Reflection on Ethics in Case Studies

In Doug's video, he didn't really explain what his action research was nor did he explain exactly what he said in the letter he sent home with the students.  He says he included information about who he was, what his role was, and what his action research was and to whom it would be reported (the school and state), but I can't tell how much detail he included.  So I assume he gave full disclosure about his plans for the project, including data collection.  If he didn't, he should have.   He said the letters came home with "100% cooperation," but again I'm not sure what that means.  He should have included a very explicit opt-in question if he didn't.  I also assume, although it wasn't explicitly stated, that he went through the proper IRB approvals.

I think it's good that he discussed it with the students.  However, it sounds like he told them "how they were going to be involved" and did not necessarily give the students an explicit opt-in option.  He does discuss that the students were not "forced" to give any information or could share whatever information they wanted (again, it's difficult to understand not knowing much about what this research was!), so I assume that was good.  He also said that their identities were protected, so I think that was good as well.

In Jeanette's video, I realized that she was not doing any research with humans, per se, so I don't think she would have the same privacy or opt-in concerns as Doug did.  I don't understand why she didn't want to let the principal know what she was doing or anything about her findings.  Perhaps she wasn't finished and didn't want to appear that she accused the readings of being gender biased when they weren't.  But she should have been upfront with her thoughts and actions.  It turns out that (it appears) her research uncovered some interesting information that was good to share with the other teachers.  However, she should have conducted her research in the open and not try to hide it.  I really didn't understand that and, as a principal, I would be very concerned about a teacher who didn't want to tell me what he/she was doing!

Critique of the Curtis Elementary School case study

I used the following 8 criteria to critique the Curtis Elementary School case study:

1. Area of focus - Jonathan's research was directly related to teaching and learning.  However, I felt that the focus was rather broad (how an "altered curriculum" affects student performance).  I believe he should have further defined "altered curriculum" in this paper.
2. Research Question - The question was apparently answerable given the researcher's expertise, time and resources.  He did a good job laying out his year plan to answer that question.  However, again, I kept looking for exactly what the "altered curriculum" was!  I think he should have been more explicit and explain exactly what he did differently so that others could also implement his "altered curriculum."  I understand that he "enhanced vocabulary development" through several activities, some of which he vaguely alluded to in his "Data Collection" section, but there was no comprehensive description of what he did differently to achieve such positive results.  The only explicit thing he mentioned, in the "Action Planning" section, was that he asked his students to look up certain vocabulary words from novel selections.
3. Locus of control - yes, the area of focus was within Jonathan's control - his own 5th grade reading class.
4. Data collection - Jonathan's plan included both qualitative (interviews and observations) and quantitative (assessment scores and collection of student work) data.  However, he only included references to the qualitative data in this paper.  He did not include any data on changes in  assessment  scores or mention grade improvements.
5. Ethics - there was no indication of any ethical challenges
6. Reflective stance - Jonathan definitely embraced a reflective stance and appears very willing to continue this research throughout following years.
7. Action - In Jonathan's "Action Planning" section, he lays out his plan to continue with his "altered curriculum" showing his commitment to action.
8. Action-data connection - The (qualitative) data that Jonathan shared had a strong correlation to his action plan.  I do feel that the quantitative part of his data was missing however.

My Potential Researcher Biases

As the last section in Chapter 5 of Mills' textbook discusses, many times research is tainted by the researcher's own biases.  In those situations, researchers often only look for and find evidence to support their original theory.  In order to conduct a valid and reliable study, I agree it is important to recognize and acknowledge our own personal biases before we start a research project.

To that end, the following are my proposition statements for peer teaching, based on what I think will happen if I were to use the techniques of peer tutoring and my idea of peer teaching as described in my literature review paper.  In my data collection plan, I will administer pre-tests, look at previous report card scores and conduct a pre-survey/interview to gauge students' attitudes about and understanding of math.  That will be my baseline data.  This is what I think/hope will happen:

1. I believe the post-tests will be much better than the pre-tests.
2. I believe the students' attitudes towards math will improve.  Students who may have hated it before will at least not hate it so much and those who were "afraid" of it before will feel comfortable with it.
3. I believe all students' grades will improve.
4. I believe the students will enjoy the CWPT sessions and competition.
5. I beleve some students will want the opportunity to teach a section of the subject and will have a deeper understanding of what they teach.

I realize that I will need to consciously look for data that refutes the above beliefs or I will only find evidence to support them.