuitive feel," where they enable learners to navigate the interface "seamlessly" rather than a "disjointed format." It was constructive feedback like this revealed how my approach resonated with practitioners in the field.

The DBR process has made me realise the importance of "intensive and long-term collaboration" with researchers and practitioners in order to integrate the development of solutions and practical problems to my teaching practice (Herrington et al. 2011). However, it has also revealed that to develop an innovative online writing program a “human-centred, creative, iterative, and practical approach” is necessary (Brown, 2013, p. 92). Therefore,  through the "shared, social construction of understanding" with my clients, who will be the users of my program, I will be able create a prototype that is meaningful in the research of education (Leinonen & Durall, 2014, p. 107).

References:
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf

Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive Learning Networks: The Evolution of Research and Practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks (pp. 23–47). London: Routledge.

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4089-4097). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hrastinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning course: How is participation affected? The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 117–131.

Hrastinski, S. (2007). Participating in synchronous online education. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Informatics, Lund University, Sweden. Retreived from https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=599311&fileOId=600490

Leinonen, T., & Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and Collaborative Learning, Media Education Research Journal, 21(42), 107-116.

Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Seeking feedback on DBR before it goes into publication

This Google Doc is the final draft of my DBR for designing an intervention for an online writing program. Please provide feedback on any of my ideas, or what you think I need to know.

Thank you :)

How Star Citizen revealed the importance of iterative feedback

Up until this moment I was focusing on what my academic writing program should include, and what type of medium I will need to use and all the tools that will help make it immersive and effective for my learners. However, I was struggling with how to apply the principles derived from Networked and Global Learning to my program. It was not until I examined the process gaming companies, such as Robert Space Industries, use to develop successful games that I realised how.

Star Citizen, a space trading and combat simulator, developed by Robert Space Industries, is predicted to become one of the most immersive and successful games within gaming history. It has achieved this type of accolade not because of the "modified CryEngine" that will power the game, but because of the high level of community involvement that it has encouraged from the very beginning of its inception. In the initial alpha release of the "Hangar Module" the creators asked "backers," or members who contributed to the funding of the game's development, to "explore through the virtual ships from a 1st person perspective." (I know this because both my sons' were involved in this process and I was regularly provided with details on the game's progress, including any issues or "bugs."). This feedback was followed with "subsequent updates to the Hangar Module," including the "ability to add upgrades and modifications to players' ships." Therefore, through an iterative process the game developers in conjunction with the feedback provided by users, enabled the constant updating of the modules to allow for "additional functionality and content," all well before its expected release in 2016/17.

A lot of games, such as Watchdogs, do not have such intensive community involvement, and if they do, the game is in beta, and in beta form it is only available near release, and by that time it is already to late, the game is too far in for change. Roberts also remarks how in contrast to most games, where they "all work perfectly and are "neatly balanced," Star Citizen has been provided to the community at the earliest stages in order to utilise the feedback to improve the developmental process.

What is distinctive about Star Citizen, compared to other games, is throughout the entire process, and beyond, fans are "fully informed of the company's progress," making the "fans ... in control" of the process, rather than the creators. When Robert's Space Industries were in the initial phases of developing the game, the developers set a record for a ship race before it was released to the public. This record was beaten in no time, and the creators were reported to have said, "You can never be as good as your community." Chris Robert's, Star Citizen's creator, has remarked that this community, a growing "400,000," are the one's who tell him what they want. They are "invested parties," he says, who "love the game so much that they are willing to pay for it." Rather than have to keep "sales and marketing happy," as was required in the "old publishing model," Roberts remarks how, through "community feedback," he is now able to create the "game that [his company] think the community wants."

In fact, it is this iterative feedback from the community, in a variety of forms, from the very positive to the very negative, that has enabled the designers and developers to constantly improve the game. Roberts has also said that unlike games that receive "venture capitalist" funds, the game is completely crowdfunded, enabling the company to create something that is user-centric rather than design something that is "cram[med] onto a disc" with the "hope" that the company will "get it all right." This was one of my concerns, that I create something that has taken hundreds of hours of development, only to be ineffective, and largely a "dud!"

However, what I have realised is, as a tutor of university students who are studying at a variety of levels, subject areas and universities, I am perfectly situated to not only design a writing program that will meet the needs of my learners, but I am also able to gain the feedback of my learners as I'm developing the program, something that will provide me with the crucial information I need to help make it as immersive as it can possibly be. Through making the writing program available in the early phases, something that I have already begun with my students, where they are using several resources and tools that I have specifically designed or utilised as elements to help develop effective writing skills, I will be inviting the dynamic feedback that has enabled Star Citizen to be the best version of its industry.

This "age of community," as Roberts has dubbed it, has led to the realisation that it is through utilising the input of a community of learners, and a community of practitioners, that will enable my writing program to be designed according to my learners needs, rather than what I think they need.

   by  Mr. Roboto.  Chris Roberts

Seeking feedback on Phase I of DBR

The design of an online program is definitely a massive undertaking. There are so many dimensions to think about that I'm amazed and awed by the design process, and all the research that it entails.

Please provide feedback on this Google Doc. After receiving feedback I will continue with Phase II. 

Thank you in advance. :)

Seeking feedback on my research proposal

In my quest to apply the principles of Network and Global Learning (NGL) to my practice, and perhaps transform it, I have engaged with peers, friends, family and clients to help me identify the challenges that I will face as my practice evolves, particularly as I begin to conceptualise providing my service to students beyond my local context, and delivering a writing program in an online format.

In contrast to an earlier problem about how to effectively deliver online tutoring, I have now reformulated my research questions to encapsulate the issue of how to engage my students in a comprehensive writing program that has been specifically designed to develop their writing skills. This program will be designed to prepare my students for higher education and will not require them to work with me in a face-to-face context. Therefore, my problem is how to deliver my writing program to students that are not able to come to my practice, and in particular, how do I deliver something that is just as engaging as if my clients were there beside me. The issue of engagement and effectiveness has been a real issue, as many of my students like working with me and are concerned about the effectiveness of online programs.

To reformulate my earlier DBR questions (as I am no longer only focusing on the issues with online tutoring), my research question, as informed by Bakker's (2014) list of criteria for creating a good research question, does address my current knowledge gap (i.e. how to provide an immersive writing program for clients that enjoy the benefits of face-to-face tutoring). It is also "pragmatically and theoretically" relevant as the development of a program of learning is something that I had been creating and refining for quite some time (as I have designed and created resources that I have been using with students for over four years and is something I really enjoy). For this reason I perceive an online program as not only beneficial to online students but will also improve my practice overall.

I think my research question will also be of use to other practitioners, particularly those who desire to deliver their own course or program online, and want it to be as engaging as face-to-face. My research questions are also "precise and anchored" in the literature as the majority of papers or articles that I have read on online learning discuss the issue of immersion, and how to create contexts where learners feel just as engaged as they would be with the teacher right beside them.  Lastly, my question is "manageable" as it is something that I can achieve, and something that I aim to implement and evaluate as my program evolves.

Thus, as suggested by Bakker (2014) the following research questions will guide the development of my proposal as they ask about the "characteristics" of my proposed intervention:

What are the design characteristics for practicable and effective online writing programs that enable students to learn as effectively as face-to-face learning?

and

How can online learning strategies and approaches, aimed at providing students with the same level of engagement as face-to-face tutoring, be structured?

I have also attached my Google Doc that illustrates the developing construction of my DBR Proposal. It is a draft copy (and is only in its skeletal framework) and any feedback on this post or the Doc will be very much appreciated. I would particularly appreciate feedback on the articulation of my problem, and whether it is clear and specific enough. I would also like any ideas about possible interventions (strategies or approaches) that help create engaging online learning programs, particularly your experiences and what worked or did not work and why.

Thank you kindly in advance. :)

References:

Bakker, A. (2014). Research Questions in Design-Based Research (pp. 1–6). Retrieved from http://www.fi.uu.nl/en/summerschool/docs2014/design_research_michiel/Research Questions in DesignBasedResearch2014-08-26.pdf

Using DBR and SAMR to transform my practice

I am now in the process of formulating my design-based research (DBR) project that will be focused on improving my practice. It is through engaging with my personal learning network (PLN), such as my students, peers and others in my network, that I have been able to ascertain what problems exist within my practice. It is this PLN that I intend to work with through the "life cycle" of my project, particularly in arriving at solutions. I also intend to use the SAMR model that I have previously discussed as an essential framework that will enable me to gauge where my intervention sit in the application of networked technologies.

Over the course of the last few months I have found that participation in NGL has provided me with new practices, tools and theories that has helped me address practical problems in my everyday practice, from how I tutor and coach students, to what types of skills I want my students to develop. However, what has been most valuable is the interaction with individuals in my PLN. This includes the students that I tutor through my service, to other tutors within my field, particularly online tutors, and peers within NGL. Without this network I would not have been able to discern what challenges or solutions could apply to my practice. For this reason, their input has been invaluable and something that I am continuing to seek as I progress further.

What I have discerned so far is that by using Google Docs and Skype to deliver my service I am "modifying" the traditional approach to providing tutoring. As I have mentioned in a previous post, although I think face-to-face tutoring is the ultimate approach for individuals that enjoy in-person interaction, tutoring online, particularly with the tools I have mentioned, is "the next best thing." It is amazingly close. I have noticed that when I am tutoring clients that I have already met in-person and then we move to online tutoring, we both feel that it is very nearly the same. There's still the ready intervention into the task, role-modelling and opportunities for a laugh (one of the reasons tutoring can be so enjoyable for both my clients and I). I see my new approach to online tutoring as one intervention that will be a focus of my DBR.

Throughout NGL I have acquired other skills and insights into how digital technologies and online networks can enhance, and even transform, learning and teaching. I have expressed in a previous post about the benefits of blogging for not only critical reflection and enriched understanding of ideas, but also for improving writing and creating connections with like-minded individuals who share a passion. This is a fundamental skill that I want to develop in my students. I have noticed after many years of providing a tutoring service that it is not enough to only provide traditional practical activities (i.e. question sheets and templates), although these are still valuable and necessary, it is also essential to provide students with meaningful opportunities to express their ideas, such as through creating their own blogs or other digital artefacts that express who they are.

I have also written about how the acquisition of tools, such as Feedly, Diigo and Mendeley, that have improved the way I "seek<sense<share" information, has revamped my research skills, and the way I use the Internet. I have been sharing the tools and processes that I have acquired with students, encouraging them to develop Personal Knowledge Mastery, a skill that I think is essential for 21st learners. These changes have enhanced my students research skills, such as using Mendeley for not only citation purposes but also as a tool to record notes when reading materials, and categorising materials that are needed for different areas of their research. Thus, these skills have expanded my role from providing instruction on how to write effectively to how to research the Net most effectively.

I think the issues that I have identified so far and the solutions are in alignment with Wang and Hannafin's (2005) definition of the five basic characteristics of design-based research. They are "Pragmatic, Grounded, Interactive, iterative and flexible, Integrative, and Contextual" (p. 7). The solutions are pragmatic as they are grounded in solving "real-world problems," such as how to tutor in a world where time constraints prevent in-person interaction. I find this aspect of design-based research appealing, as it is focused on applying theory and practice, something that is necessary for creativity and innovation, two pivotal areas that I'm mostly interested in, particularly within the education field. Wang and Hannafin's (2005) design-based research approach also highlights how my approach to transforming my practice is informed by my interaction with students, peers and others in my network. Through collaboration, and "continuous development and refinement," I am formulating potential interventions that are likely to effect changes in my practice, perhaps even transformative ones.

Tentative research questions that can guide the formulation of my research project is:

How can online tutoring provide learners with the benefits of face-to-face tutoring?

or

How can NGL transform online tutoring and coaching practices?

Thus, these two questions are guiding my research process at this stage. Following Bakker's (2014) criteria for Research Questions, I know that they are "good" research questions because they address my "knowledge gap," as prior to NGL I had not considered online tutoring as a viable option, particularly due to the absence of in-person modelling of writing and other skills associated with writing effectively. The questions are also "pragmatically and theoretically relevant" to my practice, rather than being something that is not immediately applicable. The wording of the questions are also "precise and anchored" in the literature that I have come across that discuss the issues and potential solutions to online tutoring practices. Lastly, the questions are "manageable" and not something that is far beyond the scope of my practice. It is indeed providing me with the opportunity to implement my research findings directly to my practice. This is one of the reasons why I chose to study with USQ, I wanted something that was practically-based but also informed by the latest in research.

To focus my research even further I could ask about the "characteristics," as suggested by Bakker (2014), of my online tutoring intervention:

What are the design characteristics for practicable and effective online tutoring and coaching strategies that enable students to learn as effectively as face-to-face tutoring?

and

How can online tutoring strategies and approaches, aimed at providing students with the same level of engagement as face-to-face tutoring, be structured?

Thus, it is these questions that I will be using to guide further research and the early stages of writing my project. It is only after I have answered these questions will I be able to discern where I sit along the SAMR spectrum below. The model is certainly a useful guide for understanding where my intervention/s will sit along the technology integration spectrum.

   by  tim.klapdor 

At this stage I think that through my DBR project I will produce a "practical education intervention" that others in my field may be able to follow or improve upon. It is my goal, as informed by Edelson's (2002), that my approach will reveal a "design framework" - where my proposed "design solution" may provide an outline of a potential approach to challenges or issues within tutoring and coaching practice.

Identifying problems and solutions for online tutoring

After writing my post about the difficulties in finding an innovative solution to a problem in my practice I decided that through my discussion of the issue (i.e. with clients, peers, friends and family) combined with the reading of educational literature, I would eventually identify a problem, although whether my solution will be innovative will yet to be resolved. Through writing on my blog about a paper by Herrington et al (2007) on what design-based research should include, I identified an issue I was having with online tutoring.

It all began with an interesting point that Herrington et al (2007) cite from Reeves (2006) about how educational technology research has been and continues to be "largely pseudoscientific" and "socially irresponsible." I thought, and agreed, that there has been a tendency for some individuals to make revolutionary claims about ICT, particularly networked learning, and even to espouse it as essential to innovation. I, myself, have often posited technology as a panacea to educational problems.

I believed and still do, although there are many benefits to using technology to facilitate learning, conventional methods, such as face-to-face instruction, is invaluable. There is, I would say, something deeply personal about being with a knowledgeable or well-skilled "other." One of my clients recently spoke with me about the importance of seeing me in person and the beneficial effects it has on her learning, particularly being able to discuss the practice and have opportunities to discuss issues with me in person. For this reason, I was finding it difficult to conceptualise how networked learning could transform my practice, particularly when I believed that what I was doing was working. However, some of my clients, including the one above, began asking for online tutoring, something that I had dabbled in as a owner of a tutoring centre, where I would tutor through Skype, and as a course lecturer, but only in a question and answer format.

Therefore, I decided to do some research on online tutoring to see what others were saying about it on the Web. As I expected there is an abundance of articles citing the practice as "impersonal," and not as "constructive" or "beneficial" as in-person tutoring, whereas others were espousing the "practicality" and "convenience." This coincides with my earlier beliefs about online modes of learning. Prior to 2014 I never imagined that I would be completing my Masters online with USQ, or even enjoying the process. This is not only because of the convenience and practicality of the option, where I am not required to travel to an institution each week, sometimes on multiple occasions, and organise other face-to-face meetings with fellow students. It is because it allows me more time to spend with friends and family, and juggle work commitments. I have found this to also be the case with several of my university clients, who have opted to use Skype as a tutoring method.

However, I have found that although Skype is an excellent tool (as both the teacher and student can see who they are talking to and even are able to share a screen, enabling the teacher to provide immediate instruction or assistance that both can see) there are issues with clarity. This is one of the issues with online tutoring in Australia - the issue of bandwidth causing disruption to connection, particularly live streaming. Although I have unlimited broadband access, when sharing a screen and speaking at the same time, even with the video capturing mode disabled, there can be issues with connection, sometimes causing the screen to be blurry or speech to be intermittent due to slow connection or other issues. This can happen on both sides, for either the teacher or student. There has also been the "echo effect" or a "tinny sound" that can sometimes be heard whilst using Skype. These sounds can become annoying, and in worst case scenarios, can cause sessions to cease, either momentarily or indefinitely. I understand that this is not as much an issue in other "first world" countries, or even other neighbouring countries. Both my sons who upload videos to YouTube constantly talk about issues with Internet speed in Australia in comparison to other countries, particularly the United States.

As a potential solution I have recently found with one of my clients that turning off the video camera mode does provide better screen clarity but it is not reliable and does change throughout the session. A better option is to share a Google Doc, as both client and student can share the same document and edit it at the same time, and use Skype only for audio. There are other tools that are very effective, such as Blackboard's Collaborate and Citrix's GoToTraining, although they require a paid subscription and do not provide the ready intervention of Google Doc.

I realise the truth of the claim by Herrington et al. (2007) that a crucial first step to design-based research in education is the "identification and exploration of a significant educational problem." Now that I have identified a problem in my practice, along with possible solutions, my task is to illustrate how this will transform the future of my practice, particularly if I desire as a practitioner to be an active participant in the transformation economy, such as illustrated in the continuum below.

   by  jeanbaptisteparis 

References:

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4089-4097). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.