Carrie Ann’s week of March 14th reading log
“Do no harm”… This is what doctors must remember when dealing with patients and this is what as researchers we must also take into account when interacting with our study participants. Within educational research we must also think about how are studies are going to affect those who take part and how we report our findings. While taking Educational Research 810 last semester, I went through the training for the CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Human Research Curriculum, in which you learn about the history and ethics of educational research and the rights/protections of your participants.
From last semester we addressed the three ethical criteria for Human Subjects research, yet we worded it a bit differently. If I were to explain each principal to a student in a future section of this course or another research course, I would explain them in the following ways: 1) Respect for Persons is making sure that in your study you obtain your subjects specific consent to participate in the study and you respect their right to privacy and anonymity. This is important so that personal information presented cannot be specifically linked to the participant (you can give each person a code number instead of their name and make sure that all identifying information is kept secure and not out in the open). 2) Beneficence is letting your research participants know the benefits and risks of participating in the study. This is especially important in medical research, so that participants know of any “side-effects” that could happen and they know that they have the right to ask questions during the study. You as researcher should let your participants know how you hope the outcomes and purpose of the study could benefit not only them but the general population as well. 3) Justice can refer to an equal chance of being selected to participate in the study. Also, justice can be the right to withdraw from participation in the study at any time.
These particular ethical issues must be addressed when you propose your study to the IRB and any deviations from your study must also receive approval from the board. Yes, our studies will advance areas in the SoTL, but we must remember to “Do no Harm” while completing your research and keep research ethics in the forefront of your mind at all times.
Aracelie_Reading Log_16 Mar
The good of the group…the benefit of several outweighs the benefit of one…take one for the team. These are common phrases we hear in life emphasizing that an action that benefits the majority is usually a good thing. However, what happens when that action is part of SoTL and you are the teacher that must make the decision whether or not to pursue a question? McKinney and Hutchings address the more common themes to appear from SoTL over the years.
Ethical issues are never clearly delineated, and it seems SoTL is no exception. Were I to have begun teaching before I started working on this degree and taking this class, I would have assumed like many others that what went on in my classroom was fair game. I would have used previous students’ work to highlight examples in future classes, if I thought it would be helpful in illustrating my point or in giving instruction. Because I happen to desire a fairly high degree of privacy myself, I would have done my best not to give specific identifying information about the students I referenced. Never, though, would I have thought about informed, active, or passive consent, one’s right to privacy, or protecting them from harm in such a formal manner. I suppose those are items I have always associated with deliberate surveys and studies that are intended to be publicized in documents or proposals.
Having just reread my last statement, I see that is exactly why I should consider those items – that is what SoTL is all about. Going in with the intention of gleaning all you can from the students, both the good and bad parts, then putting them together in a useful manner that can serve as a basis for changes, improvements, and lessons. (I think I just had a moment here, but it’s hard to see that on a screen…)
Page 5 of the Hutchings chapter discusses Suzanne Burgoyne having difficulty with having secure informed consent at the start of a socially and emotionally charged class. She describes “a chill in the air”. It seems like obtaining consent in a situation such as that would almost be like putting handcuffs on the students. For a student, having the knowledge that what you say might essentially be held against you in the future can be daunting. At the same time, I am sure there are laws, or at least IRB guidelines, dictating consent be obtained first. How then does a new teacher know what the impact of obtaining consent explicitly and in the beginning will do to his classroom research? What would the outcome be otherwise?
So many questions…
Jason’s Ethics Reading Log
After reading chapter five and the introduction to ethics of inquiry, I feel reminded of the importance of taking the time to carefully consider all ethical issues before conducting research. Because of my background in sociology I have had many of these discussions before. While ethical research seems to mean don’t hurt your research subjects in kind of a “common sense” way, no making people drink poison or purposefully stressing people to their breaking point, etc. Research ethics go much deeper than that surface level.
For instance, in my own research format for the semester I want to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different teaching methods. However, theoretically their is good reason to believe that one should work better than the other. Is it right to expose one group to likely inferior teaching method? Is my biased belief in the superiority of one method going to effect my performance as a teacher and therefore bias the results? I can look at past class documents before I began teaching from the new method, and compare outcomes, but those students did not receive informed consent. It’s hard to argue that a researcher, classroom or not, should be able to bypass informed consent. Is going back to previous classes violating my students right to privacy, even if it is confidential and only I know any of the students names?
I remember reading an article on who benefits from research in an anthropology course that I took as an undergraduate. It chronicled the research encounters of numerous researchers from the U.S. with “subjects” from poorer nations. Well when we look in terms of outcomes who benefited? A number of the researcher’s used the interviews, participant observations, etc. to publish dissertations earning them doctorates, qualifying them for teaching positions, allowing them to publish articles and sell books. Well, compare that to the “subjects” who’s taking part in the research allowed for the results, they were for the most still poor and in the same situation as before the research encounter. Is that ethical?
While SToL research is not as extreme as the anthropological example, there is still a definite power relationship and possible an unequal reward structure. One of the biggest questions that I ask myself about SToL research is how do I make it benefit the students giving me access to the necessary data? Sure it has the ability to better my teaching, and maybe benefit future students of mine, but how does it benefit the “subjects”? Luckily SToL research can be used to better the class being studied. For example, by giving the teacher immediate feedback on misunderstandings that are widespread in the class.
Teddy’s Reading Log 03.14.2010
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.
Jason’s Chapter One Reading Log
Chapter one of the classroom research textbook is stocked full of information. The chapter offers a brief history of research done in the classroom, some methodological insights and perspectives, and numerous detailed definition. It is a very diverse chapter including everything from feminist critiques of positivism, to issues of the academic disconnect with the “real world”, to a list seven principles of teaching. Because we will be coving this chapter in detail this week I would like to focus this reflection on two specific elements of the reading; first, the analogy of the dark archery, and secondly the analogy of the messy swamps.
The archery analogy offers a really good insight into the problematic nature of institutional assessment. We monitor the outcomes of students without focusing on the actual classrooms that they are learning in. We are shooting in the dark, then turning the light on and checking to see how we did afterwards. Maybe we should require that all students be able to recite the mathematical formula used to calculate the trajectory of an arrow, but it would be crazy to turn on the light and look at what is actually going on in the classroom, to actually reward intrinsically motivated teachers that strive to constantly modify their courses and utilize previously successful techniques.
The second analogy that struck me was what I call the swamp analogy. That as social scientist we often get so focused on methodology and sound scientific studies, that we become unable to study any of the pressing issues in front of us. In other words, we are too scientific. The analogy compares being able to study the high hard ground with our precise methodology (in sociology’s case continually striving to prove our discipline’s worth by bureaucratically latching to the scientific method), at the expense of even studying the murky swamp that is most of life. Studying the swamp would cause us to give up our precise scientific instruments and we are not willing to sacrifice them, or the legitimacy they assist us in claiming.
This made me think of a story an older sociology professor told me while I was still an undergraduate. I had asked him why sociologist seemed to write such seemingly understandable ideas in such a jargon laden fashion. He told me that although sociologist study society, they can’t always be counted on to be paying attention to society. He then told me that in the height of the AIDS epidemic (which at the time was being widely used to spread hatred and fear of homosexuals in America) he attended an ASA meeting in San Francisco. The streets were filled with protest, counter protests, religious movements, police, political figures, the sociologists were surrounded by a powerful social movement. He then told me that the conference he attended was titled “Micro and Macro Sociology: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Methodology”.