Assignment #1: Overview, Exemplars of Student Work and a Brief Example of How to Identify the Theoretical Framework
Brief Overview (This may take a while to load in your browser window.)
Exempless
Finding the Theoretical Framework
First and most basic, the theoretical framework is NOT the purpose of the study. When the 'purpose' is stated, this is generally a short statement about what the study is trying to investigate. The Framework or assumptions is/are the 'thing' that guides the researcher(s) questions and design of the study. In the Lindner et al. study, the authors were very explicit about this and even very nicely labeled a section of their report 'Theoretical Framework". They say that their study is based on the notion that readers use 'a schema building strategy" during the reading process. (Thanks Lindner et al.!!!)
Unfortunately, many times authors DO NOT explicitly state their theoretical framework or assumptions. Thus, your task shifts a bit to reading between the lines to figure this out. Nonetheless it is important to understand the author(s) underlying viewpoint since that has implications for the analysis and conclusions that the author(s) make. Alas, sometimes it is almost impossible to identify the author(s) framework and assumptions. That suggests that either the author isn't clear or hasn't really thought the implications of his/her own potential research biases.
Below is an excerpt from a study that has an explicit purpose but implicit theoretical framework. I have tried to highlight phrases that give a hint of the authors' framework and assumptions. See if you can glean the glean a theoretical framework before you read what I've taken from this paragraph.
Excerpt from:
Ridgway, A.; Northup, J., Pellegrin, A., LaRue, R., & Hightsoe, A. (2003). Effects of recess on the classroom behavior of children with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 18 (3), 253-268.
In the abstract the authors state:
"The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a traditional recess on the subsequent classroom behavior of children with a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit Hyper- activity Disorder (ADHD)."
Here is a paragraph on page 2 of the article:
"Despite the historical pervasiveness of recess in the schools, there have been relatively few empirical studies of its effects. However, in general, current research does suggest a number of consistent findings for typically developing children. First, it has been demonstrated consistently by directly observing b havior that children become less attentive as a function of time of classroom confinement (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini, Huberty, & Jones, 1995). Second, it has also been shown that children are more active physically and socially for a longer period of time during recess after a longer period of confinement, as compared with a shorter period of confinement (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Third, boys have been found to be more active physically both on the playground and in the classroom than girls (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Fourth, Pellegrini et al. (1995) found that children are more active socially and physically during recess as a function of age. Fifth, Pellegrini et al. (1995) also found that postrecess attention improved, regardless of the amount of physical activity or social interaction the children displayed during recess. Finally, it has been consistently found that children focus more and fidget less when they had recess, compared with when they did not have recess, and that children are more focused after recess, compared with immediately before recess (Jarrett et al., 1998; Pellegrini et al., 1995)."
Below, I have underlined what I think are the key phases related to the theoretical framework:
"Despite the historical pervasiveness of recess in the schools, there have been relatively few empirical studies of its effects. However, in general, current research does suggest a number of consistent findings for typically developing children. First, it has been demonstrated consistently by directly observing behavior that children become less attentive as a function of time of classroom confinement (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini, Huberty, & Jones, 1995). Second, it has also been shown that children are more active physically and socially for a longer period of time during recess after a longer period of confinement, as compared with a shorter period of confinement (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Third, boys have been found to be more active physically both on the playground and in the classroom than girls (Pellegrini & Davis, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Fourth, Pellegrini et al. (1995) found that children are more active socially and physically during recess as a function of age. Fifth, Pellegrini et al. (1995) also found that postrecess attention improved, regardless of the amount of physical activity or social interaction the children displayed during recess. Finally, it has been consistently found that children focus more and fidget less when they had recess, compared with when they did not have recess, and that children are more focused after recess, compared with immediately before recess (Jarrett et al., 1998; Pellegrini et al., 1995)."
Before you read what I wrote, what do you glean from this?
So, based on what I have underlined, my assumption is that the authors' framework is that there is an important and intimate reciprocal relationship between physical activity and sustained, focused mental activity. Perhaps you see something else in this paragraph but the key point that I want to highlight is that this paragraph is not the same as the purpose of the study and in subtle ways it guided the design of the study and the interpretation of the results.
Sample: Assignment #1 – Key Components from Research Articles -
Name: Student #1. (used with permission)
Topic Area of Interest: LMS Scheduling Arrangements and Effect on Student Achievement
|
Article |
Citation |
Guiding Theory/Rationale and Hypothesis / Research Questions |
Sample |
|
#1 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
#2 |
Donham van Deusen, J. & Tallman, J.I. (1994). The Impact of Scheduling on Curriculum Consultation and Information Skills Instruction: Part One, The 1993-94 AASL/Highsmith Research Award Study. School Library Media Quarterly, 23(1), 17-25. |
Should elementary school students visit the library weekly on a fixed schedule as part of their class or on a flexible basis when information needs require instruction and /or resources?
Research Questions for Consultation Role: 1) Do library media specialists on a flexible schedule do more consultations than specialists who work on a fixed schedule? 2) Does the instructional planning culture affect the number of consults? 3) What is the relationship between the number of information skills lessons taught for curriculum topics and schedule type? 4) Do library media teachers on a flexible schedules participate in more student assessments as compared to fixed schedules? |
The sample included 379 library media specialists from elementary schools that included at least three grade levels, one of which had to be third or fourth grade. |
|
#3 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
Comparison
among all 3 articles (similarities & differences)
|
Not Applicable |
Study #1 and #2 were similar in that they focused on library media specialists’ interaction with classroom curriculum and skills instruction as a function of schedule type. In Study #1 this interaction was called “curriculum involvement” and “skills integration” whereas in Study #2 it was called respectively “curriculum consultation” and “information skills instruction.”
Study #2’s focus went beyond that of Study #1 in that it also considered specialists’ role in student assessment as a function of schedule type.
Study #3 differed in that it concentrated on schedule type as a function of specifically one aspect of a media program, library circulation. |
All the studies’ samples were of elementary school library media specialists.
The sample sizes for Study #1 (61) and Study #3 (88) were considerably smaller than that of the Study #2 (379).
Study #1 and Study #2 also included the responses of grade level teachers, specifically fifth grade teachers for Study #1 and third or fourth teachers for Study #2. Study #2 did not specify location of the respondents whereas the locations were stated for Study #1 (Iowa) and Study #2 (Virginia and North Carolina).
Study #3 mentioned made a disclaimer that the study was partially funded by professional organizations to which some of the participants could be members. |
|
Article |
Instruments |
Procedures |
Analysis |
|
#1 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
#2
|
Library school media specialists filled out a paper questionnaire with inquiries on the names of instructional units for which they were in the role of either consultant or instructor. Participants had to answer for each unit what types of curriculum consultation tasks they completed. These task options for each unit included: - Gathering resources (Gather) - Working with teacher to come up with objectives (Identify) - Working with teacher designing lessons (Plan) - Co-teaching the unit (Teach) - Working with classroom teacher to evaluate the unit (Evaluate)
They had to answer a sixth item which questioned whether they taught any information skills lessons applicable to the unit (Skills).
Other questions focused on the planning culture of the school, specifically principal expectations for collaborative planning (Expectation) and time for meeting with teachers in a team, individually, or not at all (Meet). |
The participants responded to the survey over six weeks between October 4 and November 12, 1993. A glossary sheet of the survey terms were included with the survey. |
Statistical ANOVA tests were used to analyze the five curriculum consultation variable for three schedule groups - fixed, flexible, and mixed. |
|
#3 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
Comparison
among all 4 articles (similarities & differences)
|
All three studies involved questionnaire or survey type instruments. The surveys for Study #1 and Study #2 were provided on print paper while the survey for Study #3 was a digital / online survey. More demographic data was requested in Study #3 as compared to Study #1 and Study #2. Ensuring validity and reliability of the questions was considered for Study #3; there was no mention of this for Study #1 or Study #2. |
The data for Study #3 was collected online using software whereas the data for Study #1 and Study #2 was recorded manually and collected by hand. Activities over a six-week time period were of interest for Study #1 and Study #2. In Study #3, the length of time for the circulation statistics was over an academic year. |
All three studies involved statistical analysis.
In Study #1, descriptive statistics in the form of t-test and level of significance (p) were calculated as only two groups were involved - fixed and flexible schedules. Matrices were used to determine interactions of variables.
In Study #2, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was done as three groups were studied - fixed, flexible, and mixed schedules. In Study #3, ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) was conducted. |
|
Article |
Results |
Conclusions & Next Steps |
Limitations – as cited by the author(s) |
|
#1 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
#2
|
All five consultation variables were significantly greater for flexible and mixed scheduled libraries than for those with a fixed schedule.
For fixed schedules, the medians for curriculum consultation occurrences for all variables other than Gather was zero. Many specialists on fixed schedule did not perform consultation tasks at all.
There was a significant difference in the Expectation variable (principal expects team planning versus not expecting team planning) for the five consultation variables. The five variables were significantly higher when principals expected team planning.
Library specialists who met with teachers in teams had higher occurrences of the five consultations variables as compared respectively to those who had met individually with teachers and much more than those who did not meet with teachers at all.
Library media specialists with mixed schedules taught more information skills lessons for classroom units as compared to those with fixed or flexible schedules.
There was a significant difference for the information skills (Skills) variable and the planning variable (Meet) between those library specialists who met with teachers in teams or individually as compared to those who did not meet at all with teachers.
There were classroom unit with information skills lessons when principals expected collaboration.
There were more occurrences of assessing student work for the flexible group as compared to the fixed group, but more than 50% of the respondents regardless of schedule type assessed any student work in the six-week period.
Specialists assessed more when principals expected collaboration regardless of schedule type. |
Using a flexible schedule assists in increasing specialists’ curriculum consultations and student assessments.
A mixed schedule may be a good alternative if unable to go to a full flexible schedule.
Principals must make their expectations known for the library media specialist roles / program.
It is important for principals to make their expectations known. The greatest consultation occurrences resulted when their were principal expectations for collaboration in flexible schedule situations.
Best case scenario for consultations to occur was when there were flexible scheduling and a planning culture where specialists and teachers met as a team.
Library media specialists need to be more part of the instructional planning process, meeting with teachers across the curriculum so as to be able to integrate information skills instruction with classroom units.
A collaborative culture helps with specialists with participation in student assessment.
A further study area includes looking at whether traditional expectation are held in schools with fixed schedules and inhibit library media specialists from consulting.
A second area for further study is qualitative research to find out what are the obstacles in a fixed schedule environment to collaboration between teachers and specialists. Teachers expectations of the specialists and the specialists’ vision for programming are suggested factors for research. A third area for further research is looking at the meetings between teams of teachers and specialists and seeing how the outcomes influences the work of the specialist.
|
No limitations were stated. Author did not explicitly state that the conclusions could apply to the overall elementary school library media specialist population. |
|
#3 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
Comparison
among all 4 articles (similarities & differences)
|
In all three studies, Study #1, Study #2, and Study #3, more positive relationships were determined with flexible schedules as compared to fixed schedules. In Study #1 and Study #2, there were more occurrences of curriculum involvement (Study #1) or consultations (Study #2) with flexible schedules as opposed to with fixed schedules. In Study #3, a flexible schedule correlated with more circulations per student as compared to fixed schedule.
In Study #1, the only significant difference was found with just one of the five variables, Evaluate, whereas in Study #2, a significant increase was determined for all five of its variables (Gather, Identify, Plan, Teach, Evaluate).
In Study #1, significant difference was found with the other involvement variables (Gather, Plan, Identify, Teach) with a flexible schedule team and team planning was part of the school culture. |
In Study #1, Study #2, and Study #3, flexible schedules are a part of improved performance of media programs.
As shown in both Study #1 and Study #2, flexible scheduling influences curriculum involvement / consultations. Study #1 concludes that team planning in combination with flexible scheduling contribute positively to curriculum involvement. Study #2 makes the additional conclusion that specialists get more involved in student assessment and skills instruction with flexible scheduling and having principal expectations for collaboration.
In all three studies, additional research is recommended by the authors to verify results.
In all three studies, further research is recommended, though the suggested areas of study are different. In Study #1, the author recommends looking at what are the principal expectations in fixed schedule programs. In Study #2 the authors recommend further study to find out the obstacles in fixed schedule environments to collaboration between specialists and teachers.
In Study #1 and Study #3, authors recommended further studies to look at the relationship between schedule type and student achievement.
|
Limitations were stated explicitly Study #1 and Study #3 but not in Study #2. The authors of Study #2 implied some limitations through their suggestion for future study of whether school on fixed schedules hold traditional expectations for their programs and not encourage their specialists to make curriculum consultations.
With the limited sample sizes of Study #1 and Study #3, the results cannot be generalized to the overall elementary school library media specialist population.
Limitations include not addressing student achievement with respect to library skills in Study #1 or with respect to circulations per pupil in Study #3. An additional limitation of #3 was that there are other factors that may affect library circulation (collection quality, reading incentive programs, etc.) but were not considered in this research.
|
|
Article |
Original Research? |
Peer Reviewed |
Is Discussion based on results? Explain |
|
#1 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
#2
|
Yes |
No |
Yes, the discussion is based on the results, though the discussion was integrated into the Results section. The authors explained how some of the results agreed or differed with previous research. The authors provided insights and reasons in attempt to explain the results. |
|
#3 |
Not shown |
Not shown |
Not shown |
|
Comparison
among all 4 articles (similarities & differences)
|
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
In all three studies, the discussions are based on the results. In Study #1 and Study #2, the authors attempted to provide reasons and insights for why the specific results came to be. In Study #3 however, instead of discussion of how the results may have come to be, the authors explained how the results support initiatives and best practice scenarios. |
My Potential Topic of Study -- LMS Scheduling Arrangements and Effect on Student Achievement
|
Article |
Usefulness to Your Own Research |
|
#1 |
Not shown |
|
#2 |
Similarly to Study #1, this study provides sampling criteria for my study, specifically limiting the participants to a specific grade level or small range of grade. This study also provided me with insights on how to categorize different tasks or dependent variables under study and to also consider expectations and whether participants talk or meet with others one on one or in a team setting or not at all. |
|
#3 |
Not shown |
|
Comparison among all 3 articles (Similarities and Differences) |
All three articles provide me with methodology examples that I can implement in my own research. Study #1 and #2 gave me insights on how I can limit my target sample population with setting up criteria while Study #2 demonstrated to me that I must consider expectations and how participants communicate with each other. Study #3 supported my idea to use an online survey. The studies all mentioned repeatability as areas of future study. I must make sure that my research is designed in such a way that it can be repeatable by others and thus be able to be used to verify results. |
____________________________________________________________________________________
An example of how to write a narrative abstract from University of California - Berkley
http://hsp.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/HOW%20TO%20WRITE%20AN%20ABSTRACT.pdf