Online Learning and Discussion Forums for Adult Students

Critique Analysis of Research

Article 1: Meaningful Learning from Sustained Online Communication

Research Problem

The research problem identified by Abdallah and Albadri (2013) is how to promote active learning and critical thinking among adult learners and whether this can be done using online discussion boards. They situate their research within the understanding that “to motivate adult learners they need to be engaged in activities to make them think, reflect and express their experiences and views” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 1). However, the problem is that “engaging students through online discussion boards does not automatically guarantee meaningful learning, warranting the need for suitable assessment tools to measure students learning and performance” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 2). Thus, the research question that Abdallah and Albadri (2013) pose is this: “how to evaluate students learning through the examination of the knowledge constructed by them to ensure that learning is occurring?” (p.2).

The research problem is thus identified in the introduction of research study. It is essentially a problem of evaluation. The assumption of the authors is that online collaboration tools can provide a social constructivist tool to adult learners that will facilitate active learning and critical thinking. This assumption is supported by the literature reviewed in the study’s literature review. The problem that arises from this review is the problem that the researchers address in order to provide better understanding of how teachers can be sure that online discussion boards facilitate active learning and critical thinking among adult learners. The researchers note that it is a problem of evaluation and their study shows that teachers wrongly evaluate these online discussion boards in terms of quality of learning when what they should be doing is devising their own experiential measures of evaluation.

Review of the Literature

In their review of the literature, the researchers develop a table that compares and contrasts what researchers in the past have concluded about the most common methods for measuring the success of online learning via discussion boards. However, the literature review is not extensive. It consists of 8 studies that serve to make up the table of comparisons. The key take-away from the comparison table is that adult learners require a way to be engaged that will facilitate deep and critical thinking. The authors then use a study by Henri (1992) to examine the difference between surface and in-depth processing. The literature review thus sets the stage for a discussion of the methodology applied in the research study.

Article’s Contribution

What makes the article different from its predecessors is that it is an exploratory qualitative case study devised to determine “whether students are gaining merely surface learning or deep learning that can motivate them to become self-learners and critical thinkers” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 3). Because the authors do not identify gaps in the literature that they want to address but rather only use the literature as a framework for situating their own case study, there is no clear understanding presented of why the study was needed or what contribution it makes to existing literature beyond the fact that methods of evaluating online discussion forums for adult learners may not be entirely appropriate.

Theoretical Model and Expected Signs

The authors use Knowles’ theory of andragogy as a framework for their research. This is clearly stated in the research study’s introduction, and the theory is described in sufficient detail so that the reader can see its relevance and how and why it applies to the present study. The theory of andragogy is stated as being one that shows “that adults learn differently from children because the learning process of adults is different as adults are more self-directed, autonomous i.e more responsible for their learning and take decisions more than children” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 1). The way in which it is applied in the study is that it justifies the use of online discussion boards as a constructivist tool that adult learners can use to ask and answer questions among themselves and to facilitate engagement and discussion. The supposition is that such a tool is more helpful for adult learners because they are inherently self-directed learners as Knowles points out. The theoretical model thus applied is suitable because it explains the viewpoint of the authors in their approach to the subject matter. Without this viewpoint the reader would be wondering why the researchers held to their supposition or thought the inquiry worth exploring. However, when it is shown that this is the model they are using, it makes sense that they would focus on the discussion board as it is a potential way for adult learners to operate independently of an instructor.

The expected signs that the researchers look for by applying this theory is evidence that adult learners do find online discussion boards to be helpful in their learning process. But because the research is exploratory, the researchers do not identify what signs they are looking for specifically; instead, they state that they are going to identify themes that emerge from the analysis of discussion threads in which adult learners were tasked with asking one critical thought question related to the course material and answering 9 other questions posed by their classmates.

Description of the Data, Problems, Weaknesses or Limitations

Because the data collected is qualitative it is open to interpretation and admits a degree of subjective analysis, which is different from what it might have been had statistical analysis of quantitative data been obtained. However, the study being exploratory in nature, the researchers are more interested in looking at what information is there to see and forming a hypothesis after the fact than they are in forming a hypothesis prior to the research and attempting to test variables.

The problem of using this kind of data is not discussed in depth by the researchers. Instead, they focus on justifying their approach by citing sources that explain the qualitative design. However, one problem that does arise is that the sample is very small and the participants are not clearly described in terms of age, gender, race, or ethnicity, so there is no demographic background to use that might add further understanding to the conclusions drawn. This is not necessarily a weakness in the study’s design, but it does represent a weakness in its execution, as different outcomes might be obtained through a similar study conducted with a different sample.

The researchers also do not discuss the limitations of their study, but they do not their conclusions require further validation and development. They also note that they do not conduct a deep enough probe of whether or not the participants in their study actually learned anything from one another. In effect, all they achieved in their analysis was that adult learners are capable of asking and answering questions, do provide insight, do make deliberations on their own, and do to some extent appear to learn something or obtain new skills from this engagement on online discussion forums. But they are unable to say to what extent this learning is achieved.

Description of the Results and Problems of Interpretation

The researchers describe their results sufficiently well, creating a diagram that reflects the four themes that emerged from their analysis and how those four themes interrelate with one another. For example, in Diagram 1, the researchers identify the four themes apparent in their interpretive analysis of the discussion threads as Observation, Insights, Deliberation, and Learning from Others. Each theme is placed in a circle of its own and arranged in a diamond pattern. Arrows then point from one circle to another showing the relationship. Observation leads to and from Insights and Deliberation and Learning from Others. Insights leads to and from Deliberation and Learning from Others and Observation. Learning from Others leads to and from Insights, Deliberation and Observation. Deliberation leads to and from Observation, Insights and Learning from Others. The researchers also define each other these categorizations or themes for the reader.

Observation is defined as “Students are engaged in noticing or becoming aware of information”; Insight is defined as “Deep perception on a certain issue”; Deliberation is defined as “Use of analytical skills, thinking deeply and related information”; and Learning from Others is defined as “Extract behavior, skills and lessons from others” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 7).

The interpretation of the data is conducted on a couple of assumptions that may be problematic. For instance, the researchers assume that positive feedback from student to student is indicative of something positive having been obtained through the discussion rather than a mere empty formality meant to show appreciation and respect to one’s classmates. The researchers view positive phrases, such as, “I like your comments”, “your are always a positive man”, “I do respect everyone replies and suggestions”, It is a good discussion and feedback”, “I’d like to thank you for your posting your comments and opinion” and “I agree with your idea” as indicative of students having obtained something of value from the online discussion. This assumption could skew the interpretation of the data in a more positive manner than might necessarily be reflected were these same participants to be surveyed about their thoughts on the discussion forum and whether it was valuable to them.

Another assumption the researchers make is that “sustained communication over a long period of time allows students an opportunity to extract various positive behaviors and lessons” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 6). There is no clear indication as to why they make this assumption or what it might mean for the interpretation of the data, but there is no support given for it. The researchers appear to be projecting a separate viewpoint onto the data that is not entirely corroborated by any literature.

The conclusions reached by the researchers are that “online interaction depends on several interacting cognitive activities, which can be used by faculty to assess and to enhance the students’ critical thinking using online discussion boards” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 7). They assert that teachers could use the themes identified (the categorizations) as a way to evaluate the quality of learning and how knowledge is constructed by students. They also state that their study contributes positively to understanding the “effectiveness of online knowledge construction and may be used as a guide for assessing its quality” (Abdallah & Albadri, 2013, p. 7). However, how it is actually supposed to do this is not clearly stated.

Conclusions Supported by the Research?

The conclusions are not necessarily supported by the research. The researchers state, for instance, that their study contributes to deeper understanding of online learning among adult students, but all it does is identify four themes that they interpreted from their analysis of discussion threads from a small sample of students. It is too small a sample and the implications of the findings too broadly drawn to render a verdict of validity and generalizeability.

One of the main problems is that the research design is not thoroughly explicated. While it is admittedly exploratory in nature, it feels somewhat rushed in its reporting and in its interpretations and conclusions. Evidently, some useful data has been extricated from the research, but what it means and how it applies to the issue of evaluation of online learning among adult students is never fully explained. Instead, the bulk of attention is given to the four themes that the researchers identified. Once this is done, the researchers congratulate themselves as having contributed to a better understanding of the research problem. Yet they do state in their conclusion that their model requires further development and validation, which is true. This research should serve as a bare bones foundation for future research, and for that reason it can be said to contribute positively, but only in the sense that it provides a narrow window into a possible area where future research could be conducted more thoroughly.

References

Abdallah, S., & Albadri, F. (2013). Meaningful Learning from Sustained Online

Communication: A Reflection with a Group of Adults. In Information Systems Applications in the Arab Education Sector (pp. 208-216). IGI Global.

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),

Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 115-136

Article 2: The Dimensions of Expatriate Acculturation

Research Problem

The research problem observed by Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) is that personnel directors use methods for selecting employees that are too “rigid and simplistic” to enable them to select appropriately expatriate managers that will do well in terms of expatriate acculturation (p. 39). The basis for the research is thus situated in the problem of expatriate selection and training, in order to identify dimensions that lead to successful expatriate acculturation. The researchers situate this problem in the context of numerous literature published on the matter to show that there is a gap in research that needs to be filled. Based upon their review of the literature, the researchers surmise that the gap is this: personnel directors are in need of a “clearer understanding of the key factors that constitute the expatriate acculturation process” so as to facilitate the design of selection instruments and training programs (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985, p. 40). The researchers note that the purpose of their study is to two-fold: first, they aim to “review the extant literature on expatriate acculturation in order to pinpoint the key factors or dimensions involved in the cross-cultural adjustment process”; and, second, they aim to “discuss the implications of the study’s findings for the selection and training of expatriates in MNC’s [multi-national corporations]” (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985, p. 40). Based upon these stated research aims, it is clear what the researchers are attempting to do with their study, and there is no confusion for the reader about what the purpose of the study is. It is clearly stated at the conclusion of the section headed “Problems in Expatriate Selection and Training,” which follows the study’s introduction.

Review of the Literature

Because the study is primarily a literature review, it is filled with literature citations that show the researchers have looked deeply into the subject at hand. They begin their review by identifying the four key dimensions that appeared to them during their review: the self-oriented dimension, the others-oriented dimension, the perceptual dimension, and the cultural-toughness dimension. They then give each dimension a separate heading of its own and discuss literature relevant to each dimension. In this way, they support their analysis with a well-founded basis for assessment.

Article’s Contribution

The article’s main contribution to the literature is that it pools together the findings of several different studies on the four dimensions of successful acculturation selection and training, along with studies on factors that impact these processes, such as stress management, technical competence, relationship development, a willingness to communicate, and reinforcement substitution. Each of these different factors is presented as a sub-heading in a particular section devoted to one of the four dimensions. The purpose of arranging the material in this manner is to show that the literature related to these factors supports the conclusion of the researchers that these four dimensions are what personnel administrators should be using to develop their selection and training programs.

Overall, the researchers adopt a novel approach to the problem that they are considering and present information based on existing literature in a way that is easily accessible and understandable. The information is presented, moreover, so as to show how there is support in existing literature to confirm or validate the importance of focusing on the four dimensions that the researchers identify at the outset of the literature review.

Theoretical Model and Expected Signs

No existing theoretical model or lens is identified or apparently applied in the research study or its findings. Instead, the researchers focus on the dimensions that they find in the existing literature and use these dimensions to develop their own recommendations for how personnel directors might better develop a model, program or process for selecting and training new hires that will successfully acculturate. After using the literature to show support for the four dimensions that they identified, the researchers then show how personnel directors could apply these dimensions to their own selection and training processes. For instance, with the Self-Oriented Dimension, the researchers suggest that personnel directors could focus on evaluating the technical expertise of potential hires. They also recommend using psychological tests and evaluations as well as implementing in-house stress reduction programs.

As there is no hypothesis presented at the outset of the study there are also no expected signs (or testing conducted) that the researchers are on the lookout for through the course of the study. Instead, they opt for an approach that allows them simply to review existing literature and explain how the dimensions they discovered in the existing literature might be used to help personnel directors better select and train new hires for successful acculturation in MNCs.

Description of the Data, Problems, Weaknesses or Limitations

The data is described well in the study; headings and sub-headings are used throughout to break up the sections of the study into more easily readable chapters. The data obtained through the literature review is relevant to the problem identified in the research, and the researchers also address both of the aims that they state at the outset of the article. The main problem with the data is that there is no clear indication of how the systematic literature review was conducted. The researchers do not identify inclusion or exclusion criteria for the study. Instead, they simply jump into the literature review and it is unclear why these studies were selected, how they were selected, and why other studies are not included in the review. Whether this is a weakness in the overall design or just in the reporting of the data is unclear. Did the researchers have these criteria and fail to acknowledge them? Or were they never there in the first place? That information would help the reader to assess the validity of the findings better.

The researchers also do not comment on weaknesses or limitations in their systematic literature review. There is no section in the study that addresses potential limitations to their study or what areas might be improved upon in future research. Instead, they adopt an authoritative tone and present their findings as though they are final and conclusive. The intention is obviously to help personnel directors apply some of the concepts related to the four dimensions that the researchers found apparent in the literature that they reviewed, but there is no support given for why personnel directors should be inclined to accept these findings as valid in the first place. The reader might recognize this as a weakness and a limitation, but the authors of the study do not seem to consider it important enough to mention.

Description of the Results and Problems of Interpretation

The results of the study are identified in relation to the four dimensions discussed at the outset of the study—the self-oriented dimension, the others-oriented dimension, the perceptual dimension, and the cultural-toughness dimension. The support for these dimensions in the literature is provided from numerous literature sources and factors that characterize these dimensions are provided, as has already been stated. The second half of the study focuses on proposing how personnel directors could use these dimensions to more successfully hire workers who can acculturate. The results are supported amply by the literature, and the recommendations made are based on these findings. The researchers recommend, for instance, a training program that would specifically address “the subfactors of the dimensions of expatriate acculturation…crucial to the preparation of the expatriate” (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985, p. 44).