Frankly, I liked the way our readings for this course were sequenced. I see that each concept fits very well onto the one that follows. As most of us are collecting data for our inquiry, this week’s reading (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2014) is so timely in that it has given us heads-up as to how to make sense of the data we are collecting (or have collected). Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, (2015) discussions on the last four chapters of the text are insightful as they talked about forms of data analysis and reporting with scenarios to enhance comprehension. Their discussion of the forms of analysis: formative (analysis that is done whilst during the data collection process) and the summative (analysis done after the collection of the entire data) especially the former has served as a source of encouragement to me. As I was reading the formative analysis and read May’s experience in implementing her ‘investigation based work’, I realized that what I am going through in my data collection is normal just that the challenges are not linear, they come in diverse ways. I saw that as May suffered from ‘timing’, mine is with one of my data collection tools which I have decided to abandoned. I have decided to use interview instead of the journal which came up as result of formative analysis. That is, the data I had from the responses for one of items on the questionnaires brought up two key words ‘Reflector’ and ‘Listener’ by the participants for this question: Give me a word or a phrase to describe your role in the post observation conference. As I was going through the follow-up question for above question requesting them to explain their answer, I realized some contradictory views from my understanding. So to clarify this before I get to the summative stage of the data analysis, I have added two questions to my post-conference discussions to serve as interview for the interns to tell me the actual intent of the two words (Reflector & Listener). Also, I saw the journal data as inappropriate for the study due to how we (my partner and I) decided to have our seminar. Both groups have the seminar together and the students do not sit according to groups so paying attention to my interns alone was problematic hence, interview. I see the interview as serving two purposes here: giving data that is about my interns only and also helping me understand the intention behind those words. Also, after seeing my gesturing in my first video for my inquiry, I decided to record the most of my conferencing (Pre-conference and Post-conference) to see how I can improve over time. Though I am not going to use all of them, I view the videos to guide me.
The authors’ explanation of coding (breaking down data into manageable segments and identifying the segments by naming) and memoing (elaborating the coded segments/categories developed in analyzing the data) was very relevant to me personally because I have not read any qualitative course yet. Though I am familiar with these two concepts, Schwandt’s (1997) assertion as cited in Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, (2015) that coding requires constant comparing and contrasting changed some misconception I had for coding (fix a time for it and do it once and for all). For memoir, I know the concept but its usage in data analysis is new to me and though I did not understand it fully from the reading, I got something out of it and I hope our class discussion and further readings on it would help as what I had from the reading has broaden my knowledge of it.
Mills’ (2014) five suggested reasons for writing research cited in Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, (2015) reminded me of the process approach to writing (planning, drafting, revisiting, editing and publishing). Though they are not exactly the same I see some similarities between some of them. The author gives the five compelling reasons as clarification (the importance of having clear and accurate write-up/expression in order to make it comprehensible to readers), validation (the research identity the researcher gets as a result of the feedback he/she receives from reviewers and readers to authenticate his/her function as a professional educator), empowerment (the motivation researchers get as they reflect on their practices to encourage them to continually such for solution to educational problems), generative, (writing as a generative activity that culminates in a product or something tangible that the researcher can share with colleagues, supervisors, and parents) and accomplishment (that sense of satisfaction the researcher get when their work is out for people to read especially the compliment they receives from their readers). The accomplishment part is so true that the first time I co-authored a text book (for public schools in Akan speaking areas in Ghana) for one of the Ghanaian languages (Akan) and my course mates/friends started calling with theie compliments, I became so happy and humbled as the author rightly put it. I see this as something that is not enjoyed by the writer/researcher alone but people who know him/her as well because in my case, my family, friends and course mates shared the joy with me and urged me to continue. I know it will be a similar feeling when your research gets published especially in an internationally acclaimed journal seeing how Dr. Burns as well as her students (we) were excited when she told us that her research under review has been accepted.
Also, I found Dana & Yendol-Hoppey’s (2014) discussion of the four critical features (background information, sharing the design of the inquiry which include procedures for data collection and data analysis, stating the learning and supporting the statements with data, and providing concluding thoughts) that every write-up including research report must have very critical to our inquiry. These features encompasses the rudiments in research in that the background information talks about the identified problem, it context and rationale, the sharing of design includes the methodology and methods of the research, stating and supporting the statement with data looks at the discussion of findings and relating it to existing research showing their similarities and differences and conclusion as the name implies, deals with the researcher’s major thoughts of the study. The authors’ discussion of the quality indicators for teacher researchers to assess their study cannot be overemphasized. They serve as a good lens for researchers to critically assess their own study as well as that of their colleagues to see the strengths and shortfalls of the study and ways to combat them. They also discussed the channels for dissemination of teacher inquiry.
As indicated earlier, the readings for this week has lessen some of my challenges in that some of the areas discussed answered some of the questions I have asking myself and also served as a source of encouragement to some of the steps I have taken but was confused about initially. My interns will also benefit from this knowledge as I guide them in the inquiry project as well.
Reference
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom
Research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
The authors’ explanation of coding (breaking down data into manageable segments and identifying the segments by naming) and memoing (elaborating the coded segments/categories developed in analyzing the data) was very relevant to me personally because I have not read any qualitative course yet. Though I am familiar with these two concepts, Schwandt’s (1997) assertion as cited in Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, (2015) that coding requires constant comparing and contrasting changed some misconception I had for coding (fix a time for it and do it once and for all). For memoir, I know the concept but its usage in data analysis is new to me and though I did not understand it fully from the reading, I got something out of it and I hope our class discussion and further readings on it would help as what I had from the reading has broaden my knowledge of it.
Mills’ (2014) five suggested reasons for writing research cited in Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, (2015) reminded me of the process approach to writing (planning, drafting, revisiting, editing and publishing). Though they are not exactly the same I see some similarities between some of them. The author gives the five compelling reasons as clarification (the importance of having clear and accurate write-up/expression in order to make it comprehensible to readers), validation (the research identity the researcher gets as a result of the feedback he/she receives from reviewers and readers to authenticate his/her function as a professional educator), empowerment (the motivation researchers get as they reflect on their practices to encourage them to continually such for solution to educational problems), generative, (writing as a generative activity that culminates in a product or something tangible that the researcher can share with colleagues, supervisors, and parents) and accomplishment (that sense of satisfaction the researcher get when their work is out for people to read especially the compliment they receives from their readers). The accomplishment part is so true that the first time I co-authored a text book (for public schools in Akan speaking areas in Ghana) for one of the Ghanaian languages (Akan) and my course mates/friends started calling with theie compliments, I became so happy and humbled as the author rightly put it. I see this as something that is not enjoyed by the writer/researcher alone but people who know him/her as well because in my case, my family, friends and course mates shared the joy with me and urged me to continue. I know it will be a similar feeling when your research gets published especially in an internationally acclaimed journal seeing how Dr. Burns as well as her students (we) were excited when she told us that her research under review has been accepted.
Also, I found Dana & Yendol-Hoppey’s (2014) discussion of the four critical features (background information, sharing the design of the inquiry which include procedures for data collection and data analysis, stating the learning and supporting the statements with data, and providing concluding thoughts) that every write-up including research report must have very critical to our inquiry. These features encompasses the rudiments in research in that the background information talks about the identified problem, it context and rationale, the sharing of design includes the methodology and methods of the research, stating and supporting the statement with data looks at the discussion of findings and relating it to existing research showing their similarities and differences and conclusion as the name implies, deals with the researcher’s major thoughts of the study. The authors’ discussion of the quality indicators for teacher researchers to assess their study cannot be overemphasized. They serve as a good lens for researchers to critically assess their own study as well as that of their colleagues to see the strengths and shortfalls of the study and ways to combat them. They also discussed the channels for dissemination of teacher inquiry.
As indicated earlier, the readings for this week has lessen some of my challenges in that some of the areas discussed answered some of the questions I have asking myself and also served as a source of encouragement to some of the steps I have taken but was confused about initially. My interns will also benefit from this knowledge as I guide them in the inquiry project as well.
Reference
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom
Research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.