R_+D5

Discussion Prompt -- D5

Huett -- Articles

In //Needs of elementary and middle school teachers developing online courses for a virtual school//, Oliver, Kellogg, Townsend, and Brady (2010) detail a qualitative case study of eight teacher teams (three teachers per team) as they built online courses for the North Carolina Virtual Public School. Teachers were interviewed through a focus group protocol, and a follow-up survey was used to confirm the data collected in the focus group sessions. The purpose of the study was to determine the needs of teachers who have the responsibility of designing online courses. Two major themes came out of the coding of the focus group data: leadership and professional development. Under these two broad themes, the researchers identified categories that they hope can be used as guidelines for others attempting to use "non-traditional course designers" (i.e., real teachers in the field, rather than elite, expensive teams of course designers).
 * Article 1**

In terms of data collection strategy, the researchers used focus groups with a 13-question protocol followed by a 29-question survey. "A focus group is a type of group interview in which a moderator leads a discussion with a small group of individuals to examine, in detail, how the group members think and feel about the topic" (Johnson & Christensen, 2007, p. 209). As Johnson and Christensen (2007, p. 210) point out, " focus groups are especially useful as a complement to other methods of data collection." As a complement to the focus group, Oliver et al. (2010, p. 59) used a survey "to verify the findings [from the focus groups]." The survey had 24 Likert questions and 5 open-ended questions, and was delivered via URL with the help of the cooperating principals overseeing the teachers in the study.

The researchers conclude with a discussion of ways to support online course design in the context of the K-12 school environment.

In //Teachers' beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach//, Palak and Walls (2009, p. 417) used a "sequential mixed methods design" to "examine the relationship between teachers' beliefs and their instructional technology practices." Their purpose was to examine relationships among variables that led teachers to adopt a student-centered teaching paradigm. The mixed approach used in this study called for the collection of quantitative data in the first phase and qualitative in the second. In the quantitative phase, 113 teachers responded to two surveys (the Inventory of Philosophies of Education and the Perceptions of Computers and Technology instrument), and in the qualitative phase, 4 teachers were studied closely. The 4 teachers selected for the qualitative phase provided data in these forms: classroom observation, a lesson plan, an interview, and written responses to 4 questions about educational belief and practice.
 * Article 2**

Each phase used its own sampling technique, although both required "technology-using teachers in technology-rich schools" (Palak & Walls, 2010, p. 419). To ensure that the teachers in both phases of the study would meet this criterion, they included only teachers in the Benedum Collaborative Professional Development Schools, which were "committed to school reform, professional development, and integrating instructional technologies and had adequate technical infrastructure and equipment" (Palak & Walls, 2010, p. 420). For the qualitative phase, the researchers used the "maximum variation sampling strategy to purposefully select two pairs of cases with extreme or maximal differences in teachers' beliefs based on teacher self-report to the Inventory of Philosophies of Education" (Palak & Walls, 2020, p. 421).

The researchers conclude that "unless the focus of technology integration is explicitly on student-centered pedagogy, technology integration may continue to support teacher-centered practice with inadequate, highly controlled student use in the classroom" (Palak &Walls, 2010, p. 437). They also advocate for the use of mixed methods design in studies that involve the beliefs of teachers.


 * References**

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2007). //Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches// (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Oliver, K., Kellogg, S., Townsend, L., & Brady, K. (2010). Needs of elementary and middle school teachers developing online courses for a virtual school. //Distance Education, 31//(1), 55-75.

Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers' beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41//(4), 417-441.

For my study, I will collect multiple forms of data, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. A pre-course survey, consisting of 25 open-ended questions has been deployed to all teachers whose courses were reviewed. The survey answered the research question (RQ) of //How do the teachers believe they are teaching their classes?//

The course reviews conducted by the graduate students will serve as a form of qualitative data and will be coded by three researchers to identify broad themes that come out of the course reviews. There are three sources of data here: a GPS alignment instrument (RQ: //What content is addressed, and at what level?//); a National Standards instrument, and a //VoiceThread// presentation (RQs: //How well is the course designed to deliver content?, How are Technology and 21st Century Skills addressed in the course? How is student work assessed? What is the nature of the course design?//).

Soon, two surveys will be deployed to participating teachers and graduate students. The survey to teachers will measure impact and attitudes (RQs: //How do LEA stakeholders perceive the impact of the first round of the project?,// //How receptive are faculty and administrators to online learning?//, //How do graduate student reviewers perceive the project's impact on their practice?, What are the graduate student reviewers' attitudes about online learning?//).

If you are getting a headache reading all of this, think how I must feel. I suspect that I need to narrow my focus more, but how?

To use the words of the text, I am having research participants fill out self-report instruments (questionnaires) and possibly am examining how research participants act in natural and structured environment (observation).

I didn't mention the observation piece, because I don't know that I will use it. But, I did observe approximately 20 hours of the blended courses being taught at Luella Middle School. The text advises that we correct and edit our field notes immediately after taking them down (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). I got bogged down in the process (maybe finished 20%) and then life got in the way, and I haven't finished them yet. I will revisit them, however, and see if they might be used as a form of qualitative data. The main purpose was for me to get a better understanding of the Luella definition of "blended learning," which I definitely did, and I'm not sure it applies to the larger project.


 * References**

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2007). //Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches// (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


 * References**

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2007). //Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches// (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Oliver, K., Kellogg, S., Townsend, L., & Brady, K. (2010). Needs of elementary and middle school teachers developing online courses for a virtual school. //Distance Education, 31//(1), 55-75.

Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers' beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41//(4), 417-441.


 * PART THREE.** As part of the collaborative learning process, you are expected to discuss with your peers the ideas and summaries shared in this discussion board. Your active participation should be characterized by the following:

1. Each student should post MORE THAN SEVEN (7) comments or replies to their peers’ postings. 2. At least 3 of these comments or replies should focus on SIMILARITIES between peer postings and those posted by the student. 3. At least 3 of these comments or replies should focus on DIFFERENCES between peer postings and those posted by the student. 4. At least a comment or reply should focus on the lessons learned from the shared peer postings to the student’s approach in finding solution to his/her research problem. 5. At least a comment or reply should include a question about the articles shared by another student to the student’s approach in finding solution to his/her research problem. 6. In each posting, a comment or reply to a posting should include the name who is receiving it. This is important to generate a sense of community building by addressing in name those who are involved in the online conversation.