"Books for SCFD 5913, Introduction to Qualitative Inquiry, taught"
ADMPS 3001 Disciplined Inquiry in Administrative and Policy Studies Syllabus and Course Schedule Spring 2008 Monday, 7:15-9:55 pm 5200 Posvar Hall CLS: 19948 Catalog Description The disciplinary and methodological bases for inquiry and knowledge production are investigated in the context of educational settings and processes. Examples of research from various disciplines and professional fields are used to show the relationships among theory, method, and knowledge production. Mike Gunzenhauser, PhD Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies University of Pittsburgh 5912 Posvar Hall • 230 S. Bouquet St. • Pittsburgh PA 15260 Office: (412) 648-2119, email@example.com Home: (412) 244-6335 (before 9 pm) Office hours by arrangement: Monday, Tuesday, & Thursday, 3-5 pm Open office hours: Monday, 6:15-7:15 pm Course website: http://courseweb.pitt.edu/ Course Texts Required texts, available at the Book Center: Booth, Wayne C., Colomb, Gregory C., & Williams, Joseph M. (2008). The craft of research, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ISBN 0-22606566-9] $17.00 Milner, Murray (2006). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids: American teenagers, schools, and the culture of consumption. New York: Routledge. [ISBN 04159-5391-X] $29.95 Mertens, Donna (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, 2 nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ISBN 0-7619-2805-7] $73.95 Additional required readings are listed at the end of the syllabus and posted at courseweb.pitt.edu Recommended resource texts, available at the Book Center: Paul, James L. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and social sciences. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Contact Information 2/Disciplined Inquiry [ISBN 0-1304-2253-3] $41.33 American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed. Washington DC: Author. [ISBN 1-55798810-2] $33.95 Kline, Rex B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. New York: The Guilford Press. $35. I. Rationale and Goals for the Course In this course, students develop their abilities to consume research critically and to produce disciplined, original inquiry in their fields of specialization. Theoretical, practical, and ethical considerations encountered in planning, conducting, analyzing, representing, and consumi ng research will be addressed. Course readings will combine theoretical analyses of these concerns with the examination of a wide range of examples in education. The relative importance of and balance needed between substantive and methodological concerns in doing research will be considered in course discussions. Students will have the opportunity to review and summarize knowledge from existing literature and to design and present a study plan that reflects "disciplined inquiry" principles. Disciplined inquiry is construed broadly to include varied epistemologies (theories of what counts as knowledge), theoretical perspectives (paradigms, world-views, or theories of the social world), and methodological practices. Students will examine important epistemological assumptions (objectivist, constructionist, subjectivist) and methodological practices associated with various modes of inquiry (e.g., historical, correlational, experimental, ethnographic). Both the underlying theoretical perspectives (the main ones being positivist, interpretive, critical, feminist, and postmodern) and the data collection methods (quantitative and qualitative) associated with such inquiry will be examined. Drawn from the department’s common syllabus for ADMPS 3001 (approved December 2008), this is the course content: 1. Overview of multiple methodological forms available to educational researchers and the different purposes that they serve. Reading and critically analyzing examples of studies done in a variety of traditions and methods. 2. Epistemological and theoretical diversity in educational research, including discussion of different research paradigms or theoretical perspectives. 3. Research design and various choices available to educational researchers. Structure of general research method, including the role of prior research, the forming of a meaningful problem statement and research question. 4. Important concepts related to the ethics and quality of educational research, such as validity, reliability, trustworthiness, generalizability, verisimilitude, and transferability. 5. The Institutional Review Board approval process. 6. The role that research plays in educational practice and policy. Further assignment details appear at the end of the syllabus. From the department syllabus, Disciplined Inquiry/3 these are the common assignments: 1. An opportunity to analyze one or more research studies in depth. 2. Institutional Review Board certification. 3. An opportunity to engage research literature in an area of students’ budding interest through a systematic collection of literature, an annotated bibliography and a synthetic literature review. 4. An opportunity to develop a mock research proposal, including a framed research question and articulation of method. 5. Additional assignments that serve the course goals. II. Mode/Style of Instruction Most of the class will be full-group discussions, demonstrations, and small-group exercises. I will lecture minimally, only for additional background material or to clarify important concepts. Class discussion will center on the readings and topics each week. As the course progresses, we will devote time to helping each other with the final project. We will use Courseweb to supplement classroom instruction. I will post course documents, resources for assignments, and relevant links on our course page, and I will set up our class listserv through this site. This requires everyone to have both an email address and Internet access. Email will be the primary means of communication between classes, and you are welcome to use Courseweb for whatever additional purposes you choose -- discussion boards, group chat, email, and document posting. Students may find it helpful to meet in groups outside of class time. Groups may use the Courseweb site to facilitate their communication. The course will proceed with this combination of methods not only because I believe that students learn more through active engagement, but also because my intention is for students to be able to use this course in their subsequent professional practice and scholarship. It is my hope that students will use the material from this course to form interesting and relevant research questions and conduct research that is more rigorous, meaningful, and ethically sound. III. Course Requirements and Expectations Preparation. Meaningful engagement is essential to the success of this course. Students are expected to interpret the readings, connect them to their previous knowledge and experience, and use them to develop their research skills. Students should make every effort to attend class on time and for the full duration. As explained below, grading is based upon the degree of effort and original thought that goes into the assignments. Readings. Students will benefit from multiple readings of the material before and after class discussion. I expect students to take notes as they read, to organize their thoughts about the readings before class, and to be as ready as I am to engage ideas. A standard recommendation is that doctoral students spend a minimum of twelve hours outside of class each week for each three-credit course. Students should put in that kind of effort to get the most out of this opportunity. 4/Disciplined Inquiry Assignments. Students will do various assignments outside of class that will comprise a la rge part of their learning experience. Specific information about assignments is in the syllabus supplement, posted on Courseweb. I encourage you to sit down with me outside of class to work through your assignments. It is largely up to you to make the most of this opportunity. Students in this course will be at various stages in their graduate programs, so my attempt is to make these assignments meaningful for students’ progress toward their degrees, whether or not they are currently engaged in a research project. All work should be typed and double-spaced unless otherwise noted. Please do not submit assignments in binders. Follow APA style (exception: the cover page is optional; double-sided printing is also optional). For assignments turned in during class, hard copy submissions are preferable to electronic submissions. For assignments turned in late, electronic submissions are acceptable. Timelines & feedback. No one wants to fall into the trap of turning assignments in late. Plan now the time you need to devote to them, get them done the best you can, and meet the deadlines. Here’s added incentive: assignments turned in more than 24 hours late will be reduced 1/3 letter grade; the reduction grows the later it is turned in, with assignments one week late reduced a full letter grade and so on. The 24-hour extension is intended for those times when you need just a little bit more time to finish, or if you run into computer problems. I will make exceptions for illness or bizarre circumstances only. You may turn in late work electronically or in person. Keep at least one copy of all submitted work. Archive all your work electronically. Getting timely feedback is very important, particularly on papers, and so I will do my best to return assignments, graded and with comments, at the next class after the assignments are due. If time permits, I will gladly review drafts of your assignments. We’ll do this together in one of two ways – reading a hard copy together in person or reading an electronic copy together over the phone. In either case, arrange a time with me (and/or drop in before or after class). Policy on re-writing papers. Students are welcome to re-write particular assignments for an improved grade (the new grade will be an average of the two grades) or in order to adapt the paper for a conference presentation, report, or article. Students have four weeks after receiving their graded paper to re-write for a grade. However, you can re-write each paper only once for a grade. The final paper can only be rewritten if it is turned in the first time at least two weeks ahead of the due date. You can also have me take a quick look at a draft of your paper ahead of the due date. What to do if you miss class. As explained above, class attendance is very important, and so students should make every opportunity to attend class on time and for the full duration. Class will start on time each class session. Email or phone your instructor if you will miss class for any reason (this is requested only as a courtesy so your instructor will know whether to expect you; you don’t need to ask permission to miss class). For your second absence, regardless of the reason and for each subsequent absence, students will be required to write a reflection paper (400-500 words) that covers all of the readings scheduled for that day. The reflection paper should include a summary of each author’s Disciplined Inquiry/5 argument, a statement about the author’s subjectivity, and reflections on the strengths and limitations of the selection. Writing this paper will not replace the lost opportunity for class discussion; nor is it punitive. Instead, it will enable the student to still keep up with the course and the instructor to respond to the student’s understanding of the material. Please remember to do this; I will not remind you that this paper needs to be done. Successful completion of the reflection paper, due by the next class period, will contribute toward the student’s participation grade. IV. Assessment and Evaluation: Letter grades will be assigned for class participation and assignments. Written work is graded on demonstrated insight, completion of expectations of the assignment, coherence of organization, and grammar and spelling. Letter grades have the following meaning. Letter grades using + and – are also used. An “A” signifies work that clearly exceeds expectations. Written work falling into this category will demonstrate clarity of purpose, organization, and communication. It will also demonstrate original interpretation of course material. “A” level participation need not mean a large quantity of participation but should denote the student who prepares for class and consistently indicates having thought about the material. A “B” signifies work that meets expectations, meaning that all aspects of the assignment are completed, but it lacks some aspects of “A” work, particularly inconsistent preparation for class or written work that demonstrates less significant insight into the material or frequent grammatic al errors. A “C” for written work denotes poorly constructed, supported, or inconsistent argument, or work with multiple spelling and grammatical errors; a “C” for participation signifies a student who regularly misses class or is otherwise unprepared on multiple occasions. A “D” signifies minimal attention to assignments or class preparation. An “F” is assigned for undone work or any work that breaches University standards of academic integrity. Grade percentages are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Research journal & article review 20% Analysis of Milner 20% IRB certification ungraded, required for course List of articles 5% Annotated bibliography 15% Proposal draft 5% Revised proposal 25% Presentation ungraded Class participation, attendance 10% See http://www.umc.pitt.edu/bulletins/graduate (University of Pittsburgh Graduate and Professional Bulletin) and http://www.pitt.edu/~provost/ai1.html (Academic Integrity Policy) for more information. Policy on assigning an “I” or “G.” Incompletes are rarely offered as an alternative to just doing the best one can with the time allotted. They are to be avoided at all costs, since they delay the progress of all involved. Only verifiable extenuating circumstances, such as severe illness, will encourage me to grant a grade of I or G (see Bulletin for regulations about special grades). 6/Disciplined Inquiry V. University Policies Several university policies are pertinent to this course. First of all, as an instructor I am committed to anti-racist, non-sexist, non-classist, and non-heterosexist pedagogy. This includes fostering an environment that is as safe and inclusive as possible. It is my intention to confront and correct as best as possible any actions on my part that fall short of these commitments. If everyone in the class is likewise committed, the work should be more easily facilitated. I am also committed to making the class physically accessible to anyone wishing to participate. This course follows and encourages compliance with University standards of academic honesty. If you have a special need for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both your instructor and Disability Resources and Services, 216 William Pitt Union, 412/648-7890 or 412/383-7355 (TTY), as early as possible in the term. DRS will determine reasonable accommodations for this course. See www.drs.pitt.edu. VI. Course Readings Additional required readings, available on Blackboard (coursweb.pitt.edu). I encourage you to download and/or print these readings as soon as possible rather than waiting until the week they’re due. You will need Acrobat Reader for most of these. Alridge, Derrick P. (2006). The limits of master narratives in history textbooks: An analysis of representations of Martin Luther King, Jr. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 662-686. (Historical research) Anderson, Gary L., & Herr, Kathryn (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12– 21. (Practitioner research) Arcilla, René Vincente (2002). Why aren’t philosophers and educators speaking to each other? Educational Theory, 52(1), 1-11. Bettis, P. & Mills, M. (2006). Liminality and the study of a changing academic landscape. In Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., & Norma T. Metz (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 59-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Biesta, Gert J.J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54(3), 233-250. Bruce, David L. (2008). Visualizing literacy: Building bridges with media. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(3), 264-282. Davies, Bronwyn, & Law, Cath (2000). Poststructuralist theory in practice: Working with “behaviorally disturbed” children. In B. Davies (Ed.), A body of writing (pp. 145-164). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. (Postmodern) Eichelberger, R. Tony (1989). Disciplined inquiry: Understanding and doing educational research. White Plains, NY: Longman. *Chapter 4: “Reviewing literature relevant to a problem,” pp. 69-99] Gunzenhauser, M.G., & Gerstl-Pepin, C.I. (2006). Engaging graduate education: A pedagogy for epistemological and theoretical diversity. Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 319-346. Disciplined Inquiry/7 Gunzenhauser, M.G., Montgomery, D., Barry, N.H., Dell, C., & Raiber, M. (2004). Oklahoma A+ Schools: Research Report Year Two: 2003-2004. Edmond, OK: Oklahoma A+ Schools. (Evaluation – this report will have a substitute, Raiber et al., pending release of 2009 final report) Iatarola, Patrice, Amy Ellen Schwartz, Leanna Stiefel, & Colin C. Chellman (2008). Small schools, large districts: Small-school reform and New York City’s students. Teachers College Record, 110(9), 1837-1878. (Case study) Jenkins, Joseph R., Philip S. Dale, Paulette E. Mills, Kevin N. Cole, Constance Pious, & Joan Ronk (2006). How special education preschool graduates finish: Status at 19 years of age. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 737–781. (Experimental design) Kardof, Susan M., & Johnson, Susan Moore (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experience with their colleagues. Teachers College Record, 109(9), 2083-2106. (Survey) Mills, M. & Bettis, P. (2006). Organizational identity and identification during a departmental reorganization. In Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., & Norma T. Metz (Eds .), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 73-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Connor, Erin, & McCartney, Kathleen (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369. (Correlational) Peters, Michael A., & Burbules, Nicholas C. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [Selection] Roman, Leslie G. (1993). Double exposure: The politics of feminist materialist ethnography. Educational Theory, 43(3), 279-308. (Ethnography) Suarez-Orozco, Carola, Allyson Pimental, & Margary Martin (2009). The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College Record, 111(3), pp. TBD (in press) (Mixed method) Resource readings, also available on Blackboard (coursweb.pitt.edu). Additional readings are available on our Blackboard site. This list will be continually updated during the course. I encourage students to email me suggestions. 8/Disciplined Inquiry ADMPS 3001 ** Course Schedule ** Spring 2009 DATE THEMES BOOKS ARTICLES ASSIGNMENTS Jan Introductions and Course 5 Overview Jan Research as Disciplined, Ethical, Mertens, Ch 1 Gunzenhauser & Gerstl12 and Systematic Booth, Ch 1, Ch 2 Pepin Jan HOLIDAY – Birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. 19 Jan Milner, All Qualitative Research 26 Mertens, Ch 8 Feb Epistemology and Theoretical Paul, Ch 1, Ch 4, Ch 6 2 Perspectives Feb Literature Review Booth, Ch 5, Ch 6 Eichelberger 9 Feb Identifying Problems and Posing Mertens, Ch 3, Appendix 16 Questions Booth, Ch 3, Ch 4 Feb Bettis & Mills Research Design Mertens 11, 12, 13 23 Mills & Bettis Mar IRB Website Ethics and Institutional Review APA Manual, pp. 387-396 2 Roman Mar NO CLASS – Spring Break 9 Mar Experimental Design Mertens, Ch 4 Jenkins et al. 16 Mar Peters & Burbules Deconstruction 23 Davies & Law Mar Causal Comparative and O’Connor & Mertens, Ch 5 30 Correlational Research McCartney Apr Survey Research Mertens, Ch 6 Kardof & Johnson 6 Iatarola et al. (Case) Choices: Raiber et al. (Eval) Case Study Mertens Alridge (History) Evaluation Research Historical Ch 2 (Evaluation) Suarez-Orozco (Mix) Apr Mixed Methods Ch 7 (Case study) Paul, Ch 9 (Narr) 13 Narrative Ch 9 (History, Narrative) Arcilla (Phil) Philosophical Ch 10 (Mixed method) Biesta (Phil) Practitioner Research Anderson & Herr (Pr) Others? Bruce (Pr) Apr LAST CLASS - Presentations in Conference Format 20 1. Research journal & article review 2. Milner analysis 3. IRB certification 4. List of articles 5. Annotated bibliography 6. Proposal draft 7. Revised proposal 8. Presentation