Theme 3: Quantitative methods

Well, this was interesting. I assumed the texts to be about quantitative research, but I found out that they weren’t. The first text by Lowenthal & Leech (2009) Mixed Research and online learning: Strategies for improvement discussed the new paradigm of mixed research and the difficulty of combining both quantitative methods with qualitative methods. That of most interest to me in this first article was the advocating notion of the authors that to get a better understanding of research you have to combine both quantitative and qualitative research. The funny thing is that we tried to do this in our bachelor thesis on Technostress. But we didn’t use the two approaches of gathering data in combination we used it just to investigate two different questions that we later combined in our discussion. Were the quantitative data – to some measure – supported the qualitative interviews conducted by the informants. 

The second text Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment by Cleveland-Innes & Campbell (in press) was a little harder tog grasp. The text discussed and gave us an overview of the importance of emotions in learning and in this case the connection between emotions and online learning. Based on findings from several authors were LeDoux (1996), “emotions are a double edged sword that may help or hinder learning” and Lipman (2003), “emotive experience integrates with thinking to improve reason and judgment” illuminate the concept of emotions in learning – according to me in a pedagogic fashion – the authors of the paper starts the investigation if and how emotions stir in online learners.

The findings of the paper are that online learning stirs a lot of emotion, the paper states, “Learners need to understand the role of emotion in life and in learning to realize their benefits”. This also got me thinking on a freer note about rhetoric in learning. The main part for rhetoric is to convince the receiver of the points made by the conductor through ethos, pathos and logos. This being a powerful tool to get out with a message. My feeling is that the authors advocate for more of the good parts of emotional presence in online learning because the paper concludes with, “As an instructor, it’s crucial that you set up the learning situation in a manner that arouses learners feeling of security, well-being, and self-confidence. It’s equally important to challenge them without threats, intimidation or pressure”. But this is also the tricky part because rhetoric can go both ways (as the case in nazi-Germany) therefore it’s in my opinion a bit controversial to fill learning with too much rhetoric and pathos in line with the words of Socrates, “that in order to mislead one cannot oneself be misled”.

On a more analytical note I found that the papers background or Theory doesn’t explain the why’s of earlier findings, so I lack a good Theoretical background. If I should use the understanding of Theory by Sutton & Staw (1995) to explain my doubts about the background of the paper I have to use their words, which claims that, “reference to authors without explaining the theories presented or the why-arguments is not theory”.

I have never reflected about this earlier but I think it’s a good way to actually include your own understanding of the problem or topic especially in the section of Theory. In the words of Jude Caroll (2005), “to show that you have learned, you have to show you’ve understood”.

Word count: 581

References

Cleveland-Innes, M. & Campbell P. (in press). Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

Lowenthal, P. R. & Leech, N. (2009). Mixed research and online learning: Strategies for improvement. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.

Webbreferences

Carrol, J., 2005. Jude Carroll on plagiarism. [online] http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pgche/video/browse/title/judecarr898/

Phaedrus, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/#RhePha