Alignment and Misalignment Examples of Scenario Elements In PSYC-8412 Research Foundations you build quantitative and qualitative research scenarios that include each of the following key elements: Social problem or phenomenon of interest • Research problem • Research purpose • Research questions • Theoretical or conceptual framework • Research design • Sampling strategy o Sampling criteria (qualitative only) o Data sources (qualitative only) • Data collection method • Variables (quantitative only) • Analysis plan • Trustworthiness (qualitative only) All these key elements must logically align. Although the figure depicts a linear flow, it is critical to understand that alignment is an iterative process. For example, if after identifying a research problem and research purpose additional research questions emerge, then the research problem and purpose must be refined to align with the additional research questions. Similarly, if variables of interest are identified that are not represented in the research problem, purpose, or questions, and that do not fit with the theoretical or conceptual framework, then those elements will need to be refined to capture all of the variables of interest. You will be piecing together your scenarios week-to-week, continually adding new elements until a solid alignment of your research idea emerges. Because of the iterative nature of alignment, you should not be surprised that as a new element is added to your scenario that previous elements may need to be modified to maintain alignment. There are several ways for elements within a scenario to misalign, and it is not possible to provide examples of all possible issues. In this document there are week-to-week example scenarios that demonstrate logically aligned elements and some examples of the many ways elements become logically misaligned. Studying these will help you avoid some common misalignment issues and understand how changing one element, sometimes even a single word, can affect alignment. Below is one student’s reflection in Week 5 of the course: I too struggled with the concept and terminology. For me, it is in fact the language that is used, and such is definitely 'foreign' of sorts. As you go along though, it is all beginning to make sense. Initially the feedback also was 'foreign' but now, going back and reviewing the question, answers, feedback are beginning to all make sense. Even feedback that suggests that one simple word be changed makes sense as what I submitted could possibly be misconstrued and cause the study to go in a different direction. I'm beginning to understand how changing one simple word can make a difference. Research terminology requires that things be concise and getting into the habit of relaying information properly makes all the difference. I am beginning to speak 'research'. I believe it merely takes practice. One almost has to develop a me.

1. Alignment and Misalignment Examples of Scenario Elements
In PSYC-8412 Research Foundations you build quantitative and
qualitative research scenarios that include each of the
following key elements:
Social problem or phenomenon of interest
• Research problem
• Research purpose
• Research questions
• Theoretical or conceptual framework
• Research design
• Sampling strategy
o Sampling criteria (qualitative only)
o Data sources (qualitative only)
• Data collection method
• Variables (quantitative only)
• Analysis plan
• Trustworthiness (qualitative only)
All these key elements must logically align. Although the figure

2. depicts
a linear flow, it is critical to understand that alignment is an
iterative
process. For example, if after identifying a research problem
and
research purpose additional research questions emerge, then the
research
problem and purpose must be refined to align with the
additional
research questions. Similarly, if variables of interest are
identified that
are not represented in the research problem, purpose, or
questions, and
that do not fit with the theoretical or conceptual framework,
then those
elements will need to be refined to capture all of the variables
of interest.
You will be piecing together your scenarios week-to-week,
continually
adding new elements until a solid alignment of your research
idea
emerges. Because of the iterative nature of alignment, you
should not be
surprised that as a new element is added to your scenario that

3. previous
elements may need to be modified to maintain alignment.
There are several ways for elements within a scenario to
misalign, and it is not possible to provide examples of all
possible issues. In this document there are week-to-week
example scenarios that demonstrate logically aligned elements
and some examples of the many ways elements become logically
misaligned. Studying these will help you avoid some
common misalignment issues and understand how changing one
element, sometimes even a single word, can affect
alignment. Below is one student’s reflection in Week 5 of the
course:
I too struggled with the concept and terminology. For me, it is
in fact the language that is used, and such
is definitely 'foreign' of sorts. As you go along though, it is all
beginning to make sense. Initially the
feedback also was 'foreign' but now, going back and reviewing
the question, answers, feedback are
beginning to all make sense. Even feedback that suggests that
one simple word be changed makes sense
as what I submitted could possibly be misconstrued and cause
the study to go in a different direction. I'm
beginning to understand how changing one simple word can
make a difference. Research terminology

4. requires that things be concise and getting into the habit of
relaying information properly makes all the
difference. I am beginning to speak 'research'. I believe it
merely takes practice. One almost has to
develop a mental research template and think from another part
of the brain and perspective. (K. Jackson,
Week 5 discussion post, September 29, 2018)
A table of contents is on the next page with active links to help
you navigate the document.
Page 2 of 43
Table of Contents
WEEK 1 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
.............................. 3
WEEK 1 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
........................................................................................... ....
.................................................... 4
Checking Week 1 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
......................................... 5

5. WEEK 1 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
...................................................... 6
Checking Week 1 Qualitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
........................................... 7
WEEK 2 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
.............................. 8
WEEK 2 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................... 9
Checking Week 2 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
....................................... 10
WEEK 2 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
.............................................................................................. .
.................................................... 11
Checking Week 2 Qualitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
......................................... 12
WEEK 3 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
............................ 13
WEEK 3 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................. 14
Checking Week 3 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
....................................... 15

6. WEEK 4 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
............................ 16
WEEK 4 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................... 17
Checking Week 4 Qualitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
......................................... 18
WEEK 5 MIXED METHOD DESIGN
...............................................................................................
..................................................... 19
MERGING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE
SCENARIOS INTO A MIXED METHODS DESIGN
.................................................................................... 20
WEEK 6 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
....................................................................................... ........
............................ 21
WEEK 6 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................. 22
Checking Week 6 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
....................................... 23
WEEK 7 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
............................ 24
WEEK 7 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................

7. .................................................. 25
Checking Week 7 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
....................................... 26
WEEK 8 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
........................... 28
WEEK 8 QUANTITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................. 29
Checking Week 8 Quantitative Alignment
...............................................................................................
....................................... 30
WEEK 9 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
............................ 32
WEEK 9 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................... 33
Checking Week 9 Qualitative Scenario Alignment
...............................................................................................
.......................... 34
WEEK 10 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
.......................... 36
WEEK 10 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................. 37
Checking Week 10 Qualitative Scenario Alignment
...............................................................................................

8. ........................ 38
WEEK 11 SCENARIO PIECES OF PRIMARY INTEREST
...............................................................................................
.......................... 40
WEEK 11 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO EXAMPLE
...............................................................................................
.................................................. 41
Checking Week 10 Qualitative Scenario Alignment
...............................................................................................
........................ 42
Page 3 of 43
Week 1
Scenario Pieces of Primary Interest
In Week 1 the focus is on identifying a social problem or
phenomenon of interest and specifying a research problem,
research purpose, and research question for both a quantitative
and qualitative research scenario. Typically, a thorough
review and understanding of the relevant literature is needed to
identify a bona fide research problem. We know that you
have not already conducted such a thorough literature review.
For purposes of this course, the research problem—

9. something the scholarly community does not know—simply
needs to be plausible. On the following pages are an example
of a quantitative scenario and an example of a qualitative
scenario with these four elements that demonstrate alignment
and misalignment.
Page 4 of 43
Week 1 Quantitative Scenario Example
Social Problem or Phenomenon of Interest: Critical thinking
skills in the
United States have been reported to be lower than critical
thinking skills in other
industrialized countries.
Research Problem: The scholarly community does not know the
extent to
which critical thinking skills differ between graduating seniors
from a high
school at which the curriculum was problem-based compared to
a high school
with lecture-based curriculum.

10. Research Purpose: The purpose of this quantitative study is to
determine the
extent of difference in critical thinking skill scores between
graduating seniors
from high schools with a problem-based versus lecture-based
curriculum.
Research Question: What is the extent of difference in critical
thinking skill
scores between graduating seniors from high schools with a
problem-based
versus lecture-based curriculum?
The social problem or phenomenon
can be, and typically is, broad.
The research problem narrows the
scope and identifies something

11. specific the scholarly community does
not know.
It conjectures that differences in
critical thinking skills may differ
based on type of curriculum.
It explicitly, or at least implicitly,
identifies the population of interest—
here it is graduating seniors.
The research purpose identifies the
study as quantitative and, otherwise,
simply repeats the research problem.
This could not be a qualitative study
because to determine differences in
critical thinking skills requires a
quantitative measure.
If the research purpose focused on
graduating seniors from public versus

12. private high schools, it would not be
aligned with the research problem,
which was about type of curriculum.
The research question simply replaces “the purpose of this
quantitative study is to determine” from the purpose with “what
is”—everything else is exactly the same.
If the research question asked about critical thinking scores and
overall GPA, it would not be aligned with the problem or
purpose,
neither of which mention GPA.
Page 5 of 43
Checking Week 1 Quantitative Alignment
One way to visually check alignment is to create a table of the
key concepts represented in each key element. If every
concept in one element is contained in the other elements, then
it is aligned (see first table below). If, however, a concept
in one element is missing in the other elements, then it is
misaligned (see second table below).
Aligned Concepts Across Elements

13. Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Critical thinking Critical thinking Critical thinking
Graduating seniors Graduating seniors Graduating seniors
Problem-based curriculum Problem-based curriculum Problem-
based curriculum
Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-
based curriculum
If the concepts of critical thinking, graduating seniors, problem-
based curriculum and lecture-based curriculum
are included in the research problem; then, the research purpose
and research question should also contain the same
concepts.
If these concepts appear in the
problem statement
The scholarly community does not
know the extent to which critical
thinking skills differ between

14. graduating seniors from a high
school at which the curriculum was
problem-based compared to a high
school with lecture-based curriculum.
Then, they should be contained in the
purpose statement
The purpose of this quantitative study
is to determine the extent of difference
in critical thinking skill scores
between graduating seniors from
high schools with a problem-based
versus lecture-based curriculum.
and in the research question

15. What is the extent of difference in
critical thinking skill scores between
graduating seniors from high schools
with a problem-based versus lecture-
based curriculum?
Misaligned Concepts Across Elements
Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Critical thinking Critical thinking Critical thinking
Graduating seniors Graduating seniors Graduating seniors
Problem-based curriculum Problem-based curriculum Problem-
based curriculum
Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-
based curriculum
Public high schools
Private high schools
GPA

16. Page 6 of 43
Week 1 Qualitative Scenario Example
Social Problem or Phenomenon of Interest: Critical thinking
skills in the
United States have been reported to be lower than critical
thinking skills in other
industrialized countries.
Research Problem: The scholarly community does not know
what classroom
experiences contribute to students’ critical thinking skills or the
developmental
range of experiences across elementary grade levels.
Research Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study is to
identify classroom
experiences that contribute to students’ critical thinking skills
and to map the
developmental range of these experiences across elementary
grade levels.
Research Question 1: What classroom experiences contribute to
students’
critical thinking skills?

17. Research Question 2: What are the developmental range of
experiences across
elementary grade levels?
The social problem or phenomenon
can be, and typically is, broad. And,
the same social problem or
phenomenon can be addressed by
either quantitative or qualitative
research.
It is the research problem that

18. determines a quantitative or
qualitative approach.
Previously, the quantitative scenario
focused on “differences” in critical
thinking skills between two groups.
Here, the research problem focuses on
“experiences.”
It conjectures that some classroom
experiences contribute to students’
critical thinking skills, and it
conjectures that the types of classroom
experiences may depend on the
developmental range of students.
It explicitly identifies the population
of interest as elementary grades.
The research purpose identifies the
study as qualitative to “identify”
classroom experiences and “map” the

19. developmental range.
If the research purpose focused on
students’ behavior or disciplinary
practices, it would not be aligned with
the research problem.
Because the research problem and research purpose are about
two
different things—(a) classroom experiences, and (b)
developmental
range of experiences—two separate research questions are
needed. One
focused on the classroom experiences that contribute to
students’
critical thinking skills, the other focused on the developmental
range of
those experiences.
If a research question asked about experiences in accelerated
classrooms
versus regular or remedial classrooms, it would not be aligned
with the
problem or purpose, which only refer to elementary grade
levels. If

20. understanding experiences in different types of classrooms is of
interest,
then such would need to be incorporated in the research problem
and
research purpose.
Page 7 of 43
Checking Week 1 Qualitative Alignment
The tables below extract the key concepts in the qualitative
scenario and the additional concepts that were described that
would result in misalignment.
Aligned Concepts Across Elements
Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Classroom experiences Classroom experiences Classroom
experiences
Developmental range of experiences Developmental range of
experiences Developmental range of experiences
Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking
skills
Elementary grade levels Elementary grade levels Elementary

21. grade levels
Misaligned Concepts Across Elements
Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Classroom experiences Classroom experiences Classroom
experiences
Developmental range of experiences Developmental range of
experiences Developmental range of experiences
Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking
skills
Elementary grade levels Elementary grade levels Elementary
grade levels
Students’ behavior
Disciplinary practices
Accelerated classrooms
Regular classrooms
Remedial classrooms
Page 8 of 43

22. Week 2
Scenario Pieces of Primary Interest
In Week 2 the focus is on adding a theoretical or conceptual
framework to the quantitative and qualitative scenarios
proposed in Week 1. Although not part of the scenarios,
learning resources this week help you understand the primary
purpose of a literature review and to identify and evaluate
scientific sources of information.
A theory or conceptual framework is necessary in designing a
dissertation study and plays a key role in guiding the
research questions and interpreting the results of a study. On
the following pages the quantitative scenario example and
the qualitative scenario example are carried forward from Week
1 with the theoretical or conceptual framework element
added to demonstrate alignment and misalignment.
Page 9 of 43
Week 2 Quantitative Scenario Example

23. (Highlighted element is new this week)
Social Problem: Critical thinking skills in the United States
have been reported
to be lower than critical thinking skills in other industrialized
countries.
Research Problem: The scholarly community does not know the
extent to
which critical thinking skills differ between graduating seniors
from a high
school at which the curriculum was problem-based compared to
a high school
with lecture-based curriculum.
Research Purpose: The purpose of this quantitative study is to
determine the
extent of difference in critical thinking skill scores between
graduating seniors
from high schools with a problem-based versus lecture-based
curriculum.
Research Question: What is the extent of difference in critical
thinking skill
scores between graduating seniors from high schools with a
problem-based

24. versus lecture-based curriculum?
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework: The cognitive and social
constructivist
theory of learning is a dynamic and collaborative process in
which students are
actively involved in their learning, rather than being passive
listeners of a
lecture. This theory fits and guides the research question
expecting differences in
critical thinking skills between students in a problem-based
versus lecture-based
curriculum and will inform the interpretation of the results.
In this quantitative scenario
differences in critical thinking skills
are expected to be different depending
on type of curriculum: problem-based
or lecture-based.
A theoretical or conceptual framework

25. needs to be one that leads the
researcher to that expectation and that
will aid in the interpretation of the
results.
Here, the cognitive and social
constructivist theory of learning
provides the foundation for expecting
and interpreting differences in critical
thinking skills between those from a
school that uses a problem-based
curriculum versus lecture-based
curriculum.
A biopsychosocial framework would
not fit because there is nothing in the
research problem, purpose, or question
that refers to biological or
psychological factors that affect

26. critical thinking.
Nor would a gender roles conceptual
framework fit because there is nothing
prior that refers to gender roles
affecting critical thinking.
Page 10 of 43
Checking Week 2 Quantitative Alignment
The tables below extract the key concepts in the quantitative
scenario and the additional concepts that were described that
would result in misalignment.
Aligned Concepts Across Elements
Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Critical thinking Critical thinking Critical thinking
Graduating seniors Graduating seniors Graduating seniors
Problem-based curriculum Problem-based curriculum Problem-
based curriculum

27. Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-
based curriculum
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Cognitive and social constructivist theory of learning guides the
expectation and interpretation of differences in students’
critical thinking skills as a result of problem-based versus
lecture-based curriculum exposure.
Misaligned Concepts Across Elements
Research Problem Research Purpose Research Question
Critical thinking Critical thinking Critical thinking
Graduating seniors Graduating seniors Graduating seniors
Problem-based curriculum Problem-based curriculum Problem-
based curriculum
Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-based curriculum Lecture-
based curriculum
Public high schools
Private high schools
GPA
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Biopsychosocial framework would not fit because there is
nothing in the research problem, purpose, or question that

28. refers to biological or psychological factors that affect critical
thinking.
Gender roles conceptual framework would not fit because there
is nothing in prior elements that refers to gender roles
affecting critical thinking.
Page 11 of 43
Week 2 Qualitative Scenario Example
(Highlighted element is new this week)
Social Problem or Phenomenon of Interest: Critical thinking
skills in the
United States have been reported to be lower than critical
thinking skills in other
industrialized countries.
Research Problem: The scholarly community does not know
what classroom
experiences contribute to students’ critical thinking skills or the
developmental

29. range of experiences across elementary grade levels.
Research Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study is to
identify classroom
experiences that contribute to students’ critical thinking skills
and to map the
developmental range of these experiences across elementary
grade levels.
Research Question 1: What classroom experiences contribute to
students’
critical thinking skills?
Research Question 2: What are the developmental range of
experiences across
elementary grade levels?
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework: The cognitive and social
constructivist
theory of learning, Kurfiss’s (1988) eight principles of critical
thinking teaching
practices, and a developmental perspective form the conceptual
framework for
this study. Each of these relate to identifying classroom
experiences that
contribute to students’ critical thinking skills and the
developmental perspective

30. also allows mapping of classroom experiences across
elementary grade levels.
Each of these elements of the conceptual framework will also
guide thematic
coding of lesson plans and classroom observations, and aid in
the interpretation
of results.
In the research problem there is
conjecture that some classroom
experiences contribute to students’
critical thinking skills, and that the
types of classroom experiences may
depend on the developmental range of
students across elementary grades.
A theoretical or conceptual framework
needs to support the conjectures, guide
the specific research questions, and
serve as an aid in the interpretation of
the results.

31. Here, three elements make up the
conceptual framework.
1. The cognitive and social
constructivist theory of learning
supports the conjecture that
critical thinking skills can be
enhanced by dynamic and
collaborative classroom
experiences that actively involve
students in the learning process.
2. Kurfiss’s (1988) eight principles
of critical thinking teaching
practices.
3. Developmental perspective of
classroom experiences.
The cognitive and social constructivist
theoretical lens, the eight principles of
critical thinking teaching practices,
and a developmental perspective will

32. guide data partitioning of lesson plans
and observations of classroom
exercises, and the coding and
interpretation of classroom experience
themes that contribute to critical
thinking skills.
Grounded theory would not fit the scenario because, first,
grounded
theory is a research design not a theoretical or conceptual
framework
and, second, the purpose of the study is to identify and
developmentally map classroom experiences that contribute to
students’ critical thinking skills, not to develop a theory, which
is the
end goal of grounded theory.
The transformative emancipatory paradigm would not fit as a
conceptual framework because it is about giving voice to
marginalized groups, which is not a focus of the scenario’s
research
problem, purpose, or questions.

33. Page 12 of 43
Checking Week 2 Qualitative Alignment
The tables below extract the key concepts in the qualitative
scenario and the additional concepts that were described that
would result in misalignment.
Aligned Concepts Across Elements
Research problem Research purpose Research question
Classroom experiences Classroom experiences Classroom
experiences
Developmental range of experiences Developmental range of
experiences Developmental range of experiences
Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking
skills
Elementary grade levels Elementary grade levels Elementary
grade levels
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Cognitive and social constructivist theory of learning supports
the conjecture that critical thinking skills can be enhanced
by dynamic and collaborative classroom experiences that

34. actively involve students in the learning process.
Kurfiss’s (1988) eight principles of critical thinking teaching
practices dovetail with the cognitive and social
constructivist theory of learning to specifically identify
teaching practices that actively involve students in the learning
process.
A developmental perspective takes into account the
developmental range of teaching practices and actively involved
students across elementary grades.
Misaligned Concepts Across Elements
Research problem Research purpose Research question
Classroom experiences Classroom experiences Classroom
experiences
Developmental range of experiences Developmental range of
experiences Developmental range of experiences
Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking
skills
Elementary grade levels Elementary grade levels Elementary
grade levels
Students’ behavior
Disciplinary practices

35. Accelerated classrooms
Regular classrooms
Remedial classrooms
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Grounded theory does not fit because it is a research design for
the purpose of generating a new theory.
The transformative emancipatory paradigm does not fit because
it is about giving voice to marginalized groups.
Page 13 of 43
Week 3
Scenario Pieces of Primary Interest
In Week 3 the focus is only on the quantitative scenario, adding
a specific …