March 2nd Class reflection from Carrie Ann
Posted onMarch 18, 2010
Filed under Reflections | Leave a Comment
First, let me say that I hope everyone had a wonderful spring break and you all are enjoying the beautiful spring weather that we are having. I look forward to seeing you all next week during class. The March 2nd class session for me was very rewarding on so many educational levels. This was the first time I have seen the Elluminate Live! Software used and being able to talk to another professor seeing/discussing the same images on the computer screen that we were was amazing. The real time interaction of the program was wonderful and I hope to use this software more in the future. Dr. Elizabeth Barkley was very open with her portfolio putting both the “good” and the “bad” out there for all to see, and that is a bold move as an educator. I really enjoyed seeing another music educator’s work with the same subject matter that I teach, and I came out of class with some new ideas for my teaching. While looking at Dr. Barkley’s portfolio one quote hit a mark with me so much that I had to write it down. Eric Hoffer states: “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” We in the SoTL must move forward and keep learning new things every day, if we don’t we will be stagnant and the world will just keep moving forward.
We also had the opportunity this class to hear our colleagues’ thoughts and responses to the “How People Learn” text. It was nice to hear about all the chapters that came before the two chapters that I had assigned to me, and now I see a logical and linear train of thought of how the whole text progressed. I hope in the future to sit down and read the whole text, and make new connections with the materials presented within.
Carrie Ann’s week of March 14th reading log
Posted onMarch 18, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
“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
Posted onMarch 16, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
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
Posted onMarch 15, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
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.
Article related to research methods
Posted onMarch 15, 2010
Filed under Resources | Leave a Comment