Teddy’s Reading Log 03.14.2010

Posted by on March 14, 2010 
Filed under Reading logs

Teddy’s Reading Log 03.14.2010

For class session 03.16.2010

McKinney’s chapter five makes clear our obligations as teachers and researchers to protect students while conducting SoTL research. Student rights to privacy, informed consent and protection from harm are ethical components of importance to us all. As I read the chapter, I considered my feelings about such sensitive points. It was very clear where I stood on these issues as a student. I approved of the measure without any resentment.  However, I questioned my stance as a teacher and researcher. Would I follow through the pain staking process of obtaining student permission for the use of student work? Is it worth my time to go through the experience of an IRB (Institutional Review Board)? After much deliberation, my resolve was a resounding, YES! My pondering over the pros and cons left me no choice but to see the truth in the whole as one of validity. IRB approval would clearly substantiate and validate any SoTL research project. Furthermore, it ensures the safety of all students, faculty members and their perspective institutions from legal ramifications.

The first portion of Chapter Five offers an abundance of useful information and suggestions for beginning research of SoTL. McKinney suggests that we use methodologies that are familiar and relative to our particular discipline or daily professions. This is a great suggestion for newcomers like me and I feel that it will supply the best answer to my research problem or question. The author continues by suggesting that we consider using present knowledge and reputable colleagues with experience in SoTL research. Naturally, she also offers the use of related textbooks by authors Brookfield, Kember, Hatch and Hutchings.

Next, the chapter goes on to describe SoTL work as that which is usually done by people in the classroom and not grant recipients. Herewith, teachers are constantly performing what McKinney refers to as a “juggling act”.  Designing a top notch research study requires the balancing of a multitude of concerns and demands. According to the author, we will encounter times when some of the balls of a SoTL project will fall. These balls are the expertise balls, match the research question with the most appropriate type of data balls, the practical restraint balls and the ethical responsibilities balls. Realizing this, researchers must prepare themselves to be more than capable of picking up the fallen pieces of the project and go forward to complete the work.

Finally, the chapter deals with IRB (Institutional Review Boards). Here, McKinney states that there are three basic levels of review for SoTL. They are exempt, expedited and full reviews. Most SoTL work is rated exempt or expedited. Exempt projects involve very low risk to adult students. Usually, there’s no video or audio taping and responses are anonymous. Expedited projects can involve minors and minimal risk or adult subjects and minimal to moderate risk. Full is extremely rare to our SoTL work. These studies involving minors have more than minimal risk and for adults are rated moderate to high.

Comments



Leave a Reply