Melody

= **Qualitative Research: The Police Are Here** =



==


 * Case study research focuses on understanding phenomena in their natural setting and context and does not involve control or manipulation of the variables in that setting. Case study research is comprehensive and [|qualitative] in nature; however, case study research is not limited solely to [|quantitative]or qualitative evidence and often utilizes a mixture of the evidenced data in triangulating fashion which supports variables of interest beyond conventional data points. Typically, data is collected through techniques such as: interviews, observation, questionnaires, and document analysis. Because the researcher is heavily involved in the holistic reality of the research on such a personal level, it is crucial that the researcher not allow biased views to influence the direction of the findings and/or conclusions. “How” and “why” questions favor the use of case studies as they are both descriptive and explanatory in nature. Statistical generalization to a population is not the goal of case study research; rather, it is theoretical generalization, developing theory and understanding, with focus placed on understanding the dynamics present in single settings. **

Case Study With the provision of technology devices in classrooms increasing, why is there a lack of change towards student-centered pedagogy? How is a [|teacher’s use of technology] for instructional purposes influenced by their personal beliefs about teaching and learning? For this study I would construct a survey for the teachers that addressed: attitude toward technology, self efficacy, and teachers pedagogical beliefs, perceived benefits of incorporating technology, ease of technology use in classroom. In addition to the survey, I would conduct interviews with the research participants and also observe technology use in the classroom. In order to conduct the survey, interview, and observations I would limit my study to 8-10 teachers of a given grade level and subject (For example: 6th grade science).

= = =Who am I as a Researcher? = = = =While I can identify with ‘some’ parts of many of the different worldviews, I would have to say that I am overall a constructivist. I believe that as humans we construct our own realities based on personal understanding and experiences. Overall, my goal as a researcher is to understand rather than predict. Qualitative research is appealing to me; however, quantitative research tends to appeal to the slight positivist in me… Clearly, I believe that learning is active in that it is constructed rather than acquired. Furthermore, each person has a different interpretation and knowledge construction process that is directly linked to past experiences and cultural factors. = = = = = = = = =

= = = = =Survey Monkey Quantitative Research Results = =[|Technology Usage in the Classroom] = Remove File


 * // Thanks, Melody! deb //**

= = =The research makes common sense and points to some interesting occurrences that call for additional research. It was not at all surprising to me that in the research vocabulary growth yielded less significant increases than did letter naming and other code based skills. As we all know, our children living in low socioeconomic settings are deprived enriched vocabulary exposures and experiences upon which to expand their schema. While it is understandable that the teachers focused on ‘kindergarten’ skills, I was disappointed that the shortage of comprehension and vocabulary instruction were not addressed and rather, the instruction the children received was deemed to be consistent with ‘evidence-based’ recommendations of the NRP and ‘high quality’ defined by the Institute of Education Sciences RTI Practice Guide and Tier one instructional observations were rated as ‘effective.’ Clearly, the children that have to make the most growth are the ones with the potential to show the most growth in any given study, but just what exactly do the growths show? The students were able to catch up to their peers that presented with greater knowledge bases at the beginning of kindergarten; however, the children that came with stranger knowledge bases are continuing to expand their knowledge as well which would mean students entering with a disadvantage will need more than one year to “catch-up” After all, most of them have had 5-6 years of insufficient exposure, guidance, and learning before they reach the doors of a kindergarten classroom. Yes, these children NEED ONGOING VOCABULARY instruction and COMPREHENSION assistance throughout the critical literacy acquisition phase!! How can the intervention be effective, as the research claims, when the study itself reveals that the teachers spent a larger portion of time on decoding skills AND that their skills as instructors were more greatly developed in these areas as compared to comprehension. Secondly, what were the interventions used and how did the teachers decide which interventions were best for individual students? We know that they were Tier 1 interventions, but that gives little in the way of assessing (for ourselves) the quality and usefulness of the interventions. While I appreciate the information about the growth of the kindergarten students, there are way too many factors that can/would skew the relational studies that they tried to portray in this research…. What instructional strategies were used in first grade? Were the class sizes increased and less time available to spend with each child? Were the teachers as effective as the kindergarten teachers? Were the classes kept intact, or were students shuffled into different classrooms with different peer groups? Did the ethnicity of the teacher play a role in the growth? …. Clearly, this research needs to be longitudinal with greater parameters and controls to give us a clear understanding of the effectiveness of RTI and imply ways to tweak the system to help our students.. 1328625803 Mel =