EDUC8631: Approaches to Research

EDUC8631: Approaches to Research

Unit Outline

Unit Co-ordinator:

Winthrop Professor Helen Wildy

1. Unit Coordinator

W/Prof. Helen Wildy

Phone: 6488 1709 (voice mail)

Email:

2. Unit Times and Dates

21-24 November, 2011

3. Unit Objectives

This unit introduces qualitative and quantitative approaches to doing empirical research in education. As an introductory unit, a strong emphasis will be placed on conception and design throughout. Issues of data collection, analysis, and interpretation will also be considered, but only at a very broad conceptual level. At the end of this unit, students should have a general understanding of:

· the nature of research in education;

· quantitative research methods;

· qualitative research methods;

· ethics and research proposal writing.

4. Schedule

The unit comprises 12 core topics. Given the scope of the overall area, and the relatively limited class time available, some will be dealt with in more detail than others.

1. Introduction to Education Research

2. Research Conduct and Publication Ethics

3. Posing Research Questions

4. Reviewing the Literature

5. Qualitative Research Design

6. Qualitative Data Collection

7. Qualitative Data Analysis

8. Quantitative Research Design

9. Quantitative Data Collection

10. Quantitative Data Analysis

11. Mixed Method Research

12. Research Proposal Writing

5. Unit Reading

The textbooks for this unit.can be ordered through the UWA bookshop (copies may not always be in stock) or by contacting Joseph Tan at Hwa Chong Institution

Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage Publications.

Optional text,

Neuman, W., & Lawrence, D. (2000). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative. 4th edn. NY: Allyn and Bacon.

Although these are presented as alternatives, the first text (Punch) is more accessible as an introductory-level text. For this reason, we have linked the unit topics to chapters within the Punch text. The Neuman and Lawrence text provides a detailed discussion of specific topics, and may be preferred by some in its style. Either provides some discussion of all of the topics within the unit.

We recognize that it may not be possible for all of you to acquire the textbook prior to, or even during, the five days during which the unit is conducted. As a result, we have provided ‘supplementary readings’ for each topic for you on Course Materials Online (CMO) .[1] http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/ and on the HCI course website. Joseph Tan will direct you to this website.. These readings do substantiate the content discussed in class, but it is nonetheless better for you still to purchase the textbook, which discusses all of the unit topics within a single source.

There are also ‘additional resources’. These extra materials include general reference documents, examples of research studies, proposals, and theses, and supplementary reading lists. Some of these will be used in the class exercises; others are provided for you to peruse outside of class.

The readings corresponding to each of the unit topics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Readings for Each Unit Topic

Topic / Punch (2009)
Chapter/s / Supplementary Readings
(On Disc Under Topic Number) / Additional Resources
(On Disc)
1. Introduction to Education Research / 1-2 / Neuman, W., & Lawrence, D. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative research designs. Chapter 6 in Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th Edition. NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Krauss, S.E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: a primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. / 1. Examples of research proposals
2. Example critical reviews
3. Example research articles
4. Example theses
2. Research Conduct and Publication Ethics / 3 / UWA code of conduct for the responsible practice of research. Downloadable from http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/staff/reserach-policy-/guidelines.
Graduate School of Education, UWA (ND). Policy on authorship of publications arising from higher degree research. Perth, WA: The UWA Graduate School of Education.
NH&MRC. Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Canberra: NH&MRC.
3. Posing Research Questions / 4-5 / Creswell, D. (2008). Research questions and hypotheses. Chapter 7 in Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd Ed. NY: Sage.
McCaslin, M.L. & Wilson Scott, K. (2003). The five-question method For framing a qualitative research study. The Qualitative Report, 8(3), 447-461.
4. Reviewing the Literature / 6 / Bem, D.J. Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172-177.
Chapman, E. (2004). Starting tips for doing critical reviews: quantitative studies. Perth, WA: The UWA Graduate School of Education.
Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M. (2007). Guidelines for critical review form: qualitative studies. Available at: http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/qualguidelines_version2.0.pdf.
Graduate School of Education (ND). Guide to using the library and computer resources at UWA. Perth, WA: The UWA Graduate School of Education.
5. Qualitative Research Design / 7 / Cresswell, J.W. (2006). Designing a qualitative study. Chapter 3 in Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd Edition. NY: Sage.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: a data collector’s field guide. North Carolina: Family Health International.
Hancock, B. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. NY: The Trent Focus Group.
6. Qualitative Data Collection / 8
7. Qualitative Data Analysis / 9

Table 1. (Cond.) Readings for Each Unit Topic

Topic / Punch (2009)
Chapter/s / Supplementary Readings
(On Disc Under Topic Number) / Additional Resources (As above)
8. Quantitative Research Design / 10 / Mertens, D.M. (1998). Casual comparative and correlational research. Chapter 4 in Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. NY: Sage.
Cohen, L., Manion, l. and Morrison, K. (2007). Experiments, quasi-experiments and single-case research. Chapter 8 in Research methods in education. 6th edition. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gorard, S. (2001). Surveying the field: questionnaire design. Chapter 5 in Quantitative methods in educational research: the role of numbers made easy. London: Contiuum.
Cohen, R.J. ; Serdlick, M.E., ; Phillips, S.M. (1996). A statistics refresher. Chapter 3 in Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tabachnick, B.G. ; Fidell, L.S. (2006). Review of univariate and bivariate statistics. Chapter 3 in Using multivariate statistics. 5th Edition. NY: Allyn & Bacon. / 1. Examples of research proposals
2. Example critical reviews
3. Example research articles
4. Example theses
9. Quantitative Data Collection / 11
10. Quantitative Data Analysis / 12
11. Mixed Method Research / 13 / Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper. London: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
Harris, L.R., & Brown, G.T.L. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(1).
12. Research Proposal Writing / NA / Chapman, E. (2004). General proposal writing guidelines. Perth, WA: The UWA Graduate School of Education.
Wildy, H. (2010). Essay writing. Perth, WA: The UWA Graduate School of Education.

6. Assessment

EDUC8631 has TWO assessments.

ASSESSMENT 1

The first assessment is based on a 500 word assignment and is worth 10% of the total mark.

Due date: Friday, 16 December, 2011

Task: Select three pieces of literature relevant to your proposed research topic – book chapters or journal articles – and write an annotated bibliography for each, succinctly summarise the main thrust of the argument, justify its inclusion in relation to your proposed research, locate it in the body of the literature of interest to you, and include if possible a brief critique. Please attend closely to the requirements of the APA Manual and refer to your notes ‘Essay Writing’ (Wildy 2011).

Your assignment will be graded as per the University grading system (please refer to page 9 below).

ASSESSMENT 2

The second assessment is based on a 4,500 word assignment and is worth 90% of the total mark.

Due date: Monday, 16 January, 2012.

Task: This assessment is in the form of an empirical research proposal. There is no option on the type of assignment you can complete, because the writing of an empirical proposal is an essential skill to be developed in the programme. You do have some freedom in terms of the research area in which you choose to do your proposal.

It is recommended, though not essential, that you follow the guidelines provided in the readings: Chapman, E. (2004): General proposal writing guidelines, in constructing your proposal. The criteria below will be used broadly to evaluate your assignment. Please note that the ratings cannot be summed to give an overall score – the weightings applied to specific components within each section will vary across different proposal types. The rating scale used for each of these criteria will be as follows:

1=Not addressed;

2= Addressed, but substantial improvement required;

3=Addressed adequately;

4=Addressed well, minor improvement possible;

5=Addressed very well

Table 2. Assignment Evaluation Criteria

Section / Specific Component / Rating
Title and Abstract (5%) / Title provides a concise summary of the proposal topic / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Abstract summarizes concisely the proposed topic, research aims, approach, sample, and design/procedures to be used / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Introduction and Context (10%) / The context and significance of the research problem/topic to be addressed are established / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Central terms used in the remainder of the proposal are defined / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Conceptual Framework and Literature Review (20%) / A clear conceptual framework for the research is established / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Review includes both theoretical and empirical literature relevant to the research problem/topic / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Review of relevant theory/research is comprehensive yet concise / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Empirical studies reviewed are described in sufficient detail / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Relevant theoretical perspectives are summarized clearly and appropriately / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
The relevance of all theoretical perspectives and empirical studies reviewed to the proposed research is clear / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Some critical analysis is offered of any empirical studies reviewed / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Body of literature reviewed is integrated, with justification provided for any priority given to specific theories/empirical works / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Review is organized and sequenced appropriately / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Some discussion is provided of the current status of the body of research as a whole / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Gaps/deficiencies in current knowledge are highlighted to provide a basis for the proposed study / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Rationale, Aims/ Questions (20%) / A clear rationale is provided for the proposed study / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Aims/questions lead logically from the review and rationale / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Aims/questions are clearly ‘addressable’ through an empirical study / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Aims/questions are stated appropriately, clearly, and concisely / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Method (40%) / Overall research approach is appropriate and justified explicitly / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
All relevant aspects of the sampling strategy are suitable and described in sufficient detail / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Specific design proposed is appropriate, with a rationale provided for the choice made in light of tenable alternatives / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Measures/data collection procedures are appropriate, realistic, and justified explicitly (e.g., reliability and validity issues considered) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Proposed data analysis methods are appropriate and described sufficiently, with specific reference to how these will be applied in the present case / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Relevant ethical issues are discussed appropriately, including proposed strategies for overcoming any anticipated obstacles/constraints / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
The timeline for the research is realistic / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Structure, writing style, references, appendices (5%) / General structure of the proposal is clear and easy to follow / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Writing style is clear and expression is correct grammatically / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Referencing is consistent and conforms to a common or established protocol (e.g., APA) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5

Submit the hard copy to Joseph Tan at HCI and the soft copy to . Any requests for extensions must be made by emailing Ms Janet Edwards in writing prior to the due date. All extension requests must be accompanied by medical or supporting documentation. Assignments arriving after the due date without a prior extension having been granted may result in failure of the unit. Your assignment will be graded as per the University grading system:

HD: High Distinction (80-100)

D: Distinction (70-79)

CR: Credit Pass (60-69)

P: Pass (50-59)

N+: Fail (45-49)

N: Fail (0-44)

7. Faculty Policy on Plagiarism

A. What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is the presentation of the work of other people as one’s own work, without referencing its source or attributing it to its intellectual proprietor. Such misuse of the work of others constitutes plagiarism, whether that work is in published or unpublished physical form, or in the form of thoughts or ideas. Plagiarism is the most serious of academic offences because it is a form of cheating.

B. Principles to be Applied

All work submitted by any student in the Faculty of Education is to be the work of that student alone. Students may, and indeed are encouraged, to draw upon the work of others, but it must be duly acknowledged and referenced in accordance with standard academic conventions. Work that, in whole or in part, is not that of the student who has submitted it will be regarded as plagiarised, and will be dealt with in the manner outlined below. (Similar rules apply to group assignments. The submitted results of any work set for a group must be the original work of members of the group, unless otherwise indicated.)