And as the journey ends

So as we near the end of this journey, I go back to the original question from that very first day Who am I as a researcher?" And while I still do not know the exact answer and maybe I shouldn't because self identity like qualitative studies are always changing, I do know the following. I really enjoy people. And while there are time that I long to be a cast away on a deserted island bothered only by a lonely iguana or two, for the most part, I need to be around people to hear their stories, share my own and find strength in that community of humankind. I know that as I long as I have an interest in hearing what people have to say and in hearing what they have learned from their experiences, I can probably slide my personality into a qualitative researcher mode of thinking.

I love the stores crate and barrel ,l home goods and the container store. Why is this important"

Because one thing I have noticed through this journey is the amount of stuff that accumulates. Stacks and stacks or articles, books I obsessively buy from Amazon (right Jeanne) pens, paper, highlighters, digital recordings, videos, post-its Anyway all this stuff in the consistent need to organize. There is a lot of organizational skills needed in this kind of research. Those with executive dysfunction disorders will have a hard time, but as long as I can continue to buy color coded folders, baskets, mesh file cabinets and stop cleaning-- I will make it through the organizational piece

I have, as I will admit, a few biases that pop up--my most aggressive one is my own enthusiasm. Perhaps it comes with age. I have raised three children, had a former career, and dispensed with a marriage that was not exactly working, so perhaps my bias for my enthusiasm because I am doing something I want to do, always wanted to do and can now do it shines through all the time. It is not hidden-- That may become a problem if it isn't already, I'll have to see

So who I am as a researcher continues to develop and I think the one final post for right now is that coding wasn't as scary in reality

Validity Reflection

The study that I chose to look at for the validity analysis was Kindle, K. (2010). Vocabulary development during read alouds: examining the instructional sequence. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 14 (1 &2), 65-88. This was a case study involving four primary grade teachers and how they incorporated effective vocabulary practices into read aloud instruction. I chose this study to analzye because it is very similar to my case study.

The author was clear in stating the research questions which were 1) What specific strategies did the teachers use? 2) How did they link into instructional sequences? 3) How did instructional sequences differ among teachers? After a thorough review of the literature, and examples of three research based models of vocabulary discussion, Kindle went on to cleary articulate the methodology employed in this study. The researcher used systematic observation and proves a rationale for doing so as written in “An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Development” Clay (1993). Kindle took the role of non-participant observer during these observations.

While Kindle was transparent in terms of stating clearly her methodology, she does not clearly articulate her role as a research or does not make any of her research biases clear. In addition, she gives a description of the length of teaching of the four participants (two of whom are described as veteran and two are described as new to the profession); yet, she does not explain how the participants were recruited, or selected (i.e. random, purposeful sampling), and while it is implied that these four teachers were chosen because of years of teaching experience, she does not explicitly state this.

The observation process was clearly described and Kindle by stating that she did not give specific instructions to the teacher to avoid leading them to include particular practices. She uses Merriam (2001) to support this technique.
Kindle provides a clear description of the data analysis. She used Creswell (2008) technique of analyzing transcripts in a recursive or spiral manner, used low inference coding (Carspecken, 1996) to establish categories. Transcripts were re-read and patterns of interaction were matched to the model instructional sequences presented. Inter coder reliability was established through the use of peer debriefing, and the author states that member checks were used to increase validity of her depictions of the data. In addition, Kindle describes that she used the data to form a structured interview protocol and the interview helped triangulate the data to further ensure validity. However, while she mentions the topic domains included in the interview, she does not explicitly state some of the research questions, nor does she use any dialogue from the interview in her transcripts. This would have added to the thick descriptions that she made with her transcripts of instructional sequences. Kindle provided vignettes from the transcripts in the analysis and result section to support conclusions and to compare and contrast the teacher behavior to the model instructional sequences.

Finally, while Kindle goes on to state that no data was obtained measuring student word knowledge or word learning because this was a study interested in teacher behavior, she later draws conclusions about effective vs. ineffective teaching practices with only her examples from the transcript to support. It should have been more clearly stated in the results section that these effective/ineffective practices were specific to these cases and warranted further exploration before they could be generalizable.


Overall, this case study was a good model of a case study for my research. The author is effective in establishing validity and reliability. However, to strengthen the validity, there were several areas where the author could have been more explicit. One, researcher bias nor were the limitations to the study implicitly stated. In addition, explicitly stating that the conclusions that she made regarding effective and ineffective practices were based on these specific cases and warranted further exploration before generalizing seems warranted. Finally, while the interviews served to triangulate the data, the interviews were not incorporated into the discussion section and it is unclear how they were used in the study. The author merely provides a description of the topic domains used to develop the protocol. Example of interview questions or language samples obtained from the interviews should have been woven into the discussion/results section.

Code Red STAT

Code RED -"stat"

Coding is no easy task. How quickly I am seeing that. Got organized, have all those wonderful folders that Dr. Turner suggested. And now, as I begin to sift through the data, (the sifting of my flour for my cookies will wait) I am realizing just how subjective coding can be and I understand the importance of trying to find the common core in the codes and what the sub-codes should be. And then, as I read student responses to questions, I realize the importance of member checking for perception. I have an idea of what some of their vague comments might mean, but is that what they really mean, or is that what my own perceptions think they mean. And when kids say that writing in school is too restrictive- what do they mean? Is it too time restricted, or topic restricted? When they say that there are too many distractions to write, do they mean kid distractions, teacher distractions, environmental distractions and how do those distractions differ? So as I try to group the categories, I see that some of them clearly overlap, but some of them may overlap only because I think they do. I also notice as I read their answers that my questions overlap- I think I could have refined my questions because several of them seem to be asking the same thing although in my mind, when I made them, I was looking for different answers. Their answers however seem to be pointing me in the direction that my perception is different, They are perceiving the two questions as the same, when I did not.

And what do I do (between you and me) with the kids who say they just do not like to write- I like to write, I want them to like to write. I feel disappointed and I wonder if I was a better teacher would they like to write or does it have nothing to do with me? I am so narcissistic.

Oh well, that will be an hour on the couch. Back to coding

"Truthfulness"

For this blog post on validity and reliability or "truthfulness" in qualitative research, I chose to analyze the following journal article:

Scharlach, T. D. (2008). These kids just aren't motivated to read: The influence of preservice teachers' beliefs on their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(3), 158-173. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library database

This qualitative case study will be included in the literature review of my mini-inquiry project as it relates to one of my research questions: "How, if at all, do the prior beliefs, habits, attitudes, experiences, and background of preservice teachers inform the practice of student/newly certified teachers in regards to early reading instruction?"

I think that the author of this article does a satisfactory job of showing that she both thought about "truthfulness" as she was doing the actual work of research and when she was completing the draft of the text.

To begin with, there is thick description in the piece.  We are given many details about both the participants of the study as well as the methodology involved in the work.  In addition to the narrative, there are nine tables which help to elucidate the findings of the author.  Multiple data sources were used in addition ("questionnaires, autobiographies, interviews, observations, written expectations, and evaluations" [p. 161]) providing for triangulation and structural corroboration of both data sources and methods.  Also listed in the study at multiple points are references to the works of other researchers where similar findings could be located.  These connections from the past works of others in the field provided an additional source of triangulation and structural corroboration.

Although not found in the section on methodology, we are given an entire section of validation and reliability information entitled, "Delimitations and Limitations of the Study" (p. 172).  Here, in addition to the author admitting that any transferability/generalizability to other settings/individuals is modest at best, readers are provided with an account of the researcher's biases.  The author readily admits that these biases could not be separated from this work and "provided the lens through which all of the information was processed" (p. 172).  It was interesting to see that she, just like we did not too long ago, listed her "I"s (Peshkin, 1988) that contributed to the biases affecting and influencing this work.  These "I"s included being a "former classroom teacher, reading resource teacher, graduate student of reading, preservice teacher educator, and researcher of a reading intervention program" (p. 172).  Scharlach also noted that another "I" was that of a "white, middle-class female" (p. 172).

There are some issues however.  Although we are given a full description of how the data analysis was performed, the author used no other coder other than herself, so we have no inter-coder reliability as a result.  Blind coding of the various documents may have taken place but there is no mention of it.  There is also no mention of a codebook and the specific coding scheme used, only noting of the subsequent categories that came out of the author's coding.  Furthermore, there is no talk of a member or participant check of the data.  In regards to other strategies of validation (Creswell, 2007), there is no review by peers of which we are made aware, no negative case analysis or mention of disconfirming evidence, or external audit.

Overall, I think that it is clear that there is a high level of transparency in the research report.  I would say that both the researcher and her results are subsequently credible.  To support my claim here, I will cite Creswell (2007) as he recommends that "qualitative researchers engage in at least two of them [validation strategies] in any given study" (p. 209).  Scharlach actually engages in four out of the eight suggested by Creswell (2007).  I think that I will be able to therefore safely use the information in this article for my project and feel comfortable in its validity, reliability, and truthfulness.

The Truth Do We Really Know What It Is

And I am still questioning who I am as a researcher. And sometimes I wonder if I can really be a successful qualitative researcher. It fits my personality, of that I am sure, but my very set of "I'"s can easily get in the way of validity. So prior to reading all the work on validity, I found that I was (and in many ways still am) intimidated by a lot of the research I read. I have found myself wondering how did they do that, and where did they get the skills to write like that, and how come their articles seems so scholarly and mine so elementary. And then I would have to get up and walk around the house and do laundry and wash dishes as I tried to internalize and process all of this. That being said, I have learned a lot about the hidden dangers in qualitative research. At least in quantitative, the enemy is clear--all those Greek symbols and p's and F's and Z's and D's and Alphas. but in qualitative, it is a little more hidden. A misplaced smile on the face of the researcher, a change in tone when asking a questions, the wording of the question, the relationships between the researcher and the participant, the "God, how much do I want my results to match what I am doing" or even, "Uh-oh, my data does not support my questions, maybe I should change my questions." All of these things and more need to be considered, and perhaps, the memoing and other ideas like that become the proverbial To-do list that I make all the time. I think in addition to my shopping lists and my To-do lists I am going to have to make a validity-list to keep by my side to make sure that they are all being considered.

I read a study Sharmini, (2011) Planning in feedback: Insights from concurrent verbal protocols. And it seemed like a decent study. It had all the buzz words I am looking for writing process, peer feedback recursive nature of writing, revision, and I got very excited, but even though I did notice information in the article that was similar to other research articles I have read, I did notice things that I may not have noticed earlier--before the concentration on validity. For example, the study was a case of three students at the graduate level, but no discussion explaining the reason for the choice of these participants was described. According to Maxwell, (2005) the site selection and participant selection decision should be discussed in order to attain full disclosure. The students were asked questions that related to their writing process and the importance they gave to feedback but I, as the reader, did not know what was asked. The author of the study states, " there was clear indication that engagement with written feedback is not only recursive, but involves planning" (p. 5) but there was no discussion about the definition of engagement or recursiveness or what constitutes planning. This made it difficult for me to determine if a study like this could be applied elsewhere and if it could be applied, the applicable situations was not clear.

In the implications section, the author does provide some follow-up questions such as "What is your main argument here and always link to your stand" (p.5) but without knowing the foundation for this question, I am not sure how to connect this follow up to the research question. The author does present a purpose for the study, " this study was done to gain further understanding on the thought process of writers when they attended to written feedback" (p. 1) but there are no research questions. Now I understand the importance of having research questions. Without the questions, I can not connect the findings and the discussion to the study's purpose. Note however that knowing this doesn't necessarily make doing that any easier for me. I have to engage in a recursive process myself with my own work, constantly going back and reviewing and asking if I am consistently tying my data to my questions. I realize just how easy it is to go off the beaten track and follow the roads that just seem to appear out of nowhere. Being recursive will clearly lead to greater focus. Being recursive has to be added to my validity "to do" list. And speaking of other issues. The author of this study says it is a qualitative work, but I see no mention of her own validity threats. There is some member checking with the participants that help to confirm what the researcher is proposing, but there is no mention of any outside external audits or peer review. In essence, while the information in the article does reflect much of what I have already read in more documented research studies and research based books, I do see the flaws in this study as it relates to the reader's ability to make any conclusions about how this work can be transferred. I understand the difference between a quantitative reliability study with statistical support and I now understand more deeply the methods that qualitative researchers must employ to ground their work as being valid and conclusive.

• 
  

Validity Issues: Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009

While rereading the Maxwell (2005), Chapter 6, “Validity,” what seemed to connect most with a study I am using for my mini-inquiry lit review (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009; cited below) was the concept of generalization in qualitative research. As Maxell points out, “external generalizability is often not a crucial issue for qualitative studies. Indeed …a qualitative study… may provide an account of a setting or population that is illuminating as an extreme case or ‘ideal type’” (p. 115). Wanzek & Vaughn examined case studies of three students who exhibited extremely low response to reading intervention. More intensive forms of intervention were attempted on the subjects, and it was demonstrated that one of the subjects responded to a more intensified version of the interventions previously tried, while another subject again failed to response to the more intense intervention, and required a whole new approach (whole word reading) to begin responding to the interventions (the third subject dropped out of the study). Clearly, Wanzek and Vaughn’s subjects were extreme cases, and the intense intervention strategies which finally worked on the case study subjects would not be needed for the vast majority of students, so the external generalizability of the study results would be limited. However, as Waznek & Vaughn point out, “teachers of students with disabilities will encounter students with pervasive disabilities in reading and benefit from documented case studies of similar students” (p. 161). As is common to much qualitative research, especially case studies, even though broad external generalizability is not to be expected, studies of extreme cases can still be valuable. The results of these case studies are needed for small populations, for example for students for whom traditional teaching methods and methods developed through large quantitative studies have failed. For this reason, studies like Wanzek and Vaughn, though their application is limited, are still worthwhile. Another validity issue discussed in Wanzek and Vaughn (2009): fidelity of implementation of the interventions. The study states that “six tutors …were hired and trained by the research team…” (p. 154). The tutors received 15 hours of training in instructional techniques, lesson planning, progress monitoring, and group management techniques. The researchers reviewed the tutors’ lesson plans and ran practice sessions with them. Throughout the interventions, the tutors were observed each week and given feedback on their implementation, and monthly fidelity checklists were completed for each tutor. Each tutor received a rating for the quality of their implementation, and ratings for all tutors were consistently high. Knowing that the tutors were trained and monitored so well gave me confidence that the interventions were implemented with fidelity, and consistently for each subject. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 151-163.

Where I stand today....

Dear members of Qualitatively Speaking, Okay, so in my self reflection, one of my goals was to better use the blog as a tool to reflect on my growth as a researcher. In an attempt to do so, I decided I would post the answer to the final two questions on the mid-term self assessment on the blog. I think that the answers to these questiosn will change greatly as the semester nears the end and we have all had the experience of completing our mini-inquiry project. I would love to get your feeback and thoughts on my repsonses and to see where you are all at, too. :) Christy How can I use qualitative approaches to uncover answers to important questions? Qualitative research allows me to uncover answers to important questions in a way in which my personal experience, background, philosophies, etc. can be used as a lens to interpret data. I believe that qualitative allows for this type of interpretation and discourse in a way in which quantitative does not; however, I am not able to clearly articulate this point at this time. Who am I as a reseracher? I am still struggling to answer this question. Perhaps because I do not yet see myself as a researcher rather a researcher in progress. However, maybe that is what all researchers are? Researchers in progress because I would imagine that being engaged in the process of inquiry forces one to continuosly involve and grow. Right now, I am keenly aware that I, as a researcher, postion myself as an advocate of students with learning disabilities. I feel it is important, when possible, to include the voice or lens of the participant whenever possible so as not to have my lens or view dominate. For instance, in my case study, I plan to interview the teacher after taking field notes to clarify. I supsect that this will be a very useful and meaningful activity in addtion to serving as a source of data triangulation. Note: I just noticed an interesting phenomenon. I typed the answers to these questions in word and uploaded to drop box. I then decided to publish this on the blog. However, I am not able to figure out how to cut and copy text from word into the text field and so I ended up looking back at the original word document and then answering the questions again. This time, the answers to my questions were more thorough, reflective, and quite frankly better written! I can't wait to see how these answers change at the end of the sememster! :) Disclaimer: Since I am challenged in terms of knowing how to upload from Word, there maybe typos in this post. I apologize!

Apologies

Members of the Qualitatively Speaking Think Tank,

I apologize. For some reason, when I copy my post, it appears to be formatted with indented paragraphs. However, after several attempts to fix this issue by reposting, I am not able to have that format appear on the published post, even when I have indented in the draft. I hope that this does not interfere witht the "ease" of your reading or of my thoughts being conveyed clearly.

Best,

Christy

A fool for six minutes?

There is an ancient Chinese proverb that says "One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever". Since the duration of my interview was six minutes, should I focus on how many mistakes or how foolish I might have felt interviewing my friend or the valuable information and insight that was gained from those six minutes of questioning? :)
After conducting my practice interview for the class assignment, several things struck me. To start, I have been completely understimating both the complexity of the process and the great source of information that an interview can be as a way to develop areas to research! Second, it was extremely difficult for me to interview a teacher at my school, due in large part to my crazy schedule of responsibilities at the school, and demads that were occuring at the time of this assignment (i.e. report cards, writing folders being submitted to coordinators, etc). Therefore, I interviewed a friend of mine who works in a local public school disrtict and the elementary school she works at is a designated "school of excellence". We conducted the interview over the phone via skype and I recorded it. I am not exactly sure that this is the best technique; however, I did gather some very interesting and helpful information from her.
What I noticed about myself as the interviewer is the role that my tone plays in gathering information. Since this was an interview with a friend, I had a friendlier tone that I might have had with a teacher at my school . This in fact, was a good thing in the case of this assignment. The teacher that I interviewed was very candid about sharing her frustration with the lack of professional development she is receiving due to budget cuts at her school. Listening to the tape, where her first repsonse starts with "To be honest with you....", makes me think that she might not have answered the questions the same way if she were being interviewed by someone else at her school. This will be a VERY important factor for me to consider as I conduct the interview as a part of my case study. The teacher I will be interviewing will be a member of my school faculty. I will want to make sure that I keep this friendly tone.
Another important area that strikes me as I reflect on this experience is the important role of the interivew protocol. As we developed our questions, we as a think tank learned the important distinction between research questions and interview questions, and the need to, as we drill into our students' heads when teaching them to write, consider your audience. We chose to ask four -five more open ended questions and to then analyze the transcript and code the data. With the questions that we devised, and in a six minute interview, several themes emerged, and tons of possibilities for future areas to research in professinal development became clear. These will be discussed in class as we meet to analzye our transcripts collectively.
Finally, my ability to ask good "probes" to clarify language in the question or to clarify the intended meaning of the teacher was definitely necessary. This became apparent to me, alebeit subconsciously, as the interview progressed. I think that too many times, answers are left for interperation and if the researchers is not cognizant of this fact and attempting to obtain clarity in terms of the subjects intended meaning, it would be easy for this meaning to be somehow altered or misinterpreted. It is, however, a fine line between a good probe and one that leads the interview. To me, the development of this skill seems part art, part science, and part experience.
In the end, it was more than worthwile for me to be "a fool for six minutes". Not only did this interview generate important areas to be investigaged further, but the experience of conducting an interview will help me tremendously as I develop the interview protocol for the particpant in my case study. Stay tuned......



Christy

Taping Yourself Interviewing is a Real Eye-Opener

As I sit here reading the transcript of my unstructured teacher interview, I am appalled at what a terrible interviewer I am! On Tuesday, I sat down with the short list of open-ended questions I had worked with my think tank group to come up with, and had a half-hour conversation with a reading teacher in my district. I thought this assignment was a no-brainer, because, after all, during my banking career, I “interviewed” lots and lots of important people in the finance department of major corporations.

Looking at the transcript, I realize that I only asked three of the four questions, and I asked one of them after it was already answered. I left out the most important one: “Why do you feel that way?” My transcript is riddled with questions that are too closed. For example, instead of asking, “Is it expected that the [classroom] teachers will take over part of that,” referring to Tier 2 RtI activities, I should have asked a more open-ended question, like “What part will the classroom teachers play,” instead of mine, which could have elicited a yes-or-no response.

Was I always this bad at it, or have I just lost my touch? Maybe part of my problem is that, with my banking clients, I would ask one or two questions, then let them guide me to where the conversation should go. I realized that this strategy won’t work if I have an agenda, a list of questions I need answered. I wish I had the opportunity to tape myself years ago, and figure out if I had really gotten what I wanted out of my experiences with my clients; had I led them too much to get the information I wouldn’t have thought to ask for? And did I stray too far from my own agenda, forget to come back around and leave without accomplishing my purpose? Did I ask questions that were already answered – I imagine that leaves an interviewee frustrated, feeling like you weren’t listening. I’ll be interested to hear about my classmates’ experiences with this assignment.

"All I Really Need to Know I Learned in...Interviewing Practice"...Well at least a lot of what I will need to know...

I completed my interviewing assignment today with one of the teachers at my school, which was what my blog group had decided to do for this task.  I felt like it made sense to do this as each of us spends our days working full-time at schools.  For me, it was not difficult to find a teacher willing to be interviewed.  In my job as coach, I have developed some good relationships with some of the teachers at my school and an actual interview done with them is not all that different from the work I do with them on a regular basis.  My issue however was with timing and scheduling.  While I can relatively set my own schedule on a daily basis as needed, classroom teachers cannot and the teacher I wanted to interview was only available for a short time this morning during our "extended day" period but I feel like the short time that was open worked for what I needed.

I feel like the semi-structured interview went well and you will all hear about the specifics of it in class.  What I would like to write about here is how it felt to do the interview.  It felt a bit awkward in that I really made an effort, more than usual for sure, to not talk, interject, etc.  I wanted to just be an active listener, be on the look-out as it were for key words/phrases to record to use for later follow-up and probes.  It was not easy in that I wanted to share in the conversation and with what this teacher was saying.  But I did not because I did not want to "muddy" the water if you will and unnecessarily influence my interviewee.  Another issue was location.  I conducted the interview in my office and of course, staff members came by and tried not to interrupt but did in a way, not to mention the slew of morning announcements that definitely interrupted.  From this I learned that I will need to do my research interviews in a spot where there will not be any interruptions and where I and my interviewee can hear one another easily and clearly.

In the end, forgetting about location, I think that I did okay with my relative silence and occasional nods.  I felt good about maintaining eye contact, showing interest, and making my interviewee feel comfortable in the process.  I think that these actions will go a long way in making sure that my mini-inquiry project interviews are successful and worthwhile.  This was definitely a good practice exercise to help to prepare me for the work to come.  Now, I just need that IRB approval...  : )

It is hard to keep your mouth shut

Interviewing pointed out my I's especially my I can talk to anyone I, but then I realized I had to add an I can talk about anything I as I realized just how difficult it is to give over the floor to the interviewee. It is very easy to see how one's biases and one's interest in getting the information one wants that will support the research can get in the way if not checked, or in my case, handcuffed. I realized how difficult it really is to come up with big, broad questions that will allow the interviewee to speak what is on their minds without interrupting, not out of rudeness, but because it is very tempting to step in and ask questions that will lead the person along the path you want. It certainly is not the road not taken. Frost made the choice and stayed there even if he knew he was not ever going to return to the other path. It is very easy to want to act as a road guide and lead the interviewee down the well trod path. I did notice though that the benefit of a well designed broad question can elicit good information. In fact, I noticed that many of the questions I would have asked if my questions were smaller and more direct were answered through allowing the interviewee to speak. What was more difficult was to think of good questions to keep the conversation going when talking stopped. How do you get a person to continue talking without guiding and giving them too much information. I solved this problem by going back to my notes, repeating what the person said, and then asked them to tell me more. For example, our question was How do you feel about PD. When the conversation stopped, rather than asking a pointed question to get more information on a topic I wanted to hear, I simply said, "So you mentioned there was a gap between district driven pd and teacher driven pd" Now, as a teacher, I agreed with that statement, and it would have been easy to say "I agree and why do you think so? But this would have been subjective and leading because the interviewee now would have known my opinion and perhaps continue with an answer to please me. Instead, I simply said, Tell me more about that.

Interviewing was more difficult that imagined. I wanted the conversation to last for about 30 minutes, it lasted 20 and I found it difficult to think of questions that would push the interview longer. I am sure the interviewee could have said more, but as a beginning qualitative researcher, I did not feel I had the skills to facilitate more information in an easy flow. That will have to develop. Perhaps, I will now be able to better tailor my approach in order to fine tune the interviews I will have to conduct with my study. I wonder if anyone else experienced this. Let me know.

Finding Interviewees is Harder Than You Think....

Since class last Monday evening, I have been trying to secure a participant for our think tank's assignment to "Create an Interview Protocol." I thought this would be easy, since we chose, as our topic, interviewing a fellow teacher about their impressions of professional development in our school district. I spend my working days surrounded by other teachers, so I started my search by casually asking other teachers at my school if they would be willing to talk to me for 20 minutes about professional development.

As background, report cards and IEP progress reports are due to our principal at the end of next week, and annual reviews for special ed students begin the week after, so all teachers are pretty stressed right now about preparing all of these documents in time and preparing for parent-teacher conferences, so the first reaction I got across the board was, pretty much, "I don't have time to eat or sleep right now, and you think I have time to chat about professional development? Ask me again in a couple of weeks..."

After more begging and pleading on my part, those who were willing to reconsider immediately clammed up when they found out I would be taping the interview. Maybe they think the tapes may be used against them if they fall into the wrong hands? I don't know, but they were very uncomfortable with the taping. Maybe it would be easier if I knew the teachers better; this is my first year teaching at this school. I've been thinking it might be easier if I could go back to one of my old schools and find a teacher who knows me for a longer period of time and might be more trusting. I think I'll try this next week, though I'll still be up against report card and IEP deadlines. Oh well, I'll give it a try...

"Wow" Never use interjections in interviews

As I begin to think about data collection, I realize just how careful one must be in posing interview questions. And I now truly understand all the readings we have done in this class and in others about the careful wording one must use to elicit sound responses. I realize how easy it would be to pose a question to get the answer that one wants. For example, I am looking to see how the use of blogging affects student revision work in writing. I know that I want to hear wonderful things from students about this, but I also want true answers so I have to be very careful. I could say "Wow, isn't blogging great?" But this is tricky. Students may not feel it is great, but may pick up on my enthusiasm from the Wow, and might answer with a response that they think I want to hear over what their real impression is. I want to share my interest, but I don't want to color my participant's responses. I am also quite aware of the power differential and the fact that in qualitative research, the interviewer is or can be the significant power figure. This points to the importance of making sure participants are listened to and involved. Interviewing and the job of moderator as expressed in the articles is very key. One needs to know how to conduct and moderate a successful interview without letting power get in the way, but at the same time must control the environment so the goal is reached. Having an MBA in marketing really helped when I read the article that talks about focus group interviews and the move from marketing into social sciences, especially the part that talks about the business people watching the interviews. I liked the comment from one of the educators that mentioned that an IRB would have a field day with the silent-observation. Focus groups did help our business. I would like to conduct both private one on one and a group interview with the students in my project to see how their individual reports mesh with the group reports. From a socially constructivist perspective, it will be interesting to see how the sharing of information helps define meaning and importance.

The End of the Beginning...

I feel like the end of the beginning is in sight in regards to this course's mini-inquiry project.  I think that I've developed, with helpful feedback from Kristen and classmates, a good research problem, purpose statement, research questions, conceptual map, and narrative to go along with the map.  Of course I need to complete the IRB proposal but that will be this week's work...

So it's now on to the middle of the project.  For my case study, that will mean determining the participant pool and sampling that pool purposefully.  My method of data collection will be interviewing.  This method makes the most sense in terms of qualitative research in that I want to collect first-hand information from participants in an engaging and in the most authentic way as possible.

This kind of interviewing will be new for me.  Before I became a teacher, I spent years working in retail, mostly as a manager.  I interviewed prospective employees many times although I was never really comfortable at it.  I don't think I did it enough ever to really become comfortable at it.  But then again, as a teacher, I have interviewed.  Now that I think more about it, every time I sit down with a student (and now a teacher in my role as a literacy coach) and have basically a substantive conversation, I am interviewing.  I may not have a guide in front of me but I usually am following some sort of mental framework in what I am talking about with a student or teacher.  As I've participated in such encounters more and more, I've tried to work on being a better active listener, listening more, in other words, and talking less.  This happens to all of us...someone is talking to us and our minds wander, thinking about what we need to do or where we need to go and in the end, we have not usually heard a word that the other person has said.

In this blog entry, I was going to write about the deMarrais chapter and how instructive and useful I thought it was and will be as I prepare for the data collection part of this project.  The chapter does have some great information about creating an interview guide along with what should happen as the interview process unfolds.  I particularly like the "dinner with a close friend" metaphor that the author uses to describe how a good interview should progress.  But as I was writing and thinking, the entry became more about how I do have some valuable experience interviewing already and it's experience that most of us who are teachers already have.  If we talk with our students in ways that make them comfortable yet provide us (and them) with valuable information, then we are already conducting successful interviews and only need to tweak what we do a bit in order to be successful in our interviewing as a part of our qualitative research projects!

Conceptual Framework

In working on the diagram and narrative for my conceptual framework,I began to see more clearly why a study I began thinking about as a quantitative study, needs to be a case study. A week or two ago, when I wrote my research question and subquestions, the questions could have applied to either a quantitative or qualitative study. As I reworked my diagram, I realized that the 2 cases I am studying are so individualized (two of my high-needs special ed students), that much of the meaning that could be found in studying them would be lost if I approached writing about them in an impersonal style. In order to really tell their stories, I will need to include my own views and experiences as an educator and with these particular students, in a way which is only possible through qualitative research. An indepth focus on each of my two cases will be required to seek out the what can be learned, and possibly generalized, from studying them. Much would be lost in lumping them into quantitative study groups.

Now, to start reading lots of case studies and figuring out how this is really done!

My "eyes", not to be confused with my "I's!

Fellow bloggers and classmates,

I am sitting here at my laptop as I am at CVS awaiting a prescription for eye drops. I am not in class because I have pink eye. Yes, a 32 year old woman with pink eye. Perhaps this was my body's way of getting into the "spirit" of Valentine's Day depsite my desire to ignore the festivities of the day! UGH! I need to add another I to my post below and that is the spread way too thin, wondering will I ever get ahead I?
You see, I was so looking forward to tonight's class. I had my research questions ready to share with my peers and was psyched because I knew there would be an excellent dialogue for me. I also started working on my IRB. I felt pumped and invigorated, ahead of the game actually after last weeks class. And then, true to form, proverbial HELL breaks loose. My house, which I have been trying to sell last week had a flood. I came home on Friday to a bulging ceiling in my basement. Two weeks ago, a tree fell on the inground pool and tore the liner---causing ALL of the water to drain from the pool. It just seems like it is always something. And then I realized, that it is always something. There will always be something.And maybe part of learning is understanding that.

Why am I telling all of you all of this? Because you are my peers, because I value your insight, and mostly because I thought you all, more than everyone else,could probably relate!

My I's

Peshkin ( 1988 ) asserts that it is important for researchers to identify their own subjectivity as a step to understand how this subjectivity impacts their research. Reflecting on this subjectivity is an ongoing process, as often times our individual circumstances change and what we might identify with at one point in time will likely differ at a future point based on our present situations. So, who am I right now? This is a complex, yet important question for me to keep asking, particularly because I am in a period of huge transition and personal transformation.
After reading Peshkin’s article, there were several of his “I”’s that I connected with. Because I raised in a wonderfully supportive, loving, loyal blue collar family and am the only person in my family to graduate from college, I identify with what Peshkin(1989) calles the “Justice Seeking I” (p.19). I have been lucky to have tremendous opportunities that have provided me with the financial means to pursue several degrees. However, I am acutely aware that not all people are lucky enough to have these same opportunities and so my goal is to do what I can to “level the playing field” . I hope that at the end of this program, my research will improve the lives of students and provide them with the opportunity to excel. I have many ideas about possible literacy outreach programs I would like to implement with students and parents of lower socioeconomic status as well as students who have been identified as having learning disabilities and their families.
The “teacher of students with learning disabilities I” is another separate “I” that also fuses together with the “Justice Seeking I”. I have taught students with language based learning disabilities for ten years and have some pretty strong ideas, some based on personal experience, some on training I have received and all supported by research in the field. During my reading of Peshkin , I laughed as he describes his “Pedagogical Meliorist I”(p.19) and his desire to “remedy bad teaching” thinking to myself as I read and annotated the text with a huge “!!!” that his description perfectly applies to me!
My final “I” is the hardest to admit to as it is the most personal; however, it is the most important for me to acknowledge. I call this the “passionate about my beliefs and/ or (ahem)...the very stubborn I”. I must be really careful to monitor this I because it could very easily turn into “I know all the answers and am always right I”. I am sure that makes me sound like an arrogant, know it-all, but if this is really meant to be an honest reflection, then that needed to be stated.


I see myself as a mixture of all of these I's. Under some circumstances some of these I's are more prevalent than others. But together, they make up a large part of who I am at this moment as a researcher.
So, is this my “final answer” to the question of “who am I”? Absolutely not! This is a question that I will keep asking myself. I am looking forward to seeing how the answer might evolve over the course of this semester.

Qualitative researchers must be a flexible Gumby

Yesterday was one of those days in school that pinpointed for me some of the readings about how intune qualitative researchers need to be with what they want to do, how it colors their observations and what is really happening with the group being studied. I was teaching the class some strategies for editing and revising sections on the state tests coming up in March. It was boring work, but necessary and I could see the glazed over eyes. In response, I changed the presentation style and saw an improvement, but only a slight one. At that moment, a teacher who is training me on the Moodle, the on-line learning system we are putting into place entered the room to hand me some information on what I had learned the day before during the two hour pd. I had really enjoyed that pd. We learned how to create personal avatars. When he came in, I asked him if he was busy or could we stop for a moment and introduce the students to what we had learned. He was able to do it, so the lesson changed. He began his introduction and the class, at first, only marginally listened. It was just another teacher standing in the front of the room, but shortly into the presentation, I noticed a change. The doodling subsided, the room became more quiet, you could see the attention increase. Soon, there was an observable difference in motivation and engagement, and in questions. As the students saw just how interactive and immediate their work could be on the blog sites their interest soared as did my passion. In fact, at one point when I said let's show them the avatars I was so excited I slipped off the desk I was sitting on. They laughed, but they could see the passion I had. Shortly thereafter, one boy, AZ who asks every day do we have homework (even though he knows we will) because he is not always homework-compliant said "I can't wait to do my homework." Then it changed for me. Then I realized that maybe my idea of what to study shifted. Then I thought about the fact that what I wanted to study may need to change or may need to change in its intensity. I wanted to (and still do) want to look at writing on line to see how it changes, how it is different both in form and in quality to standard, formal paper and pen writing. I still want to understand how writing in a different medium will change writing, but I also decided that another very important arena might be how student motivation and engagement is affected by the online world of delivering instruction. We live in such an immediate world, instant oatmeal, instant breakfast, instant messages. Kids like immediate feed back and the idea that they can get immediate feedback, see their work, assess their work, get peer feedback etc almost immediately is enticing. I became acutely aware how I might be changing in response to what I was seeing. My Teacher-I kicked in as I noticed a potential teachable-moment, a venue that would not only interest the students, but keep them engaged. I began to wonder how inclass work and participation and interest might be affected by the work they do online and at home. Would inclass discussion be changed by the discussions they have with each other over the internet. Would their work increase in quality as they have more resources available to them? In my Teacher-I, my quest is to make them life-long learners and passionate human beings. Certainly, increasing their motivation and stimulating their passions might indeed create more active engagement and more passionate learners and human beings.

I also realized that I have to be careful with my Passionate-I because I have to realize that my passion might affect someone else. My passion is mine, but it shouldn't be a coercive tool to engender someone else's passion. It might be an I that has to be checked and monitored.