Qualitative Article Review

A) Summarize both professional, peer-reviewed articles by addressing the follow for each study.

What hypothesis do you believe was being tested by this data? Explain why you believe that.

1a.

The first article that I chose for this assignment was written by Pamela Rogerson-Revell and is titled Constructively Aligning Technologies with learning and Assessment in a Distance Education Master’s Programme. The authors hypothesis which is being tested throughout this article includes a report on the need for improvement upon student learning and assessment outcomes experienced in online course delivery for a master’s program at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. The author stresses a need for strategically implementing the use

of online learning activities to enrich student learning and assessment outcomes, by aligning the online learning activities and ensuring that the value needs are clear to all participants within the distance education program (Rogerson-Revel, P. 2015, p. 129). The author believes that despite the innovative contributions of the technologies used in distance learning environments there is gap between the technology and the learning outcomes and assessment processes.
My experience using distance learning technologies similarly mentioned in this article are in line with the authors opinions and hypothesis. As a learning management system (LMS) administrator, I often receive communication from students that become lost or confused about how to proceed in their specific online class. Many times these student’s questions are related to break-down in direction offered to students attending online classes. These questions are related to various components of the online classroom and learning objectives, including topics such as using the assignment drop box, accessing grades and instructor feedback, online library questions pertaining to usage and credential/login issues, and dispute resolution within the classroom. I believe that my observation of this topic is accurate and related to Rogerson-Revell’s hypothesis because my personal observations have been verified through more than one LMS and various type of online course offerings. My observations of the break-down in student online learning processes include the LMS platforms of Blackboard, Sakai, Savant, Mahara, and Desire to Learn. The author makes connections, which I agree with, between collaborative learning technologies and the way they are used to support teaching and learning, Rogerson-Revell states that that there needs to be an alignment regarding the technology and the learning programs pedagogy (Rogerson-Revel, P. 2015, p. 129-130).
I believe that students often expect the online course to mirror face-to-face classes when in relationship to instructor participation. This misconception often leads to learner confusion when the relevance of online resources and the distance learning environment are not clearly defined or fully utilized. I have seen first-hand the lack of collaboration which occurs in the distance learning environment versus the face-to-face classroom and can visualize the benefit of integrating collaborative forums, chats, and wikis which this type of research suggests.

1b.
The second article that I chose to analyze for this assignment was written in 2002 by Christel Broady-Ortmann and is titled Teacher’s Perceptions of a Professional Development Distance Learning Course: A Qualitative Case Study.

The authors hypothesis involves the study of practicing teacher’s perceptions of their own participation in a distance learning course. The study further describes the correlations of the teacher’s perceptions and instructor’s expectations of the course, the authors intent was to better understand learner experience instead of cause and effect relationships (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p. 110). The study’s findings and data analysis produced an Assertion Matrix consisting of both five course designer’s perceptions and five participant’s perceptions. The course designer’s perceptions represent documented course outcomes and the perceptions of the participants indicate how the course outcomes were perceived (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p.

112).
I believe that the authors hypothesis was to reveal the behavior of the participants because the findings exposed several contrasts regarding the Assertion Matrix. For instance, one of the course objectives is to provide teachers the opportunity to make use of the internet to produce authentic teaching materials and the participant’s perception of this objective was that teachers only occasionally created authentic materials using the internet (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p. 112). Overall, Broady-Ortmann’s research supports the hypothesis to gain understanding of learner experience instead of cause and effect relationships (2002).

What sampling method was used and how do you know? Was this or was this not a reasonable method for this experiment?

2a.
The studies sampling method used was nonprobability sampling and no random selection of participants was used. Participants for this study volunteered and self-selected into the study. This method of sampling is also referred to as volunteer, nonrandom, or convenience sampling (Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2014, p. 158). This method of sampling doesn’t account for the population as a whole because the participants do not have the same equal probability of being selected for the study. This method of sampling creates a bias due to the fact that there is no evidence to back up the sample’s findings are a representation of a wider population beyond the volunteers that self-selected into the study. Was this method of sampling a reasonable method? I believe that the authors method for sampling was reasonable. While convenience sampling is cost effective, can be quickly assembled, and offer insights to the topic it investigates, this method of sampling is not able to make assumptions pertaining to larger populations.
This method of sampling does however offer conclusions to the idea of whether or not additional research for this topic, could and should be warranted. Determining whether or not to move forward with a more detailed and expensive research study for this type of topic is important and utilizing a convenience sampling method allows for researchers to gain insights into this topic without investing much upfront money or time. Based on the findings from this study or other similar studies using convenience sampling, educational researchers can move into a much broader study and make use of probability sampling, where generalizations of a much larger population can be determined.

2b.
The data being tested for this article was compiled from six courses which included a pilot course. Although all foreign language instructors for the state were invited to participate in the study only ten volunteered to participate. Again, this researcher chose non-probability sampling and convenience sampling. As mentioned earlier, this type of convenience sampling does not represent the population as a whole. I believe that this sampling method was reasonable for this experiment because this study sets the precedence that further research and development could and should be pursued involving the needs for teacher training and development in regards to using technology in distance education.
I can relate my own experiences with the need for faculty training and skills development regarding distance education and blended learning environments. I work with various users within the university where I am employed, just last month I performed sixteen training sessions related to software for our faculty. Although not all of my training sessions were regarding our LMS platforms, I can see a trend regarding the need to assist faculty in becoming more fluid and confident while integrating technology to their day to day tasks.

Based on the information provided, what aspects of the experiment would suggest the results are valid or invalid?

3a.
Based on the authors information regarding this study, overall the results can be seen as valid. The study was intended for use and development of a master’s program at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom exclusively. The findings from this study were intended to be evaluated for the purpose of enhancing the universities own degree program. Despite the sampling method and bias created thereof, the experiment’s findings allowed the researcher to implement enhancements and changes to the program being studied.
The research study did highlight some useful statements which are relative to other applications within distance education and assessment processes.

The author supports the view that online learning and assessment need to be pedagogy focused rather than technology led in addition to the suggestion that “e-tivity” design starting points should be linked with learning outcomes and show correlation to formative and summative assessment (Rogerson-Revel, P. 2015, p. 144). I believe that these topics are important and relative to distance learning researchers, but I am not positive that this studies methods can absolutely claim these assertions as there not a good representation of a population. As mentioned earlier however, this study’s findings can suggest the need for further research and

development.

3b.
The overall aim for this research study was to produce legitimate observations regarding the dynamics of course design instead focusing of the effects from the technology. The author chose to examine and uncover the connections among the distance learning environment and the learners experience, which in the end, proved to render the need for further development regarding professional faculty development and curriculum design (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p. 114).
While the sampling method demonstrated non-probability and created a bias from the participants, the researcher was able to make a general observation of the need for further training regarding the participant’s technology skill levels. This observation is biased may be invalid. The participants included in this study included ten people from a much larger population and the observation of these ten people do not represent the level of technology of the larger possible population.

B) What, if any, safeguards or permissions would be required for such an experiment? Explain your answer and provide supporting citations. Compare and contrast both studies and explain the similarities and differences.

Both of these studies were similar in that they both relied on adult volunteers for their participants. Because neither of these studies included children, pregnant women, or prisoners, the considerations for safeguards in both of these studies were low. Rogerson-Revel’s involved six student volunteers from a master’s degree program at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom and Broady-Ortmann’s participants included four educators; two professors and two technologists (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p. 106). Broady-Ortmann’s participants included three females and one male volunteer, the author describes the selection process of the participants as being carefully chosen and in the likelihood of researcher and author Robert E. Stake’s recommendations (Broady-Ortmann, C. 2002, p. 110). Rogerson-Revel’s selection of participants involved the recruitment of six students, and an unmentioned number of tutors. Neither of the authors mentioned any issues or limitations in regards to the participant’s vulnerability or risk levels.
Although I am unable to locate information related to an Aspen University Internal Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Committee website, I know from experience that the definition of a human subject and the laws related to the study of human participants in the United States is governed by federal law. I also know from past experience that as a safeguard, I will most likely be required to complete a series of online self-guided courses related to the laws and regulations researchers must be in alignment with while performing a research study involving humans. Previously, I was required to pass courses with CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) to gain a three-year certification for human research training certification. Depending on the level of risk which the study presents to its participants, it is possible to gain an expedited review of a research proposal, both of the research studies analyzed in this assignment are convenience samples, exposing low to zero risk to their participants and would most likely qualify for expedited approval from an internal IRB or committee. According to the Office for Human Research Protections, both of these studies are within the exemption classification Exemption 45 CFR 46.01(b)(1) due to their normal educational practices, including surveys, interview practices, educational testing, and observation practices (Office for Human Research Protections, 2016).
It would be also necessary to consider the studies beneficence to the participants. Researchers are often faced with limited funding to conduct studies and rely on volunteers to gain their populations. Two rules of thumb should be considered and implemented while conducting research studies involving the use of human subjects. The first item to consider and respect is the maximization of the studies possible benefit while minimizing potential risks, and the second consideration needs to ensure that no harm is done during the study (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979).
Additional considerations that should be made regarding the needed permissions to proceed with a research study of a doctoral study include the review and recommendation to proceed with the study from a senior professor or academic mentor. After all of the risks, benefits, and departmental approval, the commencement of a doctoral research study could be initiated. It would be a necessary safeguard and requirement to gain informed consent from all research participants initiating the study however. Gaining informed consent from all of the participants is process that should be administered with great diligence and precision. This precision requires utmost honesty and upfront information by the researcher regarding the level of risk involved in the study, a participant debriefing schedule, and if needed, an incomplete disclosure statement (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979).
A research study includes the need to consider the overall safety of all participants throughout its duration. In keeping safeguards in place consistently, it is necessary as a researcher to be upfront about any and all potential risks to participants. Permissions to conduct such a study can include the permission from the IRB and academic professors or mentors among others. While conducting research related to human subjects it is always a focus on maximizing the benefits and minimize the potential harm, research studies should do no harm (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979).