Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Research frameworks argument and data what is enough?

263

Published on

Dr Alana James and Dr Bob Zenhaursern will each look at an example from research and discuss for both qualitative (Alana) quantitative (Bob) design how the research framework interact with your data …

Dr Alana James and Dr Bob Zenhaursern will each look at an example from research and discuss for both qualitative (Alana) quantitative (Bob) design how the research framework interact with your data collection decisions and how they lead to argumentation. By focusing on the subtle interactions we find in these examples we should illuminate the bigger issues everyone faces. As with all Sunday conferences we start at 3pm GMT, 9AM CST or 10 EST. Join our Sunday group but we also suggest anyone interested in the topic, but who cannot make it live, RSVP yes as we will send you the recording.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
263
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Research Frameworks, Argument and Data: What is enough? Based on actual research A conference by Dr. E. Alana James and Dr. Bob Zenhausern www.doctoralnet.com
  • 2. For more conferences like this RSVP @ https://www.bigmarker.com/co mmunities/doctoralnet/confere nces Can’t make the conference? We’ll send you the recording. Definition of Terms: Basic Research Framework
  • 3. Expanded Research Framework
  • 4. Student Example of Their Research Framework
  • 5. Definition: Argument Has four parts: 1. Your claim 2. The evidence you have that this claim is true 3. The warrant or connection between the evidence and the claim 4. Your data
  • 6. Argument 1. Claim: The right side is heavier 2. The evidence you have = the right side is lower 3. The warrant = the idea that there is a connection between weight and the lower side 4. Now you have to have data that backs up the warrant – in this case you would measure the weight
  • 7. Topic Observation or Start with Google (e.g.) for the ecology of the topic. Look for recurring and opposing themes. Dyslexia: Definition, symptoms, causes, treatments.
  • 8. Literature Starting with topics focus the literature search on them and develop more specific problems. Types of dyslexia Causes Treatments
  • 9. Problem Statement What are types of dyslexia? What are causes of dyslexia? What is the best treatment for dyslexia? Can they be combined? Do the different types of dyslexia have different causes? Are different treatments effective for different types.
  • 10. Hypotheses Type 1 dyslexia will show improvement with treatment 1 more than treatment 2. Type 2 dyslexia will show improvement with treatment 2 more than treatment 1.
  • 11. Methodology • Operationally define the two types of dyslexia and create a measure to separate them. • Based on the symptoms of the two types create specific treatments • Use both methods on the two types and measure improvement.
  • 12. Analysis Measure the improvement in mean performance for each type of dyslexia for each treatment. Independent Variables: Pre and Post Treatment Dyslexia Type 1 and Type 2 Treatment 1 and 2. Analysis of Variance
  • 13. Quantitative Argument Claim Different types of dyslexia need different treatment Evidence We see varied results when we analyze outcomes for different treatments Warrant Since we see varied results we must need different treatments Data 85% or reading disable could not convert the printed word to its sound but still were able to get the meaning - - for the other 15% they could get the sound but not the meaning.
  • 14. Quantitative Topic/Question • A student who worked with reading disabled students came to me with an observation. Most of the students with reading issues had a problem with reading aloud and phonetic decoding. But a smaller percentage could read aloud and do phonetic decoding but they had no comprehension and were actually further behind. The question the student was asking was what were the differences between these two groups.
  • 15. Quantitative Literature The literature showed a consistent finding of at least two types of reading disability. Those who had issues with phonetics and those who had a more semantic issue. Previous research had shown that 85% of reading disabled showed a right hemisphere orientation. Since speech is a left hemisphere process it was consistent with a problem in phonetic decoding which is dependent on speech production. The first question that needed to be addressed was whether the remaining 15% had a left hemisphere orientation. A pilot study indicated that this indeed was the case.
  • 16. Developing Hypotheses The literature indicated that those reading disabled students with a right hemisphere orientation would have an issue with phonetic decoding, but not those students with a left hemisphere orientation. This was the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis is that reading disabled students with a left hemisphere orientation would not have an issue with phonetic decoding.
  • 17. Experimental Design The first step was to design a task that depended on phonetic decoding and a rhyme task was chosen. Rhyming, especially for words like buy/tie and bone/gone demands phonetic decoding. Unless you can say the words, you cannot say whether they rhyme. The second step was to design a task that depended on meaning. Word pairs were developed from the same words used in the rhyme condition, but and the task was to say whether the two words meant the same. Under both conditions, the word were the same, but what was required from those words was different.
  • 18. Quantitative Findings What we found was that the right hemisphere reading disabled were significantly lower than the control group of normal readers and the left hemisphere reading disabled on the rhyme task. These right hemisphere reading disabled did not differ on from the control group on the semantic task, but the left hemisphere reading disabled were inferior to both other groups.
  • 19. Interpretation We teach reading using a phonetic decoding approach. Convert the printed word to its sound and from that sound get the meaning. 85% of reading disabled could not convert the printed word to its sound, but still were able to get the meaning. 15% of reading disabled could convert the printed word to is sound, but that did not give meaning.
  • 20. Discussion: Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts? Make sense? Does the argument have all the parts Is it (are they) enough? Are the results credible? Would you want to see more under other conditions? What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study? What else might they have considered?
  • 21. Qualitative Topic/Inquiry/Theoretical Base • Topic dominant narratives experienced throughout educational journey by Mexican American PhDs • Education as a social construct both empowers and marginalizes • Theoretically perfect for critical race • 1% of MA children will earn PhD – lowest of all Latino groups in US • Studied what helped those who had succeeded rather than barriers experienced • Master narrative legitimize the dominant culture and marginalize the minority culture • Counter narrative expose and then oppose the master narrative
  • 22. Qualitative Literature
  • 23. Qualitative Research Questions Research Question #1: To what extent has racism, sexism, and/or classism surfaced in Mexican American Ph.D.s’ journeys to the doctorate? Supporting Question A: To what extent do Mexican American Ph.D.s reproduce master narratives that support racism, sexism, and/or classism? Supporting Question B: To what extent do Mexican American Ph.D.s craft counter-narratives against racism, sexism, and/or classism? Research Question #2: To what extent do the ways in which Mexican American Ph.D.s share their narratives reflect the intersections of race, gender, and social class? Research Question #3: What structures or mechanisms (e.g., kinship and social networks, academic/professional socialization) are employed in Mexican American Ph.D.s’ journeys to the doctorate? Supporting Question A: To what extent are structures or mechanisms activated differently by gender? Supporting Question B: To what extent are structures or mechanisms activated differently by socio-economic status?
  • 24. Qualitative Methodology Narrative inquiry with a critical race methodological focus Examination of power, multiple facets of oppression, and the intersections of race, social class and gender “particularly in relation to reproducing or resisting master narratives that justified low Mexican American educational attainment.”
  • 25. Qualitative Results/ Findings
  • 26. Qualitative Results/ Findings
  • 27. Qualitative Discussion 1. The discussions during the intersections are somewhat conflicted – no clear numerical help that would allow the reader to understand the majority/minority opinions she is discussing. 2. I believe that the collective consciousness of this community of scholars, researchers, and administrators carries a new form of resistance. Successfully navigating through a system that is inherently oppressive is resistance. Understanding how to strategize, enact diplomacy, and develop a small group of allies is resistance. Finding a way to work from within systems to change them is resistance. 3. As a constructionist, I contend that a dominant culture exists, that the realities in which all members of U.S. society live are constructed by the dominant culture as a means for maintaining power, and that institutions such as education and the legal system utilize sorting mechanisms to keep certain communities in lower, labor intensive social positions and occupations.
  • 28. Argument Claim Oppression as seen in the dominant narratives has a significant effect on keeping MA youth out of the education system. It works for the dominant culture to keep the MA in lower class jobs. Evidence 1% PhD rate and other data make it clear MA students have difficulty in standard US educational system Warrant Therefore when we investigated MA PhDs we’ll find the ways in which they countered those dominant narratives. Data Various narratives throughout point to dominant narratives within the MA culture that reproduce the effect of… 1) Keeping women out of tertiary education 2) Fighting to get ahead – to get an education 3) Failing at first because their background didn’t prepare them 4) Stories of resiliency – etc.
  • 29. Discussion: Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts? Make sense? Does the argument have all the parts Is it (are they) enough? Are the results credible? Would you want to see more under other conditions? What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study? What else might they have considered?
  • 30. Mixed Methods Topic/Question
  • 31. Mixed Methods Literature
  • 32. Mixed Methods Research Questions
  • 33. Mixed Methods Methodology
  • 34. Mixed Methods Results and Findings
  • 35. Mixed Methods Argument Claim There needs to be formalized sex education in Thailand because it is behind the world in many health issues such as STDs Evidence Showed that children understand reproduction but not the health issues involved in sexuality. Warrant Because Thailand is in transition as to the relative sophistication and knowledge of the people it is important not to assume what children know and to give them the information they need. Data Explored the knowledge and attitudes of teenagers, parents, teachers and policy makers. Data from semi structured interviews and surveys showed that policy in the country was confused, that there was no national instruction guidelines. Data from teenagers confirmed what they do and do not know.
  • 36. Discussion: Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts? Make sense? Does the argument have all the parts Is it (are they) enough? Are the results credible? Would you want to see more under other conditions? What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study? What else might they have considered?
  • 37. Q&A
  • 38. Upcoming News/Events 1. March 1 Starts 2 months of our focus on academic writing – sign into the site for free resources + three conferences at end of month on #acwri 2. Are you logging in? If not at least once a month you miss out on a selection of extra content , videos, checklists, etc aimed at the topic area of the month. 3. Taking names of interested parties for possible writing group with professorial help starting soon– cost $40 month if we get 5 or more signed up. One of conferences is a trial writing group for those who want to see if it would be a helpful strategy.

×