Special Research I Session1:Exchange Reports on Your Research Interests

[Let's Write a Summary of Your Research Plan]

Have you understood Chapter 2 of the textbook? In this session, we will look at the summary of a proposal written by Bob (imaginary person), who is engaged in “Educational design analysis and proposal of designing guidelines concerning e-Learning material for adults.”

First, he wrote down a summary that introduces his research contents in 400 - 500 letters in Japanese. Don't worry, you are not expected to read this. Keep going.

ｅラーニング教材の開発工程において、安定した教育効果を目指すためには、何らかの共通した指標に基づく教材設計時の品質管理が求められる。eラーニング教材設計のためのガイドラインやチェックリストは理論的な立場からいくつか提案されているが、社会人向けのeラーニング教材開発の実情に即した形で実効力を挙げている例はまだ見られない。本研究では、eメンタリングのためのガイドラインを形成・評価した先行研究（松田ら　2005）の手法を応用し、社会人向け実務教育に特化した設計ガイドラインを提案・評価した。ガイドラインの策定にあたっては、IT系企業の自社開発部門に聞き取り調査し、eラーニング教材35点の実例に即して、教育効果に影響が大きい設計項目を抽出した。５３項目からなる設計ガイドラインを形成的に評価・改訂し、「実務教育向けeラーニング設計ガイドライン」を提案した。最後に、提案したガイドラインの効果を実証するための研究の枠組みについて考察を加えた。（413字）

This consists of about 150 words (1,000 characters). This length is acceptable as a thesis summary in English.

Quality management in design phase based on a common index is necessary to gain stable educational effect in e-Learning production. Some guidelines and checklists have been proposed from theoretical viewpoints. However, no example can be found in which such an index plays an effective role in developing e-Learning in the area of practical business affairs. In this study, a design guideline has been proposed and evaluated that specifically aims at workplace learning situations, by employing guideline proposal and evaluation methodology for e-mentoring (Matsuda, et. al, 2005). For proposing the guideline, 35 e-Learning materials was used, which had been produced by the internal training unit of an IT-related company. Fifty-three items were generated that had big impacts to make the material educationally effective. The guideline was then formatively evaluated before proposing the “E-Learning Design Guideline for Practical Training.” The research design for validating the proposed guideline was also discussed.

Let us see the contents of the summary, examining each sentence.

Summary

Explanation

Quality management in design phase based on a common index is necessary to gain stable educational effect in e-Learning production.

This corresponds to the background of the research. “Common indicator” = intention to link the necessity of guidelines and the development of e-Learning material (corresponding to p.17 of the textbook).

Some guidelines and checklists have been proposed from theoretical viewpoints. However, no example can be found in which such an index plays an effective role in developing e-Learning in the area of practical business affairs.

This describes the current progress of research. It shows that there are some guidelines but they are not desirable ones for the interest of this particular study. It delivers the author's message that he knows the past research (he has reviewed the past literature) and explains the goal of his research. When the summary says that “some guidelines have been proposed,” it is necessary that a body of the proposal should indicate the name of preceding research as evidence. However, it does not have to be indicated in the summary itself.

In this study, a design guideline has been proposed and evaluated that specifically aims at workplace learning situations, by employing guideline proposal and evaluation methodology for e-mentoring (Matsuda, et. al, 2005).

This corresponds to the purpose of the study. It indicates the desired outcome of the research (a design guideline and a specialized form of it) and introduces the preceding research (Matsuda, et al. 2005) that was referred to in this research. As specific names of preceding research are not generally mentioned in the summary, introduction of it here indicates that this research is heavily based on it.

For proposing the guideline, 35 e-Learning materials was used, which had been produced by the internal training unit of an IT-related company.

This corresponds to research methods. It describes the way the draft guidelines are made. Although it is similar to the case study (research is targeting only one company), it appeals that the way the designing items were selected was reasonable because a considerable number (35) of cases were investigated. Presenting the concrete numerical value in this way may give a room for the argument that investigation on only one company may not be satisfactory. However, some may consider that investigating as many as 35 pieces of material, even if in one company, would be satisfactory. Clarifying a method used as much as possible will be better than creating ambiguities (at least what is unacceptable will be known).

Fifty-three items were generated that had big impacts to make the material educationally effective. The guideline was then formatively evaluated before proposing the “E-Learning Design Guideline for Practical Training.”

This gives a continued explanation of the research method. By proposing the draft guidelines after assessment/improvement, not directly proposing the original draft of the guidelines, the practicality and reliability of the guidelines are emphasized. It does not give the details of the assessment method (there may be a suspicious part in the method or it may be just the result of having shortened the length of the explanation).

The research design for validating the proposed guideline was also discussed.

It gives a conclusion (discussion). While a body text of a proposal would restate the outcomes from this research here once more to emphasize it, a summary is not granted such kind of redundancy. Accordingly, the summary concludes that this research proposed a framework without leaving anything undone. It admits that even a guideline proposed after assessment and improvement would not be directly usable unless its effectiveness is verified by actually using it. However, mentioning that may run the risk of receiving criticism that an unverified research is tepid.

Now the summary is completed, and you are ready to answer in an “academic way” to the question of what kind of research you would like to do. As many things are unknown or undecided at the stage of a research plan, there may be ambiguous areas.
For example, Matsuda et al. (2005) is a good example to based research on. By the time it is found, the summary would describe it in the following way.

This research investigates the preceding research that formulates/evaluates guidelines. Using its method to support this research, a design guideline specialized in business education for adults will be proposed and evaluated.
Note: In a research plan, research is going to be conducted in the future, so the future tense is used. In a summary of a research that has been conducted, the past tense should be used.

Do you know how to write a summary in an “academic way”? Try making a summary, and post comments to each other.

Session 1: (2) Writing Proposals for Acceptance at AECT (Chapter 2)

[Let's Write a Summary of Your Research Plan]