Day #9, June 27 th CEP 955 Summer Hybrid, 2013 Jack Smith Michigan State University

Overview Threats to validity (Campbell & Stanley) Discussion Think and compose time Qualitative research Diversity within the tradition Five common elements Thinking about your analysis: A basic organizational table Development of surveys (vs. using those developed by others) Development of coding schemes for “open” responses (to questionnaires and interviews)

Threats to validity (Campbell & Stanley) C&S’s presentation: Brief definition with examples in different study types Reminder: The rest of C&S is available in the Library (additional readings) Our discussion: State each threat in your own words Think: Is this an issue in my study? Give an example from your study or a peer’s

Diversity (in qualitative methods) More diversity among qualitative methods than quantitative methods Some types (see Creswell & GGB for more) Ethnography: Description of Ps’ practices and experience Single/multiple case studies: Descriptive focus but greater researcher role; generate theory; could also test theory Problem-solving studies: Description of ideas or practices; usually via interviews; generate or test theory Your program (by requirement) focuses more on quantitative than qualitative methods TE 931: When for cohort II? Limits of the course Learning by doing (“at the elbow”)

Common Elements (among qualitative methods) Locale: Commitment to the study of educational phenomena where they are happening Creswell: “natural” settings Labs won’t work Ralph’s trade-off: Control of the setting/phenomenon (“internal validity”) vs. real/representative sample of thinking (‘ecological” or external validity) Researcher’s role: The subjective role of researcher is central Researcher directs the method Opposite to experimental research: The method directs the researcher

More Common Elements (among qualitative methods) Data Diversity: Collect different types of data; triangulate to increase internal validity Phenomena of study are complex; don’t reveal themselves fully in single method or measure Human behavior and thinking can be highly contextually- dependent Relation to theory Bottom-up analysis: theory generation (esp. “local” theory) Compare to experimentation: Theory/hypothesis testing Cyclical analysis: Data analysis is often iterative; cycles of analysis over increasingly large subsets of the data

Survey development Master the research on the nature of the construct Self-efficacy (Bandura forward) Self-efficacy is domain-specific => what is the relevant domain for your study? What are the likely experiential aspects of the construct? Past history of success/failure Feelings of confidence or doubt/anxiety Questions need to address accessible aspects of Ps’ experience Develop questions (more than you think you need) Piloting, editing cycles Reword for clarity and/or eliminate vague questions Include “positive” and ‘negative” forms Collect some reliability data (test-retest)

Interviews (group/”focus group”) Overall, individual interviews are most common Permits detailed assessment of a common “unit” in many studies (e.g., students, teachers, administrators) New approach: Focus group interviews Used widely in workplace, e.g., marketing and advertising Advantages (in some contexts) Decreases social and interactive pressure on individual P Increases interactivity; one P’s view/stance can be stimulant for another’s articulation Disadvantages (in some contexts) Social status can influence what Ps are willing to say “Group think” is possible; artificial agreement; differences in their thinking get flushed away