Friday, July 15, 2011
EDUC 505 syllabus
St. Francis Xavier University
P.O. Box 5000
Antigonish, Nova Scotia
B2G 2W5
Continuing and Distance Education
Education 505
Introduction to Educational Research
Summer, 2011
Monday, July 18 – Friday, July 29
8:30am – 3:30pm
INSTRUCTOR | OFFICE | EMAIL | CLASSROOM |
Joy Mannette |
A sense of curiosity is nature’s original school of education. Anonymous
Education 505
Introduction to Educational Research
This introductory course is an invitation to consider the idea that teachers can be researchers, inquiring into their practice to improve learning for themselves and their students. We will explore research issues of concern to each of you, using some of the major types of research methods.
The intent of this course is to examine broad issues and understandings of educational research. Questions that will be discussed throughout the course are:
- What is research?
- What types of research relationships improve practice?
- What are the components of research in education?
- How do researchers gather data?
- How do researchers analyze and represent data?
- How can a culture of inquiry be fostered in school systems?
Textbook
Robinson, V. and Lai, M.K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (Available in university bookstore)
The following readings are posted to the course blog as PDF files which may be downloaded and printed.
Absolon, K. and Willett, C. (2005). Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research. In L. Brown and S. Strega (Eds.), Research As Resistance. Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches (pp. 97-106). Toronto ON: Canadian Scholars Press.
Behar, R. (1996). Ch. 1 The Vulnerable Observer. The Vulnerable Observer. Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart (pp. 1-33). Boston MA: Beacon Press
Hampton, E. (1995). Memory Comes Before Knowledge: Research May Improve if Researchers Remember Their Motives. Canadian Journal of Native Education. 21 (Supplement. The First Biannual Indigenous Scholars’ Conference), 46-54.
Kirby, S.L, L. Greaves and Reid, C. (2006). Ch. 5 Planning the Project: Research Ethics and Preparing the Proposal. Experience, Research, Social Change. Methods Beyond the Mainstream (pp. 87-100). 2nd Ed.Peterbrough ON: Broadview Press.
Ruana, W.E. and Lynham, S. A. (2004). A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development International. 7 (2), 151-164. [my emphasis: pp. 153-8]
Sumara, D. and Carson, T.R. (1997). Reconceptualizing Action Research as a Living Practice. In T.R. Carson and D. Sumara (Eds.) Action Research as a Living Practice (pp. xv-xxxv). New York NY: Peter Lang..
All beginnings are fragile- Sakej Henderson
Schedule for Classes Summer 2011
DATE | TOPICS | READINGS | ASSIGNMENTS |
Monday, July 18 830-1130 | Educators as Researchers - Introductions - Teachers as researchers - Who does research? Why do research? - the unfinished business of modernity (Rinaldo Walcott) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sX-BwoAB0 - BINGO—data analysis | Ch. 1 Hampton | |
Monday, July 18 12:30 – 3:30 | Problem Based Methodology - Exploring our practices through research - changing educational paradigms (Ken Robinson) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U - Theories of Action - Constraint sets - Pebble in my shoe/distraction: the research question | Ch. 2 Behar | |
Wednesday, July 20 8:30 – 11:30 | Collaboration in Research - Viola Desmond Day, Ryerson University - APA - Ways of knowing - Ladder of Inference - Learning Conversations & Controlling Conversations - Doing a Literature Search | Ch. 3 & Ch. 10 Absolon and Willett | Q Card #1 and Q Card #2 |
Wednesday, July 20 12:30 – 3:30 | Library Orientation Combining Rigor and Respect - “Validity”, audit trails - Waiting on the world… - D-Pan - Tri-Council Policy Statement tutorial: - Ethical Research Case Studies - Plagiarism - Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch http://www.cbu.ca/academics/mikmaq-studies/mikmaw-ethics-watch - Set up Ethics exercise - Preparation for WITOR | Ch. 4 K, G, R (5) Ruana&Lynham Ontology/ Epistemology/ Axiology | |
Friday, July 22 8:30- 11:30 | Planning your research -two-eyed seeing –Cape Breton University http://www.integrativescience.ca/Principles/TwoEyedSeeing/ - Defining a research topic—the proposal [40-20-40] - Designing questions for your research topic - Field Work A | Ch. 5 Sumara&Carson | Q Card #3 |
Friday, July 22 12:30 – 3:30 | Purposeful Information Gathering I - who speaks for the forgotten? Antonine Maillett http://congress2011.ca/ - observations and other forms of data collection - Spradley question matrix - Field Work B | Ch. 6 | Ethics Certificate due |
Monday, July 25 8:30- 11:30 | Purposeful Information Gathering II -The Little Black Schoolhouse Sylvia Hamilton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR5bfhhbOE8&feature=related - interviews and questionnaires - Inductive and deductive questioning | Ch. 7 | Q Card #4 |
Monday, July 25 12:30- 3:30 | WITOR presentations and discussion Preparation: Poster presentation | WITOR due (written précis, ontology/epsitemology/axiology) | |
Wednesday, July 27 8:30 – 11:30 | Purposeful Data Analysis - Analyzing actions - Analyzing constraints - Analyzing consequences | Ch. 8 | |
Wednesday, July 27 12:30- 3:30 | Communicating Your Research - Presenting research: forms of presentation, audience, dissemination - Research presentation preparation | Ch. 9 | Q Card #5 |
Friday, July 29 8:30 – 11:30 | Research Conference Poster Presentations | Poster Presentation due Poster Response due | |
Friday, July 29 12:30 – 3:30 | Research Poster DebriefingCourse Wrap upCourse Evaluations |
thato ke lesedi- Sotho proverb
Assignments
1. Participation (value: 30%)
a. Q-cards (value: 20%, due as noted)
b. Tri-Council Ethics Certificate (value: 10%, due July 22)
2. WITOR (value: 20%, due July 25)
3. Research Poster (value: 35%, due July 29)
4. Research Poster Response (value: 15%, due July 29)
1. Participation (value: 30%)
- Q-cards (20%)
Respond critically to assigned readings by answering the following questions: i. what is being argued in the reading? ii. What did I connect with in the reading? iii.What was problematic or what did I have difficulty understanding? iv. How can I think about this reading in relation to everyday teaching/life experiences?
On the back of the card: Create a question that you now have, after doing the reading.
a. Be sure to demonstrate that you have read and thought deeply about the reading.
b. You will share your Q-card response in groups and then submit it to the course instructor
Marking Scheme for Q-cards Total: (4 X 5 = 20%)
Response is complete and shows evidence of critical thinking | /4 |
- Tri-council Ethics Certificate (value: 10%, due July 22)
Complete the tutorial at and submit a copy of your certificate to your course instructor. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/education/tutorial-didacticiel/
- WITOR (Who is the one researching – and might this affect the research process?) Presentation/Paper (value: 20%, due: July 25)
The purpose of this assignment is to help you start to become familiar with the research planning process by situating yourself as a key part of the research process. This assignment is designed to underscore that research places special responsibility on you as the researcher to learn to be open to the question of “who” you are, as you conduct research in collaboration with others. Important questions to consider are:
· What are my worldviews and how can I become aware of them?
· What do I bring to the research process?
· How does personal biography affect such decisions as selection of the research topic and methods, as well as the practice of interpretation and use of existing research?
· In short, share your area of interest, question(s), and how you arrived at this point by completing the following sections of your research proposal template (Research Topic, Research Question, and Researcher’s Relationship to the Setting) as found in Robinson and Kuin Lai, p. 96.
· To diagram what are your worldviews and how they influence the research process, use the schema for Ontology/Epistemology/Axiology from Ruana and Lynham (2004).
· Overarching considerations for the presentation: Provide a one-two page hand out for the instructor and your classmates (a point form précis). This is to be a quick 5 minute overview presentation to the class that includes a brief description of the following steps of the research proposal template: Research Topic, Research Question, Researcher’s Relationship to the Setting (see Robinson and Kuin Lai, p. 96, 98 and pp. 100-101 for examples).
· Specifically, please address the following:
o What topic and question(s) are you interested in exploring as an educational researcher? Be sure to differentiate between research topic and research questions.
o What are your “World Views”? From these paradigms, position yourself as a researcher (this may be messy or clear). In short, situate yourself with your research by explaining: What is your research about? Who are you as a researcher and what do you bring with you into the research? To diagram what are your worldviews and how they influence the research process, use the schema for Ontology/Epistemology/Axiology from Ruana and Lynham (2004).
o What literature have you found to help to inform your research? (Please include at least two correctly cited, APA style, annotated[1] articles or books. You do not have to have read these sources in detail.)
o You may also display this electronically thorough webpage, blog, etc. if you prefer.
· The class will be divided into learning conversation groups. Each group will pose a question to further your inquiry. This will be a thoughtful, sensitive, and provoking question (the most useful tool for any researcher is to have questions, a valuable asset is to have quality questions which can change and shift over the course of your research). The learning conversation groups must establish where their question originates (time allotted for this support is 5 minutes).
· Note: This WITOR presentation is related to the final poster assignment. When referencing, be sure to use proper APA style formatting. See Wendy Kraglund-Gauthier’s web page at http://people.stfx.ca/wkraglun
Marking Scheme for WITOR Assignment Total: 20%
Written précis discusses research topic, research questions, and your relationship to the research setting | /8 |
Written précis and ontology/epistemology/axiology diagram clarifies your “world view(s)”. The following questions are explored: Who are you as a researcher and what do you bring with you into the research? | /8 |
Written précis includes at least TWO correctly cited (APA style) annotated references related to your research question | /4 |
- Research Plan Poster (in pairs if desired) (value: 35%, due: July 29)
Continue to develop the research proposal template that you began with your WITOR incorporating all 9 steps in the template in Chapter 5 of Robinson and Kuin Lai (p. 96, and pp. 98-104) and schema from Ruana and Lynham on ontology/epistemology/axiology and adding a list of references, including those which are substantive and those which are methodological.
Format the plan using the ten categories: Research Topic, Research Question, Research Setting, Researcher’s Relationship to the Setting, Ontology/Epistemology/Axiology, Collaborative Processes, Research Design, Methods for Collecting Information, Methods for Analyzing Information, Research Time Table, and References (at least 6 academic sources that are cited in the research proposal). Your research must plan for both numeric and narrative data. Your poster will be presented during the final class at a poster presentation research day. Please submit an electronic copy of your presentation to your course instructor on July 29. You may also display this electronically thorough webpage, blog, etc. if you prefer.
If you work with a partner, decide together whose research proposal you will complete. Both of you must be ready to explain the entire proposal on Friday, July 29.
Marking Scheme for Research Poster Total: 35%
The information in each category is complete and thoroughly thought out. The overall proposal is coherent and concise. | /30 |
Poster includes all 9 categories as per text, AND the ontology/epistemology/axiology schema, as well as a list of references. The poster is professionally prepared (easily read, clear, correct spelling and grammar, correct APA) | /5 |
4. Research Poster Response
(value: 15%, due: July 29)
You will receive a hard copy of a response sheet (see sample at end of this course syllabus).
Part A: During the Research Poster session (July 29th AM), you will present your research plan to an assigned partner who will compose a probing question to help further your inquiry, and then you and your partner will exchange roles.
Part B: Half of the students will stay by their posters and half of the students will tour the posters. After coffee break, the roles will be reversed. When it is your turn to visit the posters, you will tour the room, conversing and learning from the other researchers. You will complete the response sheet and submit it to your instructor by the end of the afternoon class. (This is an individual activity.)
Marking Scheme for Research Poster Response Total: 15%
Part A: The probing question is thoughtful, sensitive, and provoking, and furthers the researcher’s inquiry (question 1). | /5 |
Part B: The information in each category is complete and thoroughly thought out (questions 2 to 6) AND ontology/epistemology/axiology schema. | /5 |
Informed reasons for choices are provided (questions 2 to 6). | /5 |
Course Attendance Policy
This policy is intended to help minimize any and all unnecessary absences from class and also ensure that students receive the in-class course experiences that will provide them with success in their professional learning.
- The compressed nature of the Master of Education program makes it important that students attend all scheduled classes.
- Attendance at all classes is mandatory, without a sufficient medical excuse or for reasons associated with the serious illness or death of a family member. Family matters other than those related to serious illness or deaths are rarely considered a sufficient excuse for missing class.
- If a student misses class without a documented medical note, the instructor is required to record this and issue a warning to the student that further unexcused absences will normally prevent the student from receiving credit for this course.
Course Completion Policy
If course work in any Master of Education course is not completed by the end of the enrolled term, a mark of IP (in progress) will appear on the student’s transcript. The IP will stand until the work is completed and submitted to the instructor by either a negotiated date (student and instructor) or the first day of the following term. If the assigned work is not submitted by such date, a grade of NM (no mark) will be the final grade. In calculation of grade averaging, NM represents a grade of 0.
In the event of extenuating circumstances, students are advised to submit a formal letter to their instructor, with a copy to the Continuing Education Program Office. The instructor, subject to due appeal, has the right to reject a student’s request for further extensions.
Graduate Course Confidentiality Guidelines
(Approved by StFX Research Ethics Board June 21, 2004)
Graduate course instructors sometimes require students in graduate courses to conduct assignments that are dependent on the following:
- Observation of students, teachers, school administrators, or other human subjects participating in classroom or school-related activities;
- Observation of organizational meetings, both formal and informal, involving parents, students, or staff, or presentations to school organizations;
- Conversations about a school or a school-like body, (e.g., a foundation or educational group), its constituency groups, personnel, or institutions with members of such constituencies.
If graduate course instructors ask students to engage in this kind of course work, the following guidelines as to the reporting of such observations or conversations within a classroom or course context should be attended to:
- The course instructor will inform students that the names of any of the human subjects or institutions involved cannot be used in class, whether in formal or informal discussion, or in any written work submitted as part of the course, including journal or logbook entries.
- Any content, conclusions, or other ideas derived from class discussions or written work will not be used for publication or other research unless that research has obtained prior REB ethics approval.
- It is the responsibility of the graduate course instructor to apply for ethics approval for, or with, all students who will be engaged in dealing with human subjects if the content of such class work will be used as research data.
Please note that these guidelines do not bar students from keeping a personal log or diary.
It is understood that any work involving actual human subjects and institutions must respect their privacy and rights. Graduate course instructors must remember that disseminating information about any human subjects by true name or indirect reference within a class could violate the rights of such human subjects. Thus, any oral or written analysis that is derived from the observations and conversations indicated above must employ pseudonyms in the place of actual names for individuals, institutions, or unique events. If, by way of exception, it is necessary or highly desirable to use actual names, permission to do so should be obtained from the persons involved beforehand.
The primary purpose of these guidelines is to insure that the names or identities of human subjects are safeguarded in recorded course work and both within and outside of the classroom. Once a statement is made within a classroom, it may be considered as “on public record.” If so, it has the possibility of being discussed outside of the classroom, and could be misconstrued. Any misconstrued data could be considered libelous and open to legal action on the part of a named or implied human subject.
Classroom Equity Policy
For all members of our class to learn effectively, this classroom must be a safe learning environment. To ensure safety for all students, the policy in this class is that no one shall be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of age, race, colour, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, physical disability or mental disability, an irrational fear of contracting an illness or disease, ethnic, national or Aboriginal origin, family status, marital status, source of income, political belief, affiliation or activity, an individual's association with another individual or class of individuals having any one or more of the characteristics referred to in the list above. Whether a person intended their words or actions to be discriminatory or harassing does not matter; it is the effect of words and actions that is the focus of equitable treatment.
Discrimination is the distinctive treatment of a person with one or more of the above characteristics which, in the view of a reasonable person, has the effect of imposing a burden, obligation or disadvantage or limits and withholds benefits and advantages to an individual or a class of individuals. Harassment (including sexual harassment) is offensive or objectionable conduct or comment toward another person or persons that is known or ought to be known from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the complainant to be intimidating, offensive or unwelcome.
Please feel free to discuss with me any questions or concerns you have about discrimination or harassment. If I cannot help you resolve your problem, you may discuss the matter further with the Human Rights and Equity Advisor, Marie Brunelle (mbrunell@stfx.ca).
Course Assessment
The grading of student work has been and continues to be the most difficult and challenging aspect of our work as educators. Evaluation is an area of our practice that we take very seriously and to which we think we must devote copious amounts of rigor and respect. We continue to journey towards what we hope are more thoughtful, respectful, and educative forms of assessment and evaluation in our practice. Below we convey the qualities of graduate work that we hope to help you achieve in this course. It is a work in progress. We present it to you as our latest thinking on what we see as the qualities of the work to which we feel we should strive in this particular course.
85-99- Outstanding- Consistently makes insightful pedagogical and autobiographical links to the main questions that frame each course theme. You write in a flowing conversational style. Your work demonstrates you have pushed your thinking and challenged ‘taken for granted assumptions’ about who you are as an educator, your practices and the larger context of schooling. Writing is outstanding.
80-84- Excellent- Displays at least two of these three qualities and often demonstrates the others. i.e. insightful pedagogical and autobiographical links to the main questions that frame each course theme; flowing conversational style; pushed your thinking and challenged ‘taken for granted assumptions’ about who you are as an educator, your practices and the larger context of schooling. Writing is excellent.
75-79- Very Good- Displays at least one of these three qualities and often demonstrates the others. i.e. insightful pedagogical and autobiographical links to the main questions that frame each course theme; flowing conversational style; pushed your thinking and challenged ‘taken for granted assumptions’ about who you are as an educator, your practices and the larger context of schooling. Writing is very good.
70-74- Good- Beginning attempts at demonstrating awareness of the relationship between one’s own personal experiences and issues raised by classmates and readings. Have some examples of evidence of these qualities. i.e. insightful pedagogical and autobiographical links to the main questions that frame each course theme; flowing conversational style; pushed your thinking and challenged ‘taken for granted assumptions about who you are as an educator, your practices and the larger context of schooling. Writing is good.
60-69- Acceptable- Is moving towards evidence of these three qualities. i.e. insightful pedagogical and autobiographical links to the main questions that frame each course theme; flowing conversational style; pushed your thinking and challenged ‘taken for granted assumptions’ about who you are as an educator, your practices and the larger context of schooling. Writing is minimally acceptable.
Below 60- Unsatisfactory- Does not or rarely shares examples from one’s own personal experiences and/or does not understand the issues raised by classmates and readings. You do not demonstrate any of the three qualities. Writing is unsatisfactory.
Name: ___________________________________
Research Poster Day Response Sheet Value: 15%
My research question (s) | |
Part A: | |
1. Find your assigned partner. Record his/her name and research question(s). Ask and record a probing question that will further your partner’s inquiry. a. Name b. Research question(s) c. Probing question | |
Part B: | |
2. Find one other research poster that is related to your own research topic. Record the researcher’s name and research question(s) and explain how yours and the other researcher’s questions are related. a. Name b. Research question(s) c. Relationship to your research question | |
3. Find one other researcher who has a similar world view and research design to your own. Record that other researcher’s name and research design. a. Name b. Research design (justify your choice.) | |
4. Find one other researcher who has a different world view and research design to your own. Record that other researcher’s name and research design. a. Name b. Research design (Explain how the world view is different from yours) | |
5. Find one other researcher whose research would be of value/interest to your school. Record that researcher’s name and research question. Write a brief explanation of why this research would be valuable. a. Name b. Research question c. Value/interest to school | |
6. Find one other researcher whose research would be of value/interest to one of your colleagues (that colleague does not have to work with you currently). Record that researcher’s name and research question. Write a brief explanation of why the research would be of value/interest to your colleague. a. Name b. Research question c. Value/interest to colleague | |
[1] By annotated I mean that you should construct 1 paragraph for each reference in which you point out what the source theorizes with respect to the topic; AND why you consider this source will be useful in thinking about your research topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)