The
Research Paradigm
Our
preference for what we want to
know is influenced by our view
of the world. Our worldview
also determines how we choose
to understand the world around
us (Cohen et al 2001, 3;
Strauss & Corbin 1998,
28). A paradigm or worldview
is the hypothesis we develop
to understand our social
reality. Our experiences are
central to how we see the
world, how we settle on that
view and how we define and
address the problems we see.
Kuhn (1977) states that
scientific theories and views
about social reality are
constructed around a dominant
paradigm. This paradigm may
not answer all questions but
may be open enough to have
issues addressed by future
scientists.
In
scientific research, a
paradigm provides
epistemological foundations
for the research question and
influences the choices of
research methods (Guba 1990).
It is important to surface
these foundations, to justify
the choice of research
methods. In this research the
main question was to explore
how active, moderate and
silent online discussion
participants engaged and
constructed meaning in online
and blended formal education
courses. So, what was the
epistemological basis for this
question?
When
a research question is posed,
it is acknowledging one
paradigm and challenging
another (Guba 1990). The
discussions in Chapter Two
illustrated the contention
between the objectivist and
constructivist paradigms
affecting the online learning
pedagogy. The analysis in the
previous chapter highlighted
the dominance of the
objectivist worldview in
formal education that has led
to political and pedagogical
assumptions about what
contemporary use of technology
might do for different
learners’ ways of knowing.
This worldview of contemporary
online learning practice
expects all learners to
conform to the defined
learning processes and
overlooks individual
differences. It emphasizes
visible learning processes and
outcomes as evidence for
engagement and knowledge
construction. In contrast, the
research questions
acknowledged and assumed the
possibility of learning beyond
visible participation in
online discussions. Silence
was hypothesized as a role
that learners might adopt for
constructing meaning, and
possibly as an alternative
process for learning
engagement. These questions
aimed to challenge the
objectivist assumptions that
silence in online discussions
implied no learning.
In
the objectivist paradigm the
research methodologies take a
mechanistic view of learning
and look for measurable and
observable discussion
participation data (Cohen et
al 2001, 17). The research
studies situated in this
paradigm may be valuable to
understand some learning
differences, but they may
ignore the unseen individual
differences in learning. They
may leave the notion of
silence in online discussions
unexamined. The questions
posed in this research called
for an alternative paradigm
and methodology to examine the
unexamined (Eisner 1990, 89)
silence in online discussions.
Such a paradigm needed to
allow open-mindedness to
examine engagement for active,
moderate and silent learners.
The
methodology for this research
was therefore situated in the
constructivist worldview. Constructivism
accepts multiple realities
(Phillips 2000). The paradigm
suggests these realities are
understood with reference to
the theories or mental
frameworks that individuals
hold about the world (Guba
1990, 25). According to Guba
(1990, 26) if reality is
subjective and individual,
then subjective interaction is
the main way to understand the
multiple realities and
individual mental frameworks.
Therefore the chosen research
methods needed to involve
interactivity between the
researcher and the participant
(Schwandt 1990, 272). The
research techniques also
needed to allow participants
the space to re-conceptualise
and reconstruct learning
experiences during online and
blended courses (Giddens
1997). Within this paradigm
the research results could not
be assumed as absolute truths.
Instead they were
interpretations subject to
change as the participants
tested old constructions in
light of the new learning
experiences and learning
designs (Kelly 1970,
11).
Repertory
Grid Method
The
research employed an interview
technique called the Repertory Grid Method
designed
by George Kelly
(1970). He based this method
on his theory of personality
called the Personal Construct Theory
(PCT). The PCT philosophy is
in parallel with the
constructivist paradigm and
encapsulates the basic
postulate, “a
person’s processes are
psychologically channelised by
the ways in which he
anticipates events”
(Kelly 1970, 9). The
theory acknowledges both
social and individual ways of
understanding the world. Ways
of knowing can be understood
as interdependent on each
other as well as independent
of each other, depending on
individuals and their context.
According
to Kelly (1970) no
two events in any
individuals’ life are the
same. When faced with new
events or experiences, one
devises theories or hypotheses
from past experiences
and uses those theories to
anticipate new experiences.
Thus, different viewpoints and
behaviours correspond to
different theories of one’s
world created from past
encounters. These theories are
called personal constructs
abstracted by differentiating
experienced events into two
homogeneous groups (Kelly
1970). The theories held by
individuals are not permanent.
As one encounters new
experiences, they use their
previous constructions to
choose how they respond or
behave. New experiences will
also help either to re-confirm
previous constructions or
deconstruct old constructions
and reconstruct new ones. This
ongoing deconstruction and
reconstruction is what Kelly
(1970) calls learning.
The
Repertory Grid Method based on
the PCT provided a systematic
and rigorous method to explore
the behaviours (such as
‘active’ or ‘silent’
participation) learners chose.
The method has been used in different disciplines.
In this research the
method employed qualitative
and quantitative tools
including two qualitative
interviews to elicit learning
experiences and their
constructions, factor analysis
of the repertory grid and
qualitative analysis of
transcribed and graphical
data.
The
first interview involved open
questioning to elicit
contextual information about
the study participants
including their employment
status, past education
experiences, information
technology skills, domestic
and employment
responsibilities, and
financial and situational
support for learning. This
followed the main part of the
interview that asked each
participant to list 10-15
learning experiences during
their online and blended
courses. The experiences
included online discussion
participation. The experiences
were noted on separate cards
labelled E1, E2, E3, E4,…
Participants were asked to
look at a random combination
of three experiences to
describe which two experiences
were more similar as compared
to the third and why. This is
called the triad method (Kelly
1970). The comparisons helped
to elicit a pair personal
constructs that were noted on
another set of cards labelled,
PC1a, PC1b; PC2a, PC2b; PC3a,
PC3b…
After
the participants had
considered each experience in
at least one triad and had
exhausted their personal
constructs, they used a scaled
of 1 to 5 to rate each
experience against each pair
of personal constructs. This
resulted in a Repertory Grid
for each participant that was analyzed
using SPSS factor analysis
function. The principal
components or factors were
extracted that showed the
multiple correlations between
different experiences and
personal constructs, for each
participant. The principal
components with correlated
experiences and constructs
were represented as graphical
axis and used for further
qualitative analysis with the
participant in the second
interview.
During
the second interview
participants were asked to
consider each principal
component (represented as a
graphical axis). The
participants gave labels for
each axis describing it as a
learning dimension in their
knowledge construction
process. The second interview
also allowed further
questioning of the learners
engagement processes and
reasons for their chosen level
of participation in online
discussions.
All
audio interviews were
transcribed. The
transcriptions and labelled
graphical representations were
imported into the qualitative
data analysis software,
ATLAS.ti (version 5). The data
were coded using open coding
and analyzed using the
principles of grounded theory.
The results below report on
the analysis results for
eleven overseas learners who
volunteered to take part in
the study.
Research
sample
The
final research sample included
a heterogeneous group of
volunteer twenty-nine
learners. They included
post-graduate and
post-registration learners
studying for online or blended
courses at one Higher
Education Institute (HEI) in
the UK. Some variation within
this population group was
important to allow for broader
explanatory power and
precision of the emerging
themes and theory (Strauss and
Corbin 1998). This variation
was enabled through inclusion
of a heterogeneous group of
learners from different
disciplines that used online
discussion as the popular
online pedagogical practice.
The group also included home
and overseas learners studying
in and outside the UK.
Results
The
research analysis revealed
that all twenty-nine study
participants engaged in a
range of online and offline
individual and social
activities. In this
small-scale the learners
identified themselves as
active, moderate or silent
discussion participants in
online discussions during
their online or blended
learning courses. The
following only represents a
snapshot of research results,
in particular from the view
that examines differences
between home and overseas
learners' knowledge
construction. The analysis
offered various other
perspectives that can be
accessed in the thesis.
The
learners identified similar
and different learning
processes explaining their
reasons for active, moderate
and silent participation. Yet
the silent overseas learners
for whom English was not the
first language also identified
language and cultural
differences as reasons for
reduced control and negative
emotional response that led to
non-participation in online
discussions.
A
small number of home and
overseas participants
identified preference for
social learning over
individual learning. The
preference for social learning
did not imply preference for
participation in online
discussions. Another small
number of learners stated
preference for individual
learning. These participants
did not gain from online
discussion participation but
did desire the feeling of
being in a learning community.
Majority home and overseas
learners identified the need
for a balance between
individual and social learning
activities for knowledge
construction, feedback and
validation of developing
personal knowledge. The study
participants who were in
full-time working positions
also identified the importance
of professional relevance to
participate in online
discussions.
All
study participants preferred
learning experiences that
helped them to gain control
over what was accepted as
personal knowledge. Personal
control and emotional
engagement during social and
individual learning activities
emerged as the super-ordinate
construct or lens into
participants’ learning
worlds and their ways of
knowing.
Emotional
connectedness
Irrespective
of social and individual
learning preferences all study
participants identified the
importance of emotions during
online discussions. Knowledge
of others and a feeling of
connectedness were repeatedly
identified as significant for
support and social learning
during online and blended
courses. The feeling of
connectedness was perceived to
be important for social
engagement, control and
emotional satisfaction.
Feeling part of a group helped
online learners to know that
they were not alone but part
of a cohort that aspired to
similar goals and shared
emotions. It also assisted
participants in establishing a
comfort zone where they could
trust others and share ideas
and discussions.
A
small group of learners who
were confident in their online
communication skills and
English language writing
experienced this
connectedness. The majority
home and overseas learners who
had limited experience in
online communication in the UK
academic context identified
the limitations of online
discussion space to build a
feeling of closeness and a
team spirit that acknowledged
individual goals for social
attraction to a group.
“It
was quiet a challenging
activity having to construct
a problem at work and having
other people contribute to
it. But the immediate
assumption to this was that
because we hadn't really
established a group identity
or a single purpose, and we
hadn't consolidated that
each person was coming in
with a particular problem
and our own work experience.
Because we hadn't
established that group
identity, there was lack of
motivation, lack of interest
in seeing a potential
solution emerge. It was the
case of whatever, when it
comes down to it I am not
going to see you again. So
consequently I found that
that I struggled to engage
with them.” (Carl Int 1)
As
demonstrated in the proceeding
sections the lack of emotional
connectedness had a
significant impact on overseas
social and language identity
construction.
Social
identity construction
All
participants initially tried
to participate in online
discussions. They also
indicated that online
acknowledgment by others
helped them to experience a
sense of social presence and
construct an online social
identity. The active online
participants, who were usually
amongst the first to
contribute, experienced this
sense of social presence. When
learners’ online
contributions remained
unacknowledged they felt
ignored. The lack of response
to online postings led
individuals to question how
others perceived them. Home
and overseas learners, who
described themselves as silent
or moderate participants in
online discussions, described
non-response as a suggestion
that their contribution may
have been judged as
incompetent or deficient in
some way.
“It
was quiet a disconcerting
feeling, that they are
already judging my work and
thinking ‘oh I don’t
know what do I say about
that’, because I didn’t
know what they were
thinking. And this is like
two days before the
presentation, I had nothing,
right.” (Kay Int 1) (home
learner)
The
lack of acknowledgement made
home and overseas participants
feel inadequate, particularly
when active participants
seemed engaged in a discussion
that seemed too complex or
advanced for their
comprehension. For some
moderate and silent
participants these feelings
led to a sense of isolation.
Silent participants identified
personal constructs such as ‘feeling
isolated in a bubble’
(Kay Int2) and ‘I feel
isolated in a group’
(Jaya Int 1) suggesting
feelings of separation from
the rest of the group. These
emotions further contributed
to their sense of social
absence from online
discussions.
In
addition, for overseas
learners like Karan lack of
reply and feeling of isolation
also brought to question the
language aspect of his online
social identity.
“If
I am not getting feedback
then its difficult for me to
interact with them, because
of this particular reason
may be what do they think
about that, why they
haven’t feedback, why they
haven’t replied me. May be
my language I use may be
quiet difficult, or
something they may find
wrong, so they don’t think
they are going to reply for
that. So lot of points, a
lot of thoughts are going in
my mind. This affects my
studies.” (Karan Int 2)
The
lack of reply to his message
did not only lowered Karan’s
confidence in English language
writing but also lowered his
confidence in the subject.
English language competence
surfaced as a significant
factor for Karan that led him
to feel isolated and separate
from the online group.
The
home and overseas participants
who did not experience an
emotional and cognitive
connection with others also
found their social control
diminished when others did not
appear to value their
thinking. The lack of sense of
involvement led to silence or
disengagement from online
discussions.
Language
learning is the part of the
enculturation process that
begins in early years of human
life. It aids the awareness
and consciousness of self and
others. These are
characteristics that are
peculiar to human cognition
and development (Vygotsky
1978). The overseas study
participants for whom English
was not their first language
experienced difficulties in
language socialisation using
the online discussion spaces.
Like the home learners,
overseas participants also
sought positive online social
identities. They wanted to be
seen in a positive light by
their colleagues and tutor. In
addition they wanted to
improve their English language
skills and wanted to establish
new social-linguistic
identities as overseas
learners in the UK. Belz
(2003, 209) confirms learning
a second language is a process
of “identity construction as
individuals try to align
themselves with groups,
communities and/or sets of
interests, values and
beliefs”. The overseas
participants were seeking new
learner and language
identities through active
socialisation with others in
the UK based courses.
The
deconstruction of these
learners’ experiences
suggested that online
discussion spaces did not
acknowledge diverse language
abilities and cultural
identities. Overseas
participants identified the
differences between English
language use in the UK
academic contexts and the
English language they used and
learned in their home
countries. They revealed that
online course discussions did
not provide the space,
opportunity, freedom and
safety to scaffold English
language identity as overseas
learners in the UK. The
formality of online discourse
was either beyond participants
understanding or it provided
limited opportunities to
socialise with the aim to
practice academic and cultural
use of English language. It
was not a space where
participants felt free to
deconstruct their existing
language competence and
reconstruct new ones.
“Because
I mean, frankly, before I
say something I always think
about twice, thrice… what
is going to be the fact of
what I am going to tell
them. Because they are PhDs
and so, then kind of
thinking that if I put like
this way, because you know
the thing is that because I
am international student, I
just came over here eight
months ago. Initially I
don’t know how to interact
with them, the communication
they use, so sometimes,
because the language we use
in India and over here, both
are very different. Even
common terms we need talk
with them its also very
different. So that also
hinders me to talk with them
freely” (Karan Int 1)
Although
the overseas learners had
fulfilled the course entry
requirements for English
language competency (e.g.
TEFOL and IETS exams), they
did not feel confident in
academic use of the language
particularly in written online
discussions. They compared
their incompetence in English
grammar with the
English-speaking learners in
the academic online discussion
space. Their complex about
English language competency
contributed to feeling less
free and to risk incorrect
grammar usage in online
discussions.
“When
you have to write you have
to think how and the
grammar. All the things that
is quite difficult. Its not
just I write and it sounds
good. But I have to go and
see if it is correct.
Sometimes it sounds good but
its not correct… I am
very, very disappointed ...
It is more like the skill of
the language than the
knowledge.” (Jose’ Int
1)
“I
don’t think my English is
very well because sometimes
it is hard to think how to
translate it properly in
academic language and also
tutor is reading it.
Language is an issue because
sometime you know (pause) it
is an issue because you have
to think if you are making
sense in English. If you
talk to a Filipino we can
just speak our language and
we understand. You have to
put it on a scratch paper
first and think if it is
appropriate and think if you
have used proper
translation.” (Carmel Int
1)
These
overseas learners wanted to
develop competence as English
speakers through socialisation
with experts in the language.
The latter included peers and
tutors. Yet they discovered
limited opportunities for this
form of socialisation in their
courses emphasising
participation in online
discussions.
The
second speakers of English
language also identified their
slow reading speed in the
second language as one of the
reasons for not contributing
to online discussions, because
like home learners they also
wanted to know what they were
talking about and create a
positive social identity. They
stated that writing in English
with good grammar was time
consuming and contributed to
the reasons why they did not
prioritise online discussion
participation. The time
commitment for writing a
competent message also led
overseas learners in
employment to state their
external commitments as reason
not prioritising online
participation.
These
overseas participants felt
face-to-face social space was
more conducive for
socialisation and language
identity with expert speakers
of English language.
Face-to-face interactions
guaranteed a verbal response,
which engendered confidence in
the language and learning
content. Face-to-face
interactions allowed them
opportunities for
enculturation to develop a
sense of identity as an
overseas learner in the UK.
They acknowledged that
participation in online
discussions might be good
practice to improve written
English. Yet they did not use
online discussion boards in
this way because like home
learners they wanted to
control and portray positive
self-presentation in
tutor-monitored online space.
Shared
language identities
Further
analysis demonstrated that
presence of other overseas
learners, who demonstrated
varying English language
competency, supported some
overseas learners social
identity construction. Two
overseas learners Lucy from
China and Fiona from Vietnam
(in the blended business
management course) highlighted
the positive influence on
their language confidence due
to multiple backgrounds and
language skills of other
learners. The knowledge of
multiple language skills and
context backgrounds in their
cohort allowed these two
learners to feel safe and
confident in their online
English usage despite
imperfections in grammar.
Likewise,
Jose’, Karan and their
multi-national peers on the
blended version of the
geographic information science
course shared a sense of
identity due to their English
language variety. They
suggested their multi-lingual
and multi-ethnic identities
were accepted in their blended
version of the course because
they felt free to try out
their English language skills
in face-to-face environments.
They used informal
face-to-face and email
interactions with their
overseas colleagues to build a
sense of identity. These
spaces allowed them a shared
identity where their less than
perfect grammar was
acceptable. Whereas confident
English usage by competent
online discussions
participants’ (who were
mostly English speaking home
learners on the online version
of the course), may have led
these overseas learners to
feel out of place and less
competent in English language
usage.
Carmel
was another overseas learner
from a nursing course who also
desired a more competent
English-speaking identity for
her nursing role in the UK,
but found online space
ineffective. Carmel stated
that online interactions in
English language did “not
feel close” (Carmel Int
2) to her and the experience
did not “become a part
of” (Carmel Int 2) her.
These personal constructs were
located on the construct
dimension she labelled ‘deeper
learning face to face versus
surface learning online’.
Face-to-face discussions with
others who shared her cultural
and language identity made her
feel part of the group and
represented her personal and
social learning control.
Despite her preference for
active involvement in social
learning Carmel experienced
limitations in constructing a
positive online social
identity through active
participation in written
English language.
Lam
(2004) observed a similar
affect of collective
identities in a study of
second language socialisation
in a bilingual chat room by
two Cantonese speaking Chinese
students in America. Lam’s
(2004) study demonstrated that
using English for
communicating on the Internet
involved constructing new
identities for conversing in
English language. The social
identities construed between
two Chinese speakers emerged
due to a mixed-variety of
English used to form
relationships with each other,
and also to develop a level of
efficiency in English
language. Their use of English
on the Internet distinguished
Lam’s study participants
from both monolingual English
speakers and monolingual
Cantonese speakers (Lam 2004).
In
a literature review of
language practices and
identity in virtual
communities, Lam (2004)
concluded that online language
use is influenced by the
socially dominant cultural
representations and collective
identities. In the present
study, overseas learners
speculated that the home (UK)
English-speaking learners
populated the online
discussion board. It is
possible that the discussion
space was socially dominated
by well-written English
language and individuals who
had shared cultural and
language identities. The
dominance of competent
English-speaking identities
may have led the less
confident overseas learners,
who did not receive active
acknowledgement of messages,
not to pursue online social
identities.
As
overseas participants sought
to construct positive social
identities in the UK academic
context they identified
differences in academic and
cultural use of academic
English language. They also
identified differences in
teaching practices between
their home countries and the
UK. For overseas learners
learning in the British
academic context also meant
learning about different
social and cultural practices.
They had to consciously change
their ways of knowing. Some
overseas learners expressed
this change as part of the
cultural shift in their way of
thinking. For example, Karan
stated
“My
way of answering in India
was different. We describe.
But they want critical
reflection language here.
But in India you mostly
describe. So that was the
main reason I did not get
very well marks. I have
changed my pattern now, but
I don’t think I am still
writing what they want here.
It is difficult to change
and it is difficult to
change what you have built
up in your style over the
whole life.” (Karan Int 1)
Similar
experiences were also evident
among overseas learners from
English-speaking countries.
The two Australasian and one
American learner identified
initial challenges in learning
about the British higher
education system and its
expectations during their
online courses.
“I
am from New Zealand… I am
here just over a year… Its
alright. I mean any change
is frustrating and it takes
time, because you don’t
understand. I am still not
familiar with all the
British terminology…We
have all got different ways
of saying the same thing
isn’t it. It is more
difficult online because you
cannot easily talk to the
British people who have
experienced it before.”
(Cassie Int 1)
“And,
another learning experience
has been understanding the
British university system
because I have had
Australian and American
experiences. So, its quiet
fascinating. That is an
overall experience...I have
done some work for UK
universities but as an
external person I didn’t
see the true light. But
coming into a British
University as a student is
quite a shock to an
Australian.” (Carl Int 1)
The
above statements indicate the
importance of language and
social enculturation for
learning in higher education
for overseas learners on the
UK-based online and blended
courses. For overseas
learners, enrolling on formal
education courses in the UK
might involve learning about
different ways of learning,
language and cultural norms
and academic expectations in a
different country.
Power
discourses in online message
writing
Written
language in online discussions
was an important device for
social construction not only
for overseas learners but also
for home learners who used
English as their first
language. It was central not
only to convey messages but
also to share emotions in an
online or blended course.
Online writing, communication,
language skills and etiquette
were important for
relationship building, gaining
a sense of connectedness and
feeling a sense of control.
The
variation in online
communication, language skills
and etiquette created power
differentials for overseas and
home English speaking
learners. These inequities
meant some participants’
were competent and confident
in online discussion
participation and others were
not. Learners who identified
past experiences in using
email for work and past online
or blended experiences were
more active in online
discussions, despite their
stated preference for
individual learning. The power
differences due to varying online
communication skills and past
online experience also meant
some participants were more
equipped to use online
discussions as a beneficial
tool for social construction
than others. These
power differences led the
majority home and overseas
participants, who were new to
online learning, to disengage
from online discussions.
Thus
online communication and
English language writing
skills were not a neutral
phenomenon. All study
participants identified the
use of formal online language
to create positive
self-presentations. The formal
online language use coupled
with past experiences and
context empowered some
participants but dis-empowered
others. Likewise, good
English language skills
represented greater power and
control over engagement in
online discussions. Those with
lower levels of English
language ability, less
confidence in e-writing and
less time construct to clear,
concise and accurate messages
with no grammatical errors
identified lesser control.
They were also less effective
in using the online space to
build a sense of connectedness
with others through two-way
interactions.
For
references
and further discussion of the
findings, please feel free to contact me.
