The University of PittsburghAdministrative and Policy Studies

EDUC 2003 & ADMPS 3001 Research Methods in EducationPolicy and Practice (3 Credits)

Spring 2019

4318 Posvar Hall1:00-3:40 PM Wednesday

Sean Kelly, PhD5527 Posvar HallOffice: (412) 648-7165spkelly@pitt.eduOffice hours: by appointment

Research Methods in Education Policy and Practice

1

Figure from Crosnoe (2011). This is an example of both a relatively abstracted independent variable (“not fitting in”) as well as a simple measurement scale (“Number of Feelings”).

Course Overview

Description

Welcome to EDUC 2003 and ADMPS 3001 Research Methods in Education Policy and Practice! This course surveys the major research designs and techniques used in Administrative and Policy Studies and educational research more broadly. The course is targeted for both masters and doctoral students, with additional readings and rigor of evaluation for doctoral students. MA/MED students should be enrolled in EDUC 2003. We will cover both qualitative and quantitative approaches, with an emphasis on the fundamental principles and logic underlying research methodology. While there will be many practical examples of methods in action, this is not primarily a hands-on course. For example, the statistical mechanics of various quasi-experimental approaches are covered in 3100 (Intro to Quantitative Methods I) and 3103 (Intermediate Quantitative Methods). Instead, in this course we will treat quasi-experimental designs as a set of methods sharing similar strengths and weaknesses compared with other approaches, and explore the theoretical rationale for this set of methods. In addition, an important aspect of the course is that many of the methodological topics are relevant to both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including: conceptual frameworks, measurement error, data reduction, sampling, historical/case study methods, and others. Two core principles guide this course. First, regardless of your research goal—description, causal inference, or something else—a robust body of research must eventually draw on multiple methods of inquiry. Second, the overall success of a research endeavor rests in large part on the design of the study and the quality of the data collection, not the sophistication of the analytic methods.

Goals and Learning Objectives

This course has a number of specific learning objectives, some of which overlap with related research courses. Note that the basic design and objectives of this course, as well as the assignments, build on the “Disciplined Inquiry” course originally developed and taught by Professors Gunzenhauser and Bickel in ADMPS for many years.

1. Overview of multiple methodological approaches used in education research, including a rich set of examples. I have tried to select examples that span the range of educational settings, and that do not duplicate readings/topics in other courses. As an introductory course, particular methodological approaches (e.g. instrumental variables, focus groups) are reserved for detailed treatment in other courses.

2. Exposure to epistemological and theoretical diversity in educational research.

3. Understanding of the importance of articulation between a research question, prior research (we have a session devoted specifically to the review of literature), and choice of methodological design within a research effort.

2

4. Important concepts related to the quality (and ethics) of educational research, such as validity, reliability, generalizability, etc.

5. Exposure to the role that research plays in educational practice and policy, although note that this topic is treated in other courses in greater depth.

Note that two topics are not taught in detail in this course: (1) The Institutional Review Board approval process, including the underlying topics of informed consent, minimizing risk, etc., and (2) Publication style (e.g. American Psychological Association publication style guidelines, etc.)

Course Readings and Required Texts

We have two required texts for this course, which we will do multiple readings from, and that will serve as resources for you on additional methodological topics:

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 9781606233399

Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences: Pearson New International Edition (8th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson. 9780205809387

Note: You may use any edition of Berg, 6th edition or more recent.

Each week, we will generally have two types of readings, (1) empirical examples of a methodological approach in action, and (2) theoretical/overview/teaching pieces on that methodological approach. The empirical examples will be listed first each week (see Calendar of readings and activities at end of syllabus), followed by the overview readings. For example, in Week 3, we have two examples (Grossman, Littwin) followed by a chapter from Berg. We will generally have three articles/chapters to read each week, or the equivalent amount of reading. Please read the session notes on Courseweb for each session, as I will sometimes post important contextual information about the readings there, or note which parts of the readings you may skim in order to lessen the reading load.

As your studies proceed, you will certainly find that you need greater information about a particular method, and often you will find that within a specific literature (e.g. if you are doing an event history analysis, there are specific resources for that). Generally speaking, overviews of methods that are easy to read and contain clear examples are generally found in methods textbooks and edited volumes, while journal articles contain much more specific, sometimes very narrow methodological issues. Additional difficulties with methodological journal articles is that

3

they are (A) not always in education journals, and (B) focus on formal derivations or theory rather than practical examples. Journals will also occasionally publish methods that are “not ready for prime time;” that perhaps, have not been incorporated into most software programs, or in some cases have not yet withstood enough scrutiny to generate confidence for a new user. That being said, there are a number of journals devoted to research methods that you may find helpful as references, including: the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, the Journal of Educational measurement, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Journal of Experimental Education (they mean “experimental” in the broad sense), Sociological Methodology, and others. Note also though, that certain journals publish methodological articles in addition to substantive ones (e.g. Educational Researcher, Educational evaluation and Policy Analysis, Social Science Research, Review of Research in Education, Review of Educational Research, etc.). The discipline of Psychology also has journals that publish a lot of methodological articles (e.g. Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Educational Psychology, Psychometrika, etc.)

One effort by the American Educational Research Association to put together an edited volume with chapters giving overviews of different methods in education is the Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (2006), edited by Green, Camilli, and Elmore.

Course Expectations

Readings and Class Discussion

Because this class meets only once a week, the reading load for each class is relatively heavy. It is also a bit uneven (as real-world work tends to be), so scan the readings for each week to anticipate challenging weeks. The expectation is that your understanding will develop through your independent reading, class discussion, and writing. In order to benefit from class then, you must complete the readings, and bring copies with you to class. Our class discussions will serve not only to develop a coherent understanding of the literature, but you will also be practicing a fundamental skill of both practitioners and academics: the capacity for substantive, analytic conversation.

Writing Assignments and Tests

The writing assignments and tests are an essential element of the learning experience in EDUC 2003 and ADMPS 3001, and this course is an excellent opportunity for you to simultaneously hone your analytic thinking and writing skills.

Doctoral students will have two writing assignments in this class. The first assignment, completed only by doctoral students, is the Research Journal and Article Review, which is a

4

two-part assignment where you do some analyses/interpretation of an entire journal, and then a particular article from that journal. The second assignment, completed by both MA and doctoral students, is a Proposal for an Empirical Study. In the earlier half of the course, you should be doing some work on both of these papers concurrently. The proposal assignment is worth 50% of your grade, so it is on the level of a short term paper. You will be turning in three preliminary materials for comment from me as a formal part of that assignment, including a rough draft of that proposal paper. You will also have the opportunity to make a short presentation on the final class day on your proposal for an empirical study. Both of these writing assignments will allow you to engage with the methodological literature. Writing assignments are due the Tuesday before class at 7:00 PM.

In working with you to craft excellent course papers I will emphasize several generic elements of the writing process:

1) Start with a close reading of the text(s). 2) Be explicit in (a) stating your ideas and (b) in how your paper is organized.3) Analysis, Analysis, Analysis. All good papers contain an analysis of the text;

generalizations, comparisons, causal statements, etc., not mere summaries or descriptions.

4) Writing is an iterative process. With each revision a paper improves. Your classmates and instructor are here to help you improve your papers.

The tests are non-cumulative assessments of your understanding of material for the first and second half of the course. Tests are not very common in the PhD program in our department, One reason tests are not common, is that in your professional work you will be asked to write, teach, discourse with your colleagues, etc., you mostly won’t be asked to take tests! Yet, the material in this course lends itself well to tests. It is possible for me to create tests that are representative of the course content in each half of the course, and the tests allow students an additional opportunity to demonstrate mastery. However, given the length of the writing assignments, these tests will be short and not count as much toward your final grade as the writing assignments.

Research Journal and Article Review (PhD students only)

The Research Journal and Article Review is a two part-assignment. But both parts are due on the same date (Tuesday 3/05 at 7:00 PM).

Journal review (825-1000 words, 3-4 pages): First, you will identify a research journal relevant to your program, specialization, and/or research interest and review that journal for the year 2014. A typical journal with 4-5 articles per number (issue), published 4 times per year, will have 18-20 articles. Your goal for the first part of the paper is to analyze the methodological approach taken by works in this journal. Approach that task by posing and answering methodological questions about the journal you selected in 2014. For example:

5

What kind of theoretical perspectives are evident in this journal? What methodologies and methods are published here? Assuming “high quality methods” are important to this journal, what dimensions of quality seem to be evident here? Are there any other issues that reading the journal raises for you? Pose and answer the particular questions that are most relevant to your own analysis.

A. If you select a journal published substantially more often, or with substantially more articles per issue, you may elect to trim the criteria to get down to a manageable number of articles (e.g. in AERJ, focusing only on the “social and institutional analysis” section).

B. Try to select a commonly used/highly valued journal in your field (program/specialization). Do not select a review article journal (e.g. Review of Educational Research), or a methodological journal.

C. Do not try to read each article start to finish, focus on the parts/aspects relevant to the questions you pose.

D. It might be useful to begin by finding information about the quality of this journal, its mission, its sponsorship, its readership, its frequency of publication, and (if possible) its acceptance rate.

E. Please include at least one quantitative analysis in this part of the paper. This could be as simple as counting the number/proportion of occurrences of a given method.

F. Use course readings and specific examples to frame and support your analysis/assertions.

Article review (1000-1275 words, 4-5 pages): Next, analyze one article from the journal by identifying and analyzing the positive value of that article. In your view, what is the meaning and value of this study? How does the methodological approach taken by the author(s)’ contribute to the value of this study? Consider the theoretical framework, the methodological approach, attributes of the data, and the possible audience/implications of this work. Strive for a well-organized and coherent progression of ideas in this paper with a thesis statement, supporting points, and a conclusion. Cite the literature and course readings to support your thesis. Use APA format for all citations and references. Cite reading and use your notes from class discussions in clarifying how to identify and evaluate these elements:

Proposal for an Empirical Study

This paper is a 3,300-4,125 word (or 12-15 page) proposal for an empirical study to address a research question within a line of inquiry that interests you. For PhD students, this assignment overlaps with Milestone 1, the preliminary exam (although the evaluation of the preliminary exam is distinct from your course grade, and may require some modifications from your term paper). You have broad latitude to select an area of inquiry/question that interests you. You are not expected to collect and analyze data for this paper, but rather, to propose a research design, and describe the methodological attributes that will help you to answer your research question. Your paper should begin with a literature review of existing studies on this topic. Published literature reviews are typically 10 pages in length; yours should be more concise than that,

6

perhaps 4-6 pages drawing on approximately 10 references. The balance of the proposal should describe a proposed study, and the logic behind the design and methods you have proposed. In laying out your methodological plan, provide a rationale for its various elements, citing course texts and other methodological readings for support. Provide consideration of the limitations of the study design/methods in reaching inferences and considerations of strengths and limitations of alternative designs/methods. You have three intermediary assignments that are an opportunity for me to give you feedback. First, on Tuesday 1/29 at 7:00 PM a one paragraph summary of your research question is due. On Tuesday 3/26 at 7:00 PM, a preliminary list of the references you will be using is due. Then, a rough draft is due for this paper on Tuesday 4/09 at 7:00 PM, which is a very important opportunity for me to give you feedback. In the final class session, you will present your proposed study to the class.

Additional Guidelines:

A. Well-written lit reviews can look very different depending on the author’s approach, but two common problems that reduce the impact of a literature review are (1) focusing to “sequentially on authors/studies,” rather than on questions/themes/arguments, etc., (2) providing too little elaboration on study results themselves (i.e. what was found, but also how).

B. It will be difficult to propose and defend a study design if your research question is too broad/big.

C. You may position your proposed study as “realistic” (what you might be able to accomplish as an individual or small team of researchers, with limited funds), or as “ideal scenario” (if you had a large federal grant and a big team), but be explicit about how you see the requirements/feasibility of this research design as one of its elements.

D. In addition to discussion of the inferential strengths and limitations of your methodological plan, you might also include (but are not required to), discussion of: research subjectivity (your own standpoint, history, or preconceptions), projected results, ethical considerations, or deconstructive interpretation (e.g. is your study predicated on a particular cultural norm that you could imagine vanishing?).

E. Please plan a 12-15 minute (the typical length of an AERA presentation) power-point presentation to accompany your paper and be delivered the final day of class. A good rule of thumb is to try to average 1 minute per slide.

Use of CourseWeb Technology

We will utilize CourseWeb technology to support our progress in several ways. First, we will utilize CourseWeb to share information, including the course readings and additional handouts that might be needed (e.g. statistical primers, recent educational data reports, writing tips, etc.). Second, CourseWeb will be the depository for class assignments. Details will be provided in class on using dropboxes on CourseWeb.

7

Formatting Written Work

By formatting your papers carefully and using accepted copy-editing standards, you can assure the reader is able to focus on the substance of your work. In this class we will use the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines, which is what the American Educational Research Journal (among others) requires! You should know though, that this is not the only style used in education research, so you may at some point in your career be required to use a different style, such as the American Sociological Association (ASA) style, which is derived from the Chicago Manual of Style. ASA style has the interesting feature of spelling out authors’ first names in the reference list! In addition to APA, please note some guidelines to make it easier for me and other folks who read your work to take notes and leave comments for you:

○ Times New Roman, 12 point font ○ One inch margins on all sides ○ Page numbers○ Left alignment with default spacing between words and letters○ Double spaced lines with only one hard return between indented paragraphs○ Give your paper a substantive title (describing the novel content in your paper not the

name of the assignment)

Grading

PhD Students: Graded Assignments Research Journal & Article Review: 30%Test 1: 10%Test 2: 10%Proposal for an Empirical Study: 50%

MA/MED Students: Graded Assignments Test 1: 25%Test 2: 25%Proposal for an Empirical Study: 50%

Additional Policies

Departmental Grievance ProceduresThe purpose of grievance procedures is to ensure the rights and responsibilities of faculty and students in their relationships with each other. When a student in ADMPS believes that a faculty member has not met his or her obligations (as an instructor or in another capacity) as

8

described in the Academic Integrity Guidelines, the student should follow the procedure described in the Guidelines by (1) first trying to resolve the matter with the faculty member directly; (2) then, if needed, attempting to resolve the matter through conversations with the chair/associate chair of the department; (3) if needed, next talking to the associate dean of the school; and (4) if needed, filing a written statement of charges with the school-level academic integrity officer. [Professor Michael Gunzenhauser is the Associate Dean and Integrity Officer.]

Academic IntegrityStudents in this course will be expected to comply with the University of Pittsburgh's Policy on Academic Integrity. Any student suspected of violating this obligation for any reason during the semester will be required to participate in the procedural process, initiated at the instructor level, as outlined in the University Guidelines on Academic Integrity. This may include, but is not limited to, the confiscation of the examination of any individual suspected of violating University Policy. Furthermore, no student may bring any unauthorized materials to an exam, including dictionaries and programmable calculators.

Disability AccommodationIf you have a disability that requires special testing accommodations or other classroom modifications, you need to notify both the instructor and Disability Resources and Services no later than the second week of the term. You may be asked to provide documentation of your disability to determine the appropriateness of accommodations. To notify Disability Resources and Services, call (412) 648-7890 (Voice or TTD) to schedule an appointment. The Disability Resources and Services office is located in 140 William Pitt Union on the Oakland campus.

Statement on Classroom RecordingTo ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not record classroom lectures, discussion and/or activities without the advance written permission of the instructor, and any such recording properly approved in advance can be used solely for the student’s own private use.

Course Outline

Week 01: Epistemology, Theory, and Conceptual FrameworksWeek 02: Ethnographic MethodsWeek 03: InterviewingWeek 04: Content AnalysisWeek 05: Literature Reviews: Examples and MethodsWeek 06: Randomized Experiments

9

Week 07: Quasi-ExperimentsWeek 08: Longitudinal DesignsWeek 09: Measurement ErrorWeek 10: Data ReductionWeek 11: SamplingWeek 12: Survey Research/Questionnaire DesignWeek 13: Mixed MethodsWeek 14: Historical and Case Study AnalysisWeek 15: Presentations

10

CALENDAR: ADMPS 3001, Spring 2019Session

Date/Day Readings Activities & Assignments

Introduction: The Big Picture

1 01/09/19 Wednesday

Epistemology, Theory, and Conceptual Frameworks

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Chapters 2, 3, & 10 from Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: The Guilford Press.

Complete professional profile 2. Read syllabus3. Complete readings and prepare for class discussion [EVERY WEEK!]

Qualitative Methods

2 01/16/19 Wednesday

Ethnographic Methods

Kinney, D. A. (1993). From nerds to normals: The recovery of identity among adolescents from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education, 66, 21–40.

Best, R. (1983). Chapter 6: What was being learned, the boys. In We’ve all got scars: What boys and girls learn in elementary school (pp. 71–87). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Chapter 6: Ethnographic field strategies. In Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th edition) (pp. 171–221). Boston, MA: Pearson.

11

3 01/23/19Wednesday

Interviewing

Grossman, P. L. (1990). Chapter 3: Learning from professional education. In The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education (pp. 53–85). New York: Teachers College Press.

Littwin, S. (1986). Chapter 7: Santa Cruz as a state of mind. In The postponed generation: Why American youth are growing up later (pp. 82–98). New York: Quill.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Chapter 4: A dramaturgical look at interviewing. In Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th edition) (pp. 89–143). Boston, MA: Pearson.

4 01/30/19Wednesday

Content Analysis

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116).

Bullman, R. C. (2005). Chapter 4: Expressing oneself in a culture of conformity. In Hollywood goes to high school: Cinema, schools, and American culture (pp. 80–118). New York: Worth.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Chapter 11: An introduction to content analysis. In Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th edition) (pp. 303–339). Boston, MA: Pearson.

**1-paragraph research question statement due in support of Proposal for an Empirical Study paper on Tuesday 1/29 at 7:00 PM**

Reviewing the Literature

12

5 02/06/19Wednesday

Literature Reviews: Examples and methods

Stephan, J. L., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2009). Permeability and transparency in the high school-college transition. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 928–941). New York: American Educational Research Association and Routledge.

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Chapters 4: Creativity and the generation of ideas. In Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (pp. 39–74). New York: The Guilford Press.

Becker, H. S. (2007). Terrorized by the literature. In Writing for social scientists (2nd edition) (pp. 135–149). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

PhD Students: Kelly, S., & Price, H. (2009). Vocational education: A clean slate for disengaged students? Social Science Research, 38, 810–825. [*concentrate on front-end*]

Quantitative Methods

6 02/13/19Wednesday

Randomized Experiments

Kelly, S. (2017). Shared principles of causal inference in qualitative and quantitative research. In D. Wyse, L. E. Suter, N. Selwyn, & E. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of educational research (British Educational Research Association Methods Series) (pp. 90-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved

13

controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131–155.

Cook, T. D. (2001). Sciencephobia: Why education researchers reject randomized experiments. Education Next, 1, 63–68.

PhD Students: Yuan, K., Le, V., McCaffrey, D.F., Marsh, J.A., Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Springer, M.G. (2013). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 3–22.

7 02/20/19Wednesday

Quasi-Experiments

Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2006). Educational outcomes of labor-market linking. In After admission: From college access to college success (pp. 182–200). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Shadish, W. R., & Luellen, J. K. (2006). Quasi-experimental design. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 539–550). New York: American Educational Research Association and Routledge.

Campbell, D. T., & Ross, H. L. (1968). The Connecticut crackdown on speeding: Time-series data in quasi-experimental analysis. Law & Society Review, 3, 33–54.

Phd Students: Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. 2005. Consequences of employment during high school: Character building, subversion of academic goals, or a threshold? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 331–370.

**Test One**

14

Additional recommended readings:

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Chapters 7: Causal models. In Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (pp. 137–176). New York: The Guilford Press.

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Introduction to multivariate relationships. In Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th edition) (pp. 301–320). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

8 02/27/19 Wednesday

Longitudinal Designs

  Arum, R., Roksa, J., Potter, D., & Velez, M. (2011). Origins and trajectories. In Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses (pp. 33–57). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Harris, D. N. (2011). Measuring student growth. In Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know (pp. 49–68). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Phd Students: Carbonaro, W., & Covay, E. (2010). School sector and student achievement in the era of standards based reforms. Sociology of Education, 83, 160–182.

PhD Students: Kelly, S. & Ye, F. (2017). Accounting for the relationship between initial status and growth in regression models. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 353–373.

9 03/06/19Wednesday

Measurement Error

15

Foss, R., Diekman, S., Goodwin, A., & Bartley, C. (2003). Enhancing a norms program to reduce high-risk drinking among first year students. Chapel Hill, NC: Highway Safety Research Center.

Phd Students: Meyer, R. H. (1999). The effects of math and math-related courses in high school. In S. E. Mayer & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Earning and learning: How schools matter (pp. 169–204). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Phd Students: Jencks, C. (1972). Measurement error. In Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling America (pp. 330–336). New York: Harper Colophon Books.

**Research Journal and Article Review paper due Tuesday 3/05 at 7:00 PM**

10 03/20/19 Wednesday

Data Reduction

**Spring Break; no class on the 13th 

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Guidelines in scale development. In Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd edition) (pp. 60-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PhD Students: Kelly, S. (2010). The prevalence of developmental instruction in public and catholic schools. Teachers College Record, 112, 2405–2440.

Phd Students: Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.

Integrated Topics

11 03/27/19 Wednesday

Sampling

16

    Fowler, F. J. (2002). Sampling. In Survey research methods (3rd Edition) (pp. 10–38).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Babbie, E. (1990). Examples of sample designs. In Survey research methods (2nd Edition) (pp. 102–117). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Daniel, J. (2012). Choosing between non-probability sampling and probability sampling. In Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices (pp. 66–80). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Phd Students: Stuart, A. (1984 [1962]). Sections 20, 21, & 32. In The ideas of sampling (pp. 34–37, 62–64). New York: MacMillan.

**List of references due in support of Proposal for an Empirical Study paper due on Tuesday 3/26 at 7:00 PM**

12 04/03/19 Wednesday

Survey Research/Questionnaire Design

Fowler, F. J. (1995). Questions to measure subjective states. In Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (pp. 46–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Measuring student engagement in high school classrooms and what we have learned. In Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement (pp. 77–96). New York: Springer.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Appendix B. In Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work (pp. 241–242). New York: Basic Books.

Phd Students: Aubusson, P., Burke, P., Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. (2014). Teachers choosing rich tasks: The moderating impact of technology on student learning, enjoyment, and preparation. Educational Researcher, 43, 219–229.

17

1304/10/19 Wednesday

Mixed Methods

    Juzwik, M., Nystrand, M., Kelly, S., & Sherry, M. (2008). Oral narrative genres as dialogic resources for classroom literature study: A contextualized case study of conversational narrative discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1111–1154.

Calfee, R., & Sperling, M. (2010). Why mixed methods? In Mixed methods: Approaches to language and literacy research (pp. 1–18). New York: Teachers College Press.

**rough draft of Proposal for an Empirical Study paper due on Tuesday 4/09 at 7:00 PM**

14 04/17/19 Wednesday

Historical and Case Study Analysis

 

  Grant, G. (1988). Deconstruction of the old world, 1966-1971. In The world we created at Hamilton High (pp. 24–44). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Chapter 10: Case studies. In Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th edition) (pp. 283–302). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Phd Students: Clotfelter, C. T. (1996). The sources of rising expenditures. In Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education (pp. 139–161). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15 04/24/19Wednesday

Presentations **Test Two**

18

Final drafts of Proposal for an Empirical Study paper due on CourseWeb Friday April 26th at 7:00 PM

19

Some additional readings for future interest

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45, 283–292.

Desimone, L. M., & Le Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 1-22.

Domina, T., Pharris-Ciurej-N., Penner, A. M., Penner, E. K., Brummet, Q., Porter, S. R., & Sanabria, T. (2018). Is free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage? Educational Researcher, 47, 539–555.

Harwell, M., Maeda, Y., Bishop, K., & Xie, A. (2016; online first): The surprisingly modest relationship between SES and educational achievement, The Journal of Experimental Education, DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2015.1123668.

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.), (2002). Chapter 5: Designs for the conduct of scientific research in education. In Scientific Research in Education. A National Research Council report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

20