To Do, 10.22 • POR Verification sheet, up front • Turn in chapter 6 quiz, folder up front • Chapter 5 assessment “in class” PPT “drill” • In-class: a couple final examples from chapter 5 (20’ish minutes) • In-class: Discuss 6, Rhetorical Analysis • Pull out Hussein article and Hearst article from POR (we’ll use them to illustrate key concepts this week) (Two questions: What “texts” or “artifacts” were studied? What rhetorical theory/framework?) • Blackboard Discussion – check folders • Mid-term review, see checklist posted in Blackboard and sent via email on Friday. Exam passed out after class on Wed, returned on Friday. • Mid-term grades submitted Tuesday. Note: for upperclassmen, a mid-term is submitted only if you are below a C. Thus, if you see no grade for COM 300, then you are earning a C or higher. If you want to know how much higher, look in the gradebook and/or see me. My mid-term calculation does not include your Blackboard participation grade. That will be send separately as the checklist indicates. • Refer to our week 7 checklist in Blackboard for additional items. • Note: all PPTs posted on my website, chapters 1-5 (for mid-term)
48
Embed
To Do, 10.22 POR Verification sheet, up front Turn in chapter 6 quiz, folder up front Chapter 5 assessment “in class” PPT “drill” In-class: a couple final.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
To Do, 10.22• POR Verification sheet, up front
• Turn in chapter 6 quiz, folder up front
• Chapter 5 assessment “in class” PPT “drill”
• In-class: a couple final examples from chapter 5 (20’ish minutes)
• In-class: Discuss 6, Rhetorical Analysis
• Pull out Hussein article and Hearst article from POR (we’ll use them to illustrate key concepts this week) (Two questions: What “texts” or “artifacts” were studied? What rhetorical theory/framework?)
• Blackboard Discussion – check folders
• Mid-term review, see checklist posted in Blackboard and sent via email on Friday. Exam passed out after class on Wed, returned on Friday.
• Mid-term grades submitted Tuesday. Note: for upperclassmen, a mid-term is submitted only if you are below a C. Thus, if you see no grade for COM 300, then you are earning a C or higher. If you want to know how much higher, look in the gradebook and/or see me. My mid-term calculation does not include your Blackboard participation grade. That will be send separately as the checklist indicates.
• Refer to our week 7 checklist in Blackboard for additional items.
• Note: all PPTs posted on my website, chapters 1-5 (for mid-term)
Chapter 5 – Writing Research
Your RQ or H
Mmm. . .
“I wonder”
Literature Review
Defined your terms
How do I organizeorganize my
literature review in a
way that justifiesjustifies my RQ or H?
Organizational Patterns1. Known to Unknown2. Deductive3. Problem-Solution4. Chronological5. Inductive6. Topical
Justifications
1. Filling a gap2. Extending 3. Practical Needs
How do I then, after I organize my literature and justify my RQ or H, do I present my findings to the public?
1. Introduction2. Literature Review3. Method section4. Results5. Discussion6. References
Assessment
Question: If you want to find out who the subjects were in a study and how they were “sampled”, in which section of the article should you look?
Answer: Method section
Assessment
Question: If you want to know which tool from the research toolbelt was used to answer the research question or hypothesis, where would you look?
Answer: Method section
Assessment
Question: This section includes important details that will help me to find articles the researcher used to make her argument in support of the RQ or H?
Answer: Reference section
Assessment
Question: If you want to get a quick idea about the author’s justification, in which section would you look?
Answer: Introduction (possibly lit review)
Assessment
Question: I want to understand better the significance of the researcher’s findings in relation to the field at large. In which section would you tell me to look?
Answer: Discussion section
Assessment
Question: If you want to find out how the dependent variables were operationalized, in which section might you look?
Answer: Method section
Assessment
Question: It is not uncommon to see these two sections combined into a single section?
Answer: 1) Introduction and Literature Review; 2) Results and Discussion
Question: I want to know the step-by-step procedures the researchers used to investigate their RQ or H. Where do I look?
Answer: Method section
Assessment
Question: If you want to find a formal statement of the RQ or Hs, in which section(s) might you look?
Answer: Maybe Introduction, most likely Literature Review (or a separate section titled Problem Statement)
Assessment
Question: If you want an interpretation of the author’s findings, in which section might you look?
Answer: Discussion section
Assessment
Question: You need to know what specific data analysis was conducted on data collected. Where do you look?
Answer: end of method section, and/or results
Assessment
Question: You need an idea for future research. Where do you look?
Answer: Discussion section
Assessment
Question: You want to find a summary report of the author’s observations as they relate to a particular H or RQ. . . Where do you look?
Answer: Results section
Assessment
Question: I want to replicate a study – which section will I spend most of my time on after I figure out the H or RQ?
Answer: Method section
Assessment
Question: I want to know how the key variables in the RQ or H were conceptually defined… where would you tell me to look?
Answer: Introduction and literature review
Assessment
Question: If I don’t find a formal statement of the research question by the time I reach this section, I should go back to the beginning and try again.
Answer: Method section
p. 175
Deductive The contingency theory of leadership indicates that the context in which a leader operates is a significant factor that influences what is considered “effective leadership” (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Fielder; Brilhart; Hicks, 1990; Stogdill, 1974; Bass, 1981). The educational setting is a popular context investigated by researchers (Smith, 1978, Jones, 1983). Generally, however, early research into the educational context identified specific traits that were necessary for effective leadership typical of traditional male (Smelnof, 1969; Holmes, 1971). It was not until the 1970s, after the passage of equal opportunity legislation, that women leaders were seen as their own unique subset of the leadership literature, i.e., gender differences began to be recognized (Moore, 1999). Several recent doctoral dissertations suggest that women lead differently and define leadership differently depending on the specific position held. One area that may highlight feminine leadership traits is student services and life (Meister, 1991; Davis, 1996; Sperling, 1994). . .
Characteristics of effective student affairs leaders who are women?
Higher Education
Women & Leadership Effectiveness
Known to Unknown• In short, while a substantial body of literature has investigated possible gender
differences in computer use (Spotts, 2000; Brown, 2001), and attitudes toward computers (Bowman, 2003, Mertz, 2003), only a few have addressed potential gender differences related to attitudes toward instructional technology in higher education (Spotts, 2001; Lyman, 2002). Several studies have explored teaching style differences between men and women, including communication patterns within the classroom. For instance, men use the lecture method ("sage on the stage") more often than women, whereas women feel more committed to the participatory or collaborative method ("guide on the side") (Endres & Schierhorn, 1992; McDowell, 1993; Lacey, Saleh, & Gorman, 1998). In light of these and other such differences, it has been suggested that women may be more open to various constructivist teaching styles that dominate online delivery approaches where facilitation, collaboration, egalitarianism and high interactivity are emphasized (Kearsley, Lynch, & Wizer, 1994; Stanley-Spaeth, 2000). Pedagogical differences identified in the traditional setting may further translate into different uses of and attitudes toward technology-mediated instructional enhancement (Robin & Harris, 1998; Ausburn, 2004). The present study isolates gender differences in faculty use and perceptions of Blackboard as a supplement within the traditional classroom environment.
Mapping Known to Unknown
Gender Differences
in Teaching
Gender Differences in CMC attitudes & Preferences
Gender Differences in
Use & Perception of
CMC in Classroom
Mapping Known to Unknown
Gender Differences
in Teaching
Gender Differences in CMC Attitudes & Preferences
Gender Differences
in Use & Perception of CMC in Classroom
Topical Vs. Inductive
• (topicaltopical) Some scholars who study online community focus on several areas. Some study the effects of community on affective learning (Jones, 1999; Smith, 2001) whereas other focus on cognitive learning (McKeane, 2002: Overton; 2002; Baines, 2003). Still others have examined “best practices” for constructing a classroom community so that cognitive and affective learning outcomes might be achieved (Smythe & Barney, 1999, Ebersole, 2000).
• (inductiveinductive) Compare that to this: Fostering community will increase students' affective and cognitive learning. Research demonstrates that immediacy or pro-social behaviors positively correlate with affective learning (McDowell, McDowell & Hyerdahl, 1980; Anderson, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986). Others have found that students who report higher levels of community in the classroom report greater levels of cognitive learning (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Gorham, 1988). . . .
Examples
• PSC article
• PSC religious
Mapping Topical - PSC
neighborhoods
cities
blockassociations
community houses
workplace
high schools
universitydorms
congregations
College campuses
What predicts PSC?
Outcomes
PSC
Research QuestionHypotheses
A WORKING MODEL OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
Narrow focus
Identify topic
STEP 1:CONCEPTUALIZATION
Review of Literature
STEP 2: PLANNING & DESIGNING
Which Method?
STEP 4: ANALYZE& INTERPRET DATA
Report / Write STEP 5:RECONCEPTUALIZATION
STEP 3: SELECTING AMETHODOLOGY
OperationalizatonMeasurementTechniques
Define Key Concepts
The Research Toolbelt
The Research Toolbelt
• BIG QUESTIONS
• 1) What tools are in the toolbelt?
• 2) Which tool do you select?
“Big Ideas” – Chapter 6
• Define and identify “texts” and “rhetorical artifacts”• Understand and explain “rhetorical grids,” or “lenses,” or
“frameworks” for analyzing texts, and how to identify them in research articles
• Distinguish “working hypotheses” from other kinds of hypotheses in quantitative research
• Distinguish rhetorical-textual analysis from quantitative content analysis
• Understand and explain the basic steps involved in rhetorical-textual analysis
• Identify when to pull the rhetorical-textual research tool out of your research toolbelt (that is, know which type of questions should be addressed with this method?)
As a result of your readings and our class discussion this weekyou should be able to:
Types of Qualitative Analyses
TEXTSTranscriptsTranscriptsOutputsOutputs
SpokenWrittenElectronicVisualDocuments
Historical-criticalHistorical-critical (type of textual analysis) (type of textual analysis)
To Do, 10.25• Dr. Patton is on his way, in the meantime . . .
• Note: Mid-term handed out at end of class – DUE – Friday, see syllabus for time and location of submission. No late exams will be accepted. I’m leaving at 5:01 on Friday.
• Pull out Dr. Patton’s paper; pull out Hussein article and Hearst article from POR (we’ll use them to illustrate key concepts this week).
• COM CON ON FRIDAY – see syllabus for details
• Pick up chapter 6 quiz after class, plus abstract re-do’s or fixes
• Extra credit option: if you approached me about the EC, you are on my list. I’ll send you an email with specific instructions (I expect this email to go out this week). You’ll have about 1 week to complete the EC. The EC involves conducting 20 survey interviews with SAU students.
• Reminder: 1 Qualitative Abstract for chapter 6, 2 Bib cards due Friday? No, Monday. Three separate articles, total, each dealing with the method in chapter 6
– NOTE: students lose points on this next abstract assignment because they don’t: 1) select 3 different articles, and 2) don’t select the methodology described in chapter 6 (rhetorical/textual analysis). If you need to go outside your group topic area to find an article that clearly uses this methodology, please do so.