Blog post with all the comments
4 comments every week:
Theme 1: Research publications/Theory of science
I believe
that the main question "What drives a successful e-Learning?" may be
too broad and uncertain in the first place. Perhaps that´s why both the hypothesis
and the conclusion as a result of these became excessively general as well.
During our bachelor thesis we were told that one of the most important things
is to minimize the main question, obviously because it makes it easier for us
to answer our own question. That may be the big issue here. The author can´t
really answer his question in a good way because of the uncertainty.
Comment on Jonas Jönsson’s blog
Would be
interesting to know more about what kind of method they used during the study? Because
you said that the method part was well presented. Was it a quantitative or a
qualitative method or maybe a combination of those and were the benefits
respectively the disadvantages just in this particular case well explained?
Comment on Therese Nothnagel´s blog
Did they
mention why the tests only were given to I suppose a relatively small group of
students instead of just an increased target group? Also, did you find some
particular parts of the results which were not reliable because of the tiny target
group?
Comment on Bobby Falck’s blog
Did they
use different kinds of variables within the test to easier find correlations between
for instance driving performance and response time, which was necessary to
create the conclusions? Besides what was the definition of driving performance
in this particular case?
Comment on Carl Oskar Stenvall´s blog
Theme 2: Theory
In my
opinion there are far more benefits than disadvantages considering if the paper
isn´t generalized enough. A generalized theory may be easier to understand but
I believe it is more difficult to apply it in the process later on while using
qualitative/quantitative methods. Normally a specific main question, make those
parts easier than a generalized one and the more specific the theory or the
study as a whole is, the easier is it to create something unic that separates
from other studies and therefore become successful.
Comment on Jonas Jönsson’s blog
Spontaneously,
even if the environment and the program as a whole is staged, the study seems
to be reasonable, because I believe a lot of us act differently while being
monitored by some media, but nowadays it affects us more or less everyday in
various ways. Perhaps the program will show us some hidden part of ourselves?
Therefore, the theories they have used seem to be very interesting in this
particular context because of the monitoring.
Comment on Therese Nothnagel´s blog
Was this
TAM-theory comparatively abstract or in other words hard to understand
potentially because of some missing examples? Perhaps it was necessary to put
so much weight on the theory in order to make the rest of the study
comprehensible? On the other hand, it was maybe an excessive amount of
information which wasn´t in the end useful for the study.
Comment on Victor Bleichner´s blog
It may be
good to combine explanation and design and action theories to for instance
explain the background of a specific diagram or picture and clarify why it´s
put in a specific context. Hence, I believe that the design and action theory
could be the easiest one to merge with other theories by showing definite
pictures, diagrams and so on.
Comment on Niklas Fyrvald’s blog
Theme 3: Quantitative methods
In my
opinion I believe that they didn´t accomplish the most suitable method of mixed
research in this particular case about emotional presence and so on. Like you
mentioned, using a quantitative method to gather qualitative data isn´t
unproblematic. Personally, I missed some kind of clarified link or correlation
between those methods because I thought it was quite hard to clearly understand
what they came up with in the result and in the conclusion, especially when they
involved so many abstract terms like social, presence and emotion.
Comment on Jonas Jönsson’s blog
In my
opinion one possible reason for that mixed research is going to increase in
popularity could be because of queries regarding viability and reliability. In
order to accomplish a trustworthy study in the long run, these kind of
questions will be raised according to me. The more technical solutions we have,
the more easier it is too raise doubts about those. The best way to create
viable and reliable studies may be within mixed studies if they are used in a
proper way, for instance by avoiding different kinds of self-selection.
Comment on Therese Nothnagel´s blog
I totally
agree with you about the vague explanation of the diagrams and the numbers.
Also, I expected a more clarified explanation of the method and the result
especially when so many abstract terms like emotion, social and presence are
involved. I read several sentences many times as well, but was still very
confused in the end. In addition, I believe it´s quite difficult to accomplish
reliable general studies about emotions obviously because it´s hard to make
comparatively objective conclusions and they could in turn easily be
questioned.
Comment on Simon Roth´s blog
I believe
that the quote is somehow supposed to emphasize quires about viability and
reliability, since I assume it´s rather easy to criticize mixed research
regarding these two in terms of how the quantitative and qualitative methods
correlate between each other. For instance, asking a participant if he/she
wants to attend to an interview within a survey would most likely affect the
reliability of the mixed research negatively. Like we heard from todays
lecture, interview objects should instead randomly be picked.
Comment on Carl Oskar Stenvall´s blog
Theme 4: Qualitative methods
Your
question is interesting as well, but I don´t think that one of the two methods
is more preferred than the other one. I believe it’s very important to make
methods easy to follow and therefore make the results and the conclusions more
reliable. Commonly concrete, short-answered questions with many participants
are more suitable for quantitative research and abstract, developed questions
with few participants are more suitable for qualitative research. Qualitative
research might give better answers in general but it may be unnecessary in
certain smaller frontiers as well.
Comment on Jonas Jönsson’s blog
Your
question is interesting because I couldn´t find any significant purpose of the
first two examples mentioned in the text. The latter one had at least a
cleaning purpose. Maybe they should have put clothes/decorations on objects
which have a particular meaning and are not only used as toys and therefore
further discuss how these affect the objects.
Comment on Bobby Falck’s blog
Like we talked
about during the seminar, this method in this particular context might give a
lot of unnecessary information since it lasted for a month. Interesting to know
the corresponding useful time which they really used for analyzing in the
result. In addition, you mentioned that they used the system freely during a
month. I assumed that some participants have used the system more than others
and therefore been more acquainted with the system, so it may be difficult to
equally analyze the results as well.
Comment on Victor Bleichner´s blog
We had some
focus groups in our method during our bachelor thesis. I believe it was harder
than I expected to get equally spread widely answers from all the participants,
even if the groups were rather small, like 3-4 people in each group. Although
we had homogeneous groups, one person often dominated and outvoted the others
and perhaps you don´t want to interrupt him or her. Therefore it´s quite hard
to accomplish perfect focus groups so to speak even if you are well prepared.
Comment on Simon Roth´s blog
Theme 5: Design Research
Interesting
that my research paper had a lot in common with yours like MMORPG as a method
for learning. Since it seems that your study lacked some necessary information
about the game it may be hard to further argue about the study. If they only
mentioned that they wanted to evaluate how users could learn collaboratively
while playing together, it seems very general according to me because all
MMORPGs have that more or less in common. The question is did they learn more
about the game or something else? I believe that design research papers have to
be put in a more specific context in order to use the benefits of it. In this
case to clarify the purpose of the game by carefully explain what they actually
learn collaboratively.
Comment on Jonas Jönsson’s blog
Interesting
that you mention that audio feedback was measured to be the most effective
while HUD was perceived to be the most effective according to the users. I
assume that efficiency isn´t the main priority in this case. I guess it´s easy
to miss some particular sounds as a driver while a display gives the driver the
opportunity to look at the display whenever he/she wants. What was the
motivation according to the users?
Comment on Simon Roth´s blog
Unlike you
I think that design research is comparatively easy to grasp especially when you
receive a clear background of why the design is appropriate and when possible
adjustments are motivated with for instance pictures. But of course, maybe I
have been fortunate to have chosen some relatively "concrete" studies
about games. But design research about games may be easier to grasp than for
instance some unknown new technology tool mainly because we are more acquainted
with games and quite often in which context they are being used.
Comment on Carl Oskar Stenvall´s blog
Observation
seems to very common within design research. I wonder if the students were
aware of the observation in a way that potentially could affect the result
badly? In addition observation is probably often quite useful during moments
when it´s hard to do corresponding interviews, but in your case they used
interviews as well. Was it necessary to combine those two according to you in
order to make the procedure?
Comment on Niklas Fyrvald’s blog