Running head: POTENTIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS

Theoretical Paradigms and Potential Research Projects

Koutropoulos, Apostolos
Athabasca University

Professor: Dr. George Siemens

Assignment 1
February 17, 2015

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

Assignment 1: Theoretical Paradigms and Potential Research Projects

Positioning
Subject of Inquiry
An area of research that is of interest to me deals with a relatively new phenomenon
called the Open Online Course. I am hesitant to say that I am interested in Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs) because what one considered massive is relative. Stephen Downes,
in early connectivist MOOCs (cMOOC) considered the optimal size of the MOOC to be 150
active participants, or Dunbars number (Downes, 2013). In xMOOCs however, MOOCs that
follow a different model of delivery than the original cMOOCs, we see that that enrollments are
well above the 150 registrants discussed by Downes as an optimal number of participants in the
MOOC. How many of those registrants are active, and how one measures activity is currently
subject to debate.
Open Online Courses, massive or not, have quite a few areas that make them interesting
and important to education. The specific areas of interest within Open Online Courses depend
on which perspectives frame your world view and where you are situated within the academic
apparatus. They are simultaneously the cause of great cheer, and great jeer within academic
circles. Those who support them see them as a democratizing force, while those who critique
them point to Nobles (1998) work and warn of the potential for MOOCs to become the new
diploma mills. As a researcher, and as someone whos participated in a variety of MOOCs since
2011, I am confident in saying that neither of these sides gets its 100% right, and that a more
accurate estimation of what is happening with MOOCs lies somewhere in-between these two
polarizing positions.
From a research perspective this is an important topic to research for a variety of reasons.
For instance, campus administrators can learn how to use Open Courses to increase enrollments,
enhance their alumni outreach, or examine ways that an alignment with the open movement can
enhance their branding. Despite the business applications and implications of Open, I am more
interested in the pedagogical aspects of Open Courses. I am interested in examining the current
research literature in online and distance education and applying it to Open Courses in order to
determine where the gaps are. I am also interested in examining how Open Courses differ from
Traditional Courses. Wiley (2014) writes about the blurred lines between MOOCs and
Traditional distance education courses. One of the areas to examine is whether those lines can be
un-blurred, or whether this is the new normal. Lessons learned from Open Online Courses can
potentially benefit what we do in our traditional online courses that exist behind the walledgarden of the institutional Learning Management System. While some courses, like nursing
courses for example, might still need to remain behind access-controlled mechanism in order to
protect subject privacy, not every course might need to remain behind an institutional LMS.
Ontological and Epistemological Positions
Ontological. Cohen et al. write that ontological assumptions are assumptions about the
nature of reality and the nature of things (2011, p. 3). I used to think that knowledge, and the
nature of things, were binary in nature: they exist or they do not exist; it is or it is not. However,
at this juncture of my personal and professional development I am somewhere in-between the
subjectivist/objectivist divide. Barr Greenfield breaks down subjectivism and objectivism into
two philosophical camps as well. Objectivists see the world as essentially knowable and its
essence isnt altered depending on whos viewing it. On the other hand subjectivists see the

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

world as existing, but the ways in which people perceive and construe it change its meaning (in
Cohen et al., 2011 p. 8). When faced with such a binary divide, its hard, and in my view
imprudent, to pick a side. While I do think that it is important to discover general laws (a frame
from which subjectivists view the world) and while it is important to understand the unique and
particular ways each individual engages in a topic of inquiry (a frame from which objectivists
view the world), I think it is important to find a midway point between the two. I do believe that
it is possible to arrive at generalizability using individual cases. Individual cases can be
examined in order to determine what makes them unique. From a variety of unique cases general
attributes, that are in-common for all these cases, can be extrapolated. This provides for the
conditions under which generalizability may be possible under certain circumstances.
I think that the term that best describes my position is subtle realism. This term was
coined by Hammersley when he wrote that there is a reality independent of our own knowledge
of it, yet we can only know reality from our own personal perspective in it (1995, as referenced
in Angen, 2000). An illustrative example of this is the classroom. In a western context a
classroom usually means four walls, some desks, and a communal writing surface as a minimum
requirement. The interior architecture does have attributes that can be described and quantified,
and thus objectively measured and reported. However, how this interior architecture is perceived
by the learners, based on their existing mental schemata that have formed from previous
experiences with such spaces, can influence how learners interact with those spaces. It also
affects how those learners interact with others in those spaces. Thus, knowing that something is a
classroom only gets a researcher so far when it comes to really knowing what that space is.
Epistemological. Cohen et al. write that epistemological assumptions are ways of
researching and enquiring into the nature or reality and the nature of things (2011, p. 3). Given
my affinity to find a balance between subjectivist and objectivist worldviews, I think that ways
of researching should address both the quantifiable and the qualitative aspects of existence.
These two parts should come together to be analyzed and interpreted into one whole. The
qualitative and quantitative need to make sense when viewed together. I do think that there is
room for Critical Theory in this view of research. I think Critical Theory is important to
identifying underlying power structures in the environments that research, and teaching occur,
and to help learners take control of their own learning. However, I do think that not all research
can be Critical in nature, and it is important to acknowledge the validity of non-Critical,
Interpretivist and Positivist, research despite the potential issues with power differential in the
respective studies.
In my own research there are certain polarizations that I would like to avoid. The
following is a case in point: Ive been a member of the audience during job interviews for new
faculty positions. Here the candidates were explaining their recent research to existing faculty
members of the department that they wished to join. The candidates research followed
qualitative or mixed-methods research methodologies. All of the research focused on K-12
environments and in some cases specifically on technology in education. Instead of focusing on
the research setup, process, and findings, some of the critical theorists appeared to lambast the
applicants because the researcher failed to address the power differentials and underlying
assumptions of access to, and the fit-for-use, of the technology based on socioeconomic factors.
The unspoken sentiment, therefore, was that the findings of this research were almost
meaningless because technology in the classroom was used, in the critical theorists views, as a
way to perpetuate cultural and socioeconomic hegemonies. While this may be true at some level,

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

just because there might be inequity and in technology diffusion this doesnt mean, in my view,
that such research isnt important to undertake, and that these research results were invalid
because of it. I think it is important to acknowledge power and access aspects in our research,
and people do, in the limitations sections of their research, but just because research has
limitations, it doesnt mean that the process and the associated results of that process are not
useful.
Research Paradigms
Cohen et al. (2011) list a variety of paradigms in their text, from a simple three paradigm
list in Chapter 2, to a more expansive list in Chapter 7. The two research paradigms I am closest
to are interpretive and critical theory. I dont think that a positivist view on research is
compatible with my own epistemological underpinnings. From the interpretive paradigm I am
attracted to the notion of understanding the world through the actors in it. Cohen et al. write that
positivists paradigms aim to understand phenomena through measurability, predictability,
controllability, patterning, and the construction of laws (2011, p. 31). While I do acknowledge
that some aspects of human beings can be measured and studied quantitatively, I am not
convinced that all variables in human experiments can be accounted for and controlled. And, in
instances where they can be controlled, it may not be ethical to do so, therefore making the
discussion of controllability of certain variables in human research a purely hypothetical matter.
By examining the world through individuals we may not get predictive patterns with one, or two,
or a handful of studies, but I do think that by examining multiple similar Interpretivist paradigm
studies that use different learner populations we can start to gain an understanding of the overall
ideas and patterns in action. It is through this successive estimation that we can seek to propose
broad theories that we may then be able to test.
What attracts me to critical theory is the transformative nature of this research. By
uncovering interests, and underlying power structures, at work, and challenging their legitimacy
we can identify how they serve the purpose of a more equal society. Through critical research we
have the potential to change both individuals and society. Understanding these underlying
relationships is important because it also helps illuminate how the results of other research, noncritical research, are relevant and applicable to making an impact on society. From a MOOC
research point, one of the unspoken assumptions is that learners come to MOOCs with certain
knowledge that allows them to engage in the course. Courses may not have formal, listed, prerequisites, but the truth is that this hidden or assumed knowledge is something that people
would need in order to be successful in a networked environment. Critical paradigms of research
can help uncover those unspoken assumptions.
Even though I am interested in exploring research through Critical Theory, I have to
admit that there are two elements that prevent me from fully embracing it. First, it appears to me
that with critical theory one can have an opinion and pass it off as research, and other researchers
may be left without the ability to rebuff these findings because it could be claimed that they are
just part of the status quo power. I dont find that attitude helpful, and its hard to be part of a
research community that might be, to use a colloquial expression, drinking their own kool aid.
Second, I am not fully convinced that critical theory is a separate paradigm. I think one can
maintain a level of critical inquiry while using other paradigms. For instance, whether you are
using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research methodologies, I think that research
findings should be available, in a format that is accessible to members outside of the research

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

community, so that others can use and act on those research findings. In short, I like the
philosophy of Critical Theory, but I am not yet convinced that it can stand on its own.
Research Questions
Due to the relative newness of MOOCs there are a variety of questions that come to mind
as important to research. These questions deal with a variety of lenses through which a university
operates, such as teaching and learning, business aspects of the university, sustainability, and
ethical dimensions of education just to name a few. My interests lie in examining MOOCs
through the teaching and learning lens. Some of the broader questions that have come up over
the past six months that are of interest are as follows:
What Motivates Learners in MOOCs and what enables a perseverance to complete them?
What motivates learners to complete a MOOC? The notion of completeness is a
problematic construct in relation to the MOOC in that it is hard to determine when a learner has
completed a MOOC. One definition of completion might be when the learner feels that he has
completed a certain body of work, and the completion is based on learner-specified criteria. This
definition might be different from the definition that the course designer has in mind when they
are designing a MOOC. This question aims to explore not only the reasons behind learner
motivation to complete certain work in MOOCs, but also why they might, or might not,
persevere and complete the MOOC the way that course creators define completion. This research
could follow an Interpretivist paradigm by first having MOOC participants complete a survey
that covers the three areas of interest: what do they consider completion? Did they attain it? And,
what pushed them toward completion? Then follow-up interviews could be scheduled with a
representative sample of participants.
What are ways to effectively on-board learners in cMOOCs?
One of the virtues of the cMOOC is the ability of learners to own their own learning
spaces and participate in ways that are more open, as compared to MOOC learning management
systems like edx and coursera. Being able design effective on-boarding for those learners new to
cMOOCs could aid them in better navigating the landscape of such MOOCs, and perhaps enable
them to be more successful learners in those environments. The broader questions here are not
only about designing and testing new on-boarding mechanisms, but also determine whether, infact, they are effective in their implementation when considering the broader goal of making
cMOOCs more accessible to learners. Some basic aspects of this on-boarding are the mechanics
of networked participation, underlying critical skills, and workflow management of participation
in a cMOOC in essence developing, what Siemens terms, sensemaking and wayfinding skills
(McAuley, Stewart, Siemens, Cormier, 2010). Through Design Based Research it could be
possible to iterate through a specific cMOOC topic and successively design, implement, and test
on-boarding methods. Most cMOOCs appear to have a few weeks of early access, seeing that
they are open, and this pre-MOOC period could be used as a way to deploy and test on-boarding
interventions. The method of data collection could direct observation of MOOC participants,
surveys, and interviews - especially of those who dropped out.
What is the wider applicability of Rhizomatic Learning in Online Learning?
Cormier has written about Rhizomatic Education (2008), and more recently in 2014 he
facilitated a MOOC on the topic of the community as curriculum. This MOOC is known, in

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

short, as rhizo14. This notion of the community being the curriculum may have connections with
other thinkers in the field of adult education, such as Knowles and his concept of Andragogy
(1984). While Rhizomatic Learning sounds appealing, as an educator it may appear like a chaotic
and un-productive way to structure a course, given the existing constraints in Higher Education
such as accreditation. With this in mind, the question is: how does one take Rhizomatic
Education from the current incubation stage and make it more widely applicable in Higher
Education? Is this possible? If yes, under what circumstances? This question could be explored
through a critical paradigm where power relationships in the classroom can be analyzed in order
to determine which areas of the existing educational setup could support, or hinder, rhizomaticbased learning.
What are the unspoken power relationships and power asymmetries that exist in
xMOOCs?
While some may laud xMOOCs as a way of democratizing knowledge, from a cursory
look at current xMOOCs, both the platforms used and the pedagogical practices, one is usually
able to see that existing classroom power structures are replicated in xMOOC environments.
Through a critical research paradigm researchers could examine a section of xMOOCs, in a
variety of different languages, on a variety of different platforms, and in a variety of different
disciplines to analyze how power, implied or actual, is wielded by course creators, and how
power is, or is not, shared between instructors and participants, and in participant and participant
interactions. This could be undertaken both as an analysis of the structure and design of the
courses, but also through critical discourse analysis, examining both instructor provided texts,
and participant created texts.
Ethical & Credibility Considerations
Study Participants
The participants in the first two research questions would be learners in a cMOOC that is
currently being offered. In this scenario I am making the assumption that the MOOC offered is
the Design and Instruction of Online Learning MOOC which I would develop. This MOOC will
be an open version of the course I currently teach for my institution. In such a scenario not only
am I the researcher, but I might also potentially be perceived as an authority figure by those who
are participating in the course formally and wish to receive a final grade for the course. This
might be similar to University of Manitoba students in the Connectivism and Connective
Knowledge 08 MOOC.
In the third research question, following a critical paradigm, it is probable that the easiest
environment to gain access to might be a higher education environment, specifically my own
institution which is an urban higher education institution. In this environment the participants of
the study would include the learners, the instructors, and the instructional designers that are
helping faculty design their online courses. Additionally participants may be members of
curriculum committees of the departments whose courses students are taking. Even with
academic freedom, there may be underlying departmental or college policies that would need
scrutiny in order to fully analyze the efficacy of rhizomatic learning in this environment. In this
scenario the researcher would be a neutral observer, observing not only classroom interactions,
but also looking at how interactions occur outside of the classroom between the various
constituents involved.

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

Finally, in the fourth question, the main participants in the study would be the learners of
the various xMOOCs that are selected for observation and analysis. Additionally, if the
researcher analyzes the texts of the course, both spoken texts in videos, podcasts, and other audio
visual materials, as well as written texts created by the instructors and learners in the course, then
course designers could be considered as participants of the study, even if it is in an indirect way.
In this case the relationship of the participant would be more removed compared to the first two
cases. The researcher would be someone who observes what is occurring in the xMOOCs, but
not interfere in the way that the MOOC is conducted. Ideally, in this case, the researcher would
also have access to the course archive after a course has concluded in order to do a type of postmortem analysis, however seeing how current xMOOC LMS platforms operate, this might not be
a possibility.
Ethical Considerations
The ethical considerations do vary across the four different research questions posed in
the previous section. The methodological paradigm, as well as the specific question to be
answered pose different ethical aspects to be considered. For the purposes of this section I am
describing all ethical considerations in one large section, but case specific considerations will be
highlighted.
If the MOOC that will provide a test-bed for Questions 1 and 2 is the MOOC based on
my currently closed-access course, The Design and Instruction of Online Courses, then chances
are high that in addition to open learners there will be students who are taking the course for
credit at my institution. In this instance, would the students signing-up through my institution
feel obligated, or pressured, to be part of the study? Even if learners do not sign-up for credit,
are they providing consent to be observed simply by joining a MOOC that will be used for
research purposes? Or does the researcher have an ethical obligation to seek informed consent
from each and every individual enrolled in the course? Furthermore, if informed consent is
sought, does this in some way have implications for validity because the sample of learners that
choose to participate in this study might be predisposed to certain behaviors that would make
them more, or less, successful in MOOC learning environments?
Both with the case of a MOOC designed as a test-bed for questions 1 and 2, and historical
MOOC harvesting, as might be the case in attempting to address question 4, should consent be
sought from learners in order to observe their digital footprints in the MOOC? Is this a
requirement for open cMOOCs that dont have a username and password requirement to
participate? Is this a requirement in closed xMOOC platforms that require password and
username to enter and be part of that learning community? If we would like to analyze
information from xMOOCs that have already concluded, it is most likely that learners did not
sign some form of consent to have their data and interactions used for research purposes when
they first signed up. Should we seek consent ex post facto? Or does this particular use of
archived data fall under secondary usage of data and therefore if properly anonymized there
might be fewer issues with their usage?
In all questions, where learners are observed, and their behaviors and postings are
analyzed, is there a potential for any harm to come to the learners? Is there any way that learners
might be exposed in some way; even though their data would be coded to mask their identities is
there a risk of individuals becoming unmasked, exposed, and vulnerable in some way? The same
line of questioning also holds true for instructors, professors, and instructional designers in
questions 3 and 4. Is there any potential for harm to come to them? If the research uncovers

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

power dynamics that someones supervisor does not appreciate having associated with a school,
could those individuals jobs be endangered if specific cases are linked to specific individuals?
An example of this might be a school that preaches progressive pedagogy, but their MOOC
design is based on a drill and kill approach. If results of such research identify specific schools,
upper level administrators at those schools may not be too happy with the outcomes of the
research.
Credibility Considerations
There are at least two credibility considerations to keep in mind, and they both involve
questions 1 and 2 where the researcher would also be either designing an intervention (the onboarding), or would be designing and facilitating a MOOC (the creation of the Open version of
an existing course). As a designer of an intervention would there be a perceived credibility issue
in that the researcher may be perceived as of only wanting to report positive results with regard
to those interventions? For instance there might be a perception that researchers may bury
negative comments or findings, or not acknowledge a potentially biased sample if this is the only
sample the researcher has to work with? For a conscientious researcher this wouldnt be an issue,
but the perception of impropriety sometimes is much more potent than reality. In a research
project there ought to be safe-guards against this so as to address both perceived, and potentially
real, issues with credibility. One potential way that could be used to allay any fears of credibility
issues with studies is to include more people in the design and implementation phase of the
intervention, thus the design and implementation phases are distributed among more people and
its a group effort rather than a lone designer and subject-expert. The research study would be a
single-researcher effort, but the on-boarding, or Open Course offering would involve many more
people than just the researcher. Another possible way of dealing with credibility issues is to
involve a small random sample of the research subjects as a final check of the findings. Would
the research findings explain their experiences in the course? Or do they sound incongruous with
what occurred?
Concluding Thoughts
The preceding sections represent some initial thoughts and considerations into the
potentials areas of inquiry on the subject of Open Online Courses, and how I might approach
those subjects given my epistemological and ontological views. There is still a lot of work to be
done on this, including the refinement of a set of research questions that can be undertaken in
one study. The questions posed above represent distinct strands of inquiry and should be
considered larger, over-arching, questions that will eventually contain sub-questions if the area of
inquiry is to be pursued. With both of these paradigms discussed, Interpretive and Critical, there
are still both practical and theoretical issues that will need addressing. One area that will need
more exploration, in either paradigm, is the area of research ethics on the internet. The
recommendations of the Association of Internet Researchers (aoir.org) should prove useful in
further elucidating the ethical obligations of the researcher, as well as help with the crafting of a
specific research plan that treats the subjects of the research in ethically appropriate ways.
Furthermore, each paradigm has its own special set of areas to examine and consider further.
Some examples of further consideration are as follows:

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

Interpretivist Paradigm
The questions briefly discussed in the Interpretivist Paradigm section require learner
consent. However, there is also an element of buy-in that needs to occur by various other
stakeholders. For instance, if I convert my current closed course to an open course, would my
academic department and/or college need to approve this? Would my offering of an open course,
given my employment status, require some approval at higher levels of academic administration?
This might be made more complicated by the fact that my regular work is in one academic
department, but my adjunct teaching is in another, and both are in different colleges. There are
instances where I think that I might require prior approval, and others where I might not.
However, not requiring approval, and not asking, even as a token of consideration, are two
different things. It may be politically important to ask, even though you might not have to.
In addition, letting learners know that the course will be observed for research purposes,
even though individuals will not be named, and data will be analyzed in aggregate, would most
likely be a good choice. Some learners might drop the course, ascribing this to a feeling of being
creeped out by the some big brother researcher in the course. However it is better, perhaps, to
lose some participants in the earlier parts of a study rather than risk alienating a big group of
learners later if you do not disclose the purpose of the researcher in the course.
The textual data that will be collected from the discussion forums, twitter streams, open
blogs, and so on, will need to be coded an analyzed. This coding will require not one, but a few,
coders in order to ensure reliability. Should these research questions be pursued, it will be
important to have more than one researcher, or to have a main researcher and a few paid, or
volunteer, coders to assist with the task. Depending on how the research proceeds it may be
necessary to employ a variety of methodologies including discourse analysis, computational
linguistic analysis, social network analysis, and ethnographic research as part of a mixed
methods research approach. In this case there is more preparatory work to be completed in order
to have the researcher attain a comfortable level of familiarity with these various methods and
approaches.
Finally, as far as the review of the literature, it is important to review the existing research
not only into MOOCs and learning, but also on learner motivation, retention, and even
satisfaction in courses. While the extant literature on MOOCs may only now be taking off, we do
have research as it relates to traditional face to face and traditional online courses. Some of this
research literature should be illuminating with regard to MOOC applications.
Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigm is most likely going to be explored through the lens of critical
pedagogy. In this case the review of the literature will need a healthy dose of critical pedagogues
such as Paulo Freire, Henri Giroux, and Donaldo Macedo among others. Fortunately half of my
academic department are critical pedagogues, some of whom have actually met and worked with
Freire, Giroux, and others, so the task of finding relevant readings, for a review of the literature,
may be easier than initially thought. The challenge will be finding and tying the relevant
readings to specific areas of open course research.
For the Rhizomatic aspect of research, Dave Cormier (2013) has indicated that his
conception of the rhizome comes from an idiosyncratic reading of the work of Deleuze and
Gautari (1987). For this reason it would be important to review the original work of Deleuze and
Gautari before proceeding with further explorations of Cormiers work, and my own conception

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

10

of Rhizomatic learning. This would be in addition to going deeper into Knowless work on
Andragogy (1984) and other works in critical pedagogy.
Finally, gaining access might a double edged sword. It may be easier to gain access to
your own institution, but its also potentially perilous. The potential repercussions of using your
own institution would need more exploration. Cohen et al. indicate that people who open the
doors of an organization might expect you to be an ally and provide results in their favor (2011,
p. 83). This is a potential pitfall that needs to be kept in mind as doors are opening for this
research. Some organizations may feel that they are really progressive, especially when it comes
to the MOOCs that they produce, but the findings might indicate something to the contrary. In
addition to potential harm of the people involved, and harm to institutional reputation, it is
important to keep in mind that the researcher needs to be impartial, regardless of what the group
that opens the doors to the organization expects.

Theoretical paradigms and potential research projects

11

References
Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening
the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th Ed).
London: Routledge.
Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum. Innovate: Journal of
Online Education. 4(5).
Cormer, D. (2013, December 27). Rhizomatic Learning An open course #rhizo14 [Weblog
post]. Retrieved from: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2013/12/27/rhizomatic-learningan-open-course-rhizo14/
Deleuze, G. & Gautari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
Downes, S (2013, January 17). What makes a MOOC Massive? [Weblog post]
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-makes-mooc-massive.html
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), Article 2.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McAuley, A, Steward, B., Siemens, G., and Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital
practice. Retrieved from: http://www.davecormier.com/edblog/wpcontent/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf
Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education. First Monday.
3(1). Retrieved from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490
Watters, A. (2014). Un-Fathom-able: The Hidden History of Ed-Tech. Keynote presentation at
CETIS Conference, Bolton, UK. June 17-18. 2014
Wiley, D. (2014, December 31). Koller, Thicke, and Noble: The Blurred Lines Between
Traditional Online Courses and MOOCs. [weblog post]. Retrieved from:
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3703