1

EDU 745 Assessment II Khristian E. Kay

Assessment II

Khristian E. Kay

Cohort VII – Doctoral Program

EDU 745 – Spring 2005

CardinalStritchUniversity

“I’d rather be wanted for murder than not wanted at all”

an Historical/Phenomenological study

on the sense of belonging in the American school

I am a post-modern constructivist. I believe this is important when defining my research methodology and will do so. Let me begin with the constructivist concept. I believe that our knowledge needs to be meaningful in order to be retained. We learn only those things we truly desire to learn. And only those things that we can craft meaning to is what we learn. With that in mind some things need to be defined in how we develop our paradigms. How our perceptions and assumptions are put into play are heavily founded on how much of what we do and observe. In finite terms this would suggest that our knowledge is defined by the parameters we are willing to accept. This is where the post modernistic though comes in. Post-modern suggests that the only reality is the reality we choose. Think on the terms of Shrodinger’s cat: does the cat live or does the cat die? It is up to us as the observer of our reality to choose. Therefore, in the basis of my research: the knowledge we construct is meaningful because we deem it meaningful. Otherwise why waste our time?

I believe that knowledge is a social construct, therefore the parameters we apply by utilizing numbers is based upon these parameters. (For example I say 1 + 1 = 2, and because we have agreed to this formula of Arabic numerals representing a specific value [those nasty socially constructed parameters] we all agree that 1 + 1 = 2. But, as the story goes if our numbers are indeed infinite going on forever as it were; then 1 + 1  2 because according to the laws of infinity we can never ever get to 1. [think 0.999… to infinity, the same can be visualized in the story where we cut a distance always by half – therefore we can never arrive at our distance because we will always be ½ of the way there] If can never ever get to 1 then how can we add 1 with 1 to get to 2?) Therefore, since we are using social constructs anyway to define our research I felt it was necessary to look at my research through a lens of social constructed research. Also, since I believe that no matter what we as the researcher, merely by the act of observing, affect the results of the research. (OK more Schrodinger but at least you know my biases!) So then, if I were to do an historical study for example it would have to be heuristic since I cannot eliminate myself as an observer from the results. Even as I “find” concepts or “themes” or “constructs” I am still “observing” with my own biases. However, currently I am stumped by what my actual design will be: a heuristic ethnographic/historical/aaarrrgh!!!

The purpose of a literature review is to gather pertinent or established research that either validates or negates the research question. It is used to establish guidelines that have been presented by others who have done similar research or have utilized similar methods in which one could transcend concepts. It also establishes a baseline of information that allows the researcher to formulate their research upon. The literature review also works as an annotated bibliography to demonstrate where the research question, methodology, epistemology, tools or devises, etc developed from.

When evaluating literature concerning the research topic it is important to evaluate the source: is the author reputable, trusted, does their research appear sound and based on viable research. Evaluate the theories put forward, acknowledge the biases, and criticisms, and methodologies. Evaluate the findings, can they be generalized to other situations, are there significant differences in opinions of different researchers? Evaluate what is not being said, what are the researchers leaving out? Is this deliberate? And evaluate whether the information is relevant to my study question.

Concerning my own research topic I have followed historical data, preexisting information governing the development of schools as those formal institutions of learning geared towards developing individuals who can function in our society v. a constructivist meandering that school represent those ideologies to further enhance the learner as a learning individual. I have a questionnaire that I have used in the classes I teach that seek purpose for my students’ learning processes, I have thought of utilizing this information as historic interviews. The question will become on which methodology I can finally agree to utilize. If I decide to follow a true historic path or can I develop an phenomenological approach since I believe that the researcher impedes or influences the outcomes of the research regardless. I have thought of doing a mixed research using both quantitative and qualitative research. I believe strongly in interviewing but am not necessarily sold on some of the “specified” interviewing techniques. I am more interested in analogies or allegories. This information seems “vital” in my noted above biases. What I would love to do is gather stories from individuals and then run them through a program like NUD*IST and find the constructs or themes that emerge. And then go back and interview these storytellers on these constructs or perhaps utilize the questionnaire or the survey tool.

There are several methods of which to measure the strength behind the hypothetical arguments, these are referred to a validity:

  • Face & Content Validity
  • Concurrent & Predictive Validity
  • Construct Validity

I believe face and content validity will be the most effective in the development of my research topic, but I can also see using construct validity if I do indeed develop a survey/questionnaire from the storytelling themes. I believe that through the interview or analogy telling process I can define the constructs that will fuel or define the paradigms of my research question. This then will assist me in developing the tool that would further define those constructs. This process would thereby have an internal validity developed within the tool or perhaps allow for a double blind validity process.

Reliability is the consistency, and stability of the research and its tools. With my research I need to look at the wording used in the questions, also I believe the respondent’s mood will have a great affect on the results therefore the creation of the secondary tool would be important. However, I am unsure of how this can be developed to narrow the differences measured between the stories and the questions.

The amount or number of people that will be utilized in the research process is what is known as sample size or sampling.

I will be looking at a convenience sample, I will ask students the research question and proceed from there. I would hope to have millions of respondents but am somewhat realistic (somewhat) and hope to have at minimum several hundred.

In order to define or establish relationships through the data calloceted several methods of aanalyses can be utiolized. A factor analysis can used to analyze interrelationships among a large number of variables and to explain these variables in terms of their common underlying dimensions. The Cronbach alpha measures how well a set of variables measures a singular construct. If I want to see if there is indeed a distinct correlation between my different variables. This would be used as a means of reliability. When we need to analyze small samples of different populations with an equal standard deviation we utilize a T-test. In my dissertation I could analyze the differences in the population means by gender. Meanwhile the Z-score measures the number of standard deviations that a data value is from the mean. This could give me a predictor for how my different populations (gender) will quantify their answers. The Standard Deviation presents how likely the data measured will occur in a normal distribution Again I could break down the occurrences of constructs by gender, age, experience etc. The sample mean, median and mode are known as the Measure of Central Tendency. How do these measure up? Are they similar or close in their values? This then tells me if I have a normal distribution of data collected. ANOVA is the technique used to analyze the variation in the data to determine if more than two population means are equal. Do I want to analyze the means of my collected data by gender? (I think I would be using a Chi-Square test to measure the constructs but perhaps I would look at gender.)

Qualitative analysis is an inquiry process of understanding based on an holistic study in a natural setting. I will be collecting stories of my respondents circulating about their desires regarding education. Then establishing the constructs that these stories relate. In order to develop a method for coding or defining of constructs or themes within a study I need to do a conceptual analysis. I will be looking for specific identifiable themes and then code them. Hopefully with the help of NUD*IST or similar text analysis tools I will be able to define these and more and then develop a second tool to further delineate the research.

Bibliography

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Falconer, D. J., & Mackay, D. R. (1999). The Key to the Mixed Method Dilemma. 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: a step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rovinescu, O. (No date). Conceptual Analysis. Concordia University, CA: CTLS Web Resource. Retrieved April 11, 2004 from

Salkind, N. (2003). Exploring research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.