Research methodology 54

The decision on the most appropriate research methodology to use took into account the research context, purpose and questions as outlined in Chapter 1 and my philosophical stance on learning, as described below in section 3.4.2.

At the time of starting the research, the Learning Events and the eTwinning groups were a new innovation in eTwinning (see section 1.3) and the organisers (EUN) were interested to know more about how they would work and how they might be further developed. Given their interest in promoting positive change through inquiry and reflection, and my interest in understanding the community from a holistic perspective (as discussed in section 1.5), action research was the logical choice for the research methodology.

3.1.1 Action research

Action research, introduced in section 1.6, is associated with practical inquiry in which systemic study combines ‘action and reflection in the intention of improving practice’ (Ebbutt, 1985, cited in Cohen et al., 2007, p.297). As such, it is meant to bridge the worlds of research and practice, thereby overcoming criticisms concerning the failure of the former to influence the latter (2007). In comparing action research with the everyday reflective actions of teachers, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, cited in Cohen et al., 2007, p.298) emphasise that action research is more collaborative and systemic; it is problem-posing as well as problem-solving; it is research done by practitioners for practitioners; and it is not ‘the scientific method’ applied to teaching but rather one of many possible approaches. Action research is a democratic approach to research (Day and Sachs, 2004) that encourages teachers to think of themselves as

researchers (Kincheloe, 2003), empowering them in the process (Cohen et al., 2007). In referring to this democratisation of the research process, Denscombe (2007, p.127) suggests that there is still a role for the outside expert, ‘but that role shifts in the direction of mutual collaboration in the research process, or even to the position where the outside expert has the role of facilitator of the practitioner’s own project, a resource to be drawn upon as and when the practitioner sees fit’. This describes succinctly the role that I had in working with the staff of EUN and in supporting the tutor, Tiina.

Action research is typically associated with small-scale, hands-on research in the social sciences (Denscombe, 2007) and Koshy (2010) emphasises the need for the researcher to articulate their ontological and epistemological stance in order to justify their choice of data collection and analysis methods. In this respect, I posit that it is coherent with my philosophical stance on learning, as outlined in section 3.4.2, as it rejects ‘positivistic perspectives of rationality, objectivity, and truth’ (Kincheloe, 2003, p.42) and is compatible with the social constructivist view of teaching, in which reality is not external or independent of the participants involved (Koshy, 2010).

Koshy (2010) describes several cyclic models of action research, such as the one proposed by O’Leary (2004, cited in Koshy, 2010), depicted in Figure 3-1. In each cycle the objective is to observe and reflect on the situation being investigated and to

plan changes upon which to act in a subsequent cycle. This approach is then repeated

in a spiral until there is sufficient understanding and improvement for the situation being investigated.

I participated in a first run of the Learning Event (LE), introduced in section 1.3.2, in April 2010. This was an opportunity to observe, collect data and reflect on the online learning community from the point of view of the three presences described in the CoI model. The results were subsequently analysed and discussed with the main stakeholders involved, the tutor Tiina and the staff of EUN, and planned changes were agreed that were then acted upon in a rerun of the LE in November 2010. The second LE was thus an opportunity to observe, collect further data and to analyse the possible impact of the changes made. As discussed in section 3.6.3, the two cycles of action research provided sufficient data to analyse the situation, understand the learning community and answer the research questions.

As is often the case with action research (Koshy, 2010), the results offer a rich, in- depth description of a specific example of a more general concept; in other words they present a case study.

3.1.2 Case study

A case study is a specific, bounded example of a more general situation, described in sufficient detail and depth as to allow others to identify with the case (Cohen et al., 2007). It is concerned primarily with the exploratory questions of how and why, rather than the more typical research questions of what and where (Yin, 2009). It is ‘the study of a singularity which is chosen because of its interest’ (Bassey, 1999, p.75) and aims to ‘illuminate the general by looking at the particular’ (Denscombe, 2007, p.36). Simons (1996, online) describes this as ‘the paradox of the case study’, yielding both unique and universal understanding.

A case study follows the interpretive tradition of research, recognising the ‘complexity and ‘embeddedness’ of social truths’ (Cohen et al., 2007, p.256) and as such, it is coherent with the philosophical stance of this research (see section 3.4.2). Denscombe (2007) suggests that the situation being examined – the ‘case’ – typically exists prior to the investigation and continues to exist afterwards, as with the LEs being investigated in this research.

A case study does not have specific methods of data collection and analysis associated with it (Bassey, 1999) and the next section discusses how ethnographic approaches were used to collect appropriate data.