What was the experience of doing the shared coding like?
Watching how you processed or worked through the coding
process was very beneficial. It helps to see how others do this. The color-coding
actually makes a lot of sense, so that everyone working on coding for comparison
can see how they ranked or coded that part of the interview. Also deciding as a
group what looking for in the interview, so that you can code for example.
Student paying attention 1/-1, teacher using technology 2/-2, or students
working on projects 3/-3. I realize it’s just going to take a lot of practice
and have to do it in a team to ensure rigor or accuracy.

What did you think of the interviewing example with qualitative using semi-structured interview questions? Would you prefer people do more yes/no type questions to speed things up? What did you like about it?
I feel like I am unlearning everything I learned in undergrad and masters when it comes to data. I am actually learning to adore the semi-structured interview method, mainly because it brings to light things that I might not have thought about. It’s great especially in the formative stages to make sure that you are actually focusing on the right things. I would rather spend an extra 3-4 hours on the front end of a study or research topic finding out what matters. Versus wasting 3-4 months working on it, only to find out there was no need for the study or what I was researching had no value to others. What I work on, I do so to help others and not just get published or for my own self. This method can help ensure I am doing this. The person I did my practice interview with, to be honest I didn’t expect him to have any input on Simulation Based Training to help improve safety in classroom/training experiences. However, he was available, willing to be interviewed, and I know he has high technical background. So I knew I would at least learn how he viewed SBT and/or it’s uses in general for education fields. To my surprise he had an experience and great example of where SBT would have been useful for safety. I never thought of it reference to outdoor sports, only as it applies to industrial settings and skills needed. This brought to my attention that maybe I should interview people from all of the different curriculum areas and not just CTE. They may have some thoughts, examples, problems I can research that I otherwise would have missed just asking CTE teachers or industry folks. Quantitative type questions are faster when it comes to deploying, gathering, and “crunching” the data. After all it’s a one or two, A or B, etc… That’s easier to process and prove connections or patterns for study than interview. Interview requires coding and asking someone else to the same to ensure accuracy in what you have interpreted or gathered from the process. It still has a place in my studies but I find this to be equivalent to using standardized tests to judge if a student has learned something. Something that is a “pet peeve” as an educator. That one tests affects students worth for the whole year and doesn’t take into account any of the other projects they have done, ability to apply or use the knowledge. It’s just 1 or 2 days, judging them for the whole year. If this upsets me so much, why would I do the same to my studies and/or participants. I see the need to use qualitative even more so now and to not just rely on quantitative data. They are both needed and have use in conducting a full study. Sometimes I do just need to report age, area of expertise, pass/fail rates, etc… Then there are times I need to dig deeper and find out what could have caused or why it’s important, needed, how it could be used, etc…
How do you know something you saw or read was true? Validity
of the research?
When I think of how I know something is true or valid, I
first think of to what extent I trust the source it is coming from. There is a
saying that "opinions are like ____ and everyone
has one." When doing research we have to distinguish between opinions and
knowledge, depending on what it is that you are studying that is. This means that I need to carefully
select or write the question, ask the question in the most logical manner
(survey, interview, etc..), and selection of the data source. I would not want
myself to be used as a data source for someone who is studying nutrition and
how to best lose weight in women over 40. Simply because I have not been successful at
that, I can answer my struggles but not on how to do it. Likewise, asking
people about class room management, who have never taught in a classroom
before. You have to get to know the people involved in the research, so that
you will know if they actually have knowledge of how to do what you are
studying. Now if you are studying how it has affected or influenced them versus
actually working, then yes you would ask anyone. Your questions and direction
of your research is going to drive how you check and/or do your best to ensure
validity of your work.
My research area of interest is simulation-based training(SBT)
and how it can be used to help teach/train
in concepts that are dangerous and/or not financially responsible to offer to
those new to it. So that we can ultimately increase safety and production in
the real world work force. When I ask what his or her feelings or thoughts are
about the potential use of SBT, then this is open to anyone who has taught or
trained. However, if I want to find out how well SBT actually works to teach, I
need to work with those who have successfully taught or completed the SBT
learning. If they have never incorporated or used SBT, they cannot tell me how
it worked, did it work, would they change anything, etc… To make sure I am
doing my due diligence and practicing rigor, I need to ask people who have
experience in SBT at varying grade levels and/or subjects. Obviously, there
could be skewed data if I just asked computer science majors versus elementary
social science. I have to be aware of where my data could be skewed or where I
need to increase or ensure rigor has been practiced, BEFORE someone else points
it out to me. Otherwise, why would they continue to read my research or believe
any of my findings?
For me rigor comes from knowing up front any strengths or
weaknesses that your study could have and finding balance between both. Truthfulness
comes from asking people who have experience and not just an opinion about the
question. Validity comes from using the
best method to seek the data or questions. None of this can be completed
affectively in a bubble or on your own, peer review and assistance is a must.
Just like we can catch simple spelling or grammar mistakes for others, others
can see where we might be too focused on what we think the research will be
versus what it actually needs to be.
Blog #5: Qualitative
Topics of Inquiry for Simulation Based Training (SBT)
Topic #1: Can SBT be used to affectively meet the four main areas of need for a constructivist learning environment?
• Community Centered
Small classroom
Large real world industry, school, etc…
• Learner Centered
What do they bring to the educational experience, not the teacher
• Knowledge Centered
More the big ideas and not just details or skills
Concentrate learning process, development of knowledge in ways that they can use it, and authentic problem solving or real world problems
• Assessment Centered.
Formative – meaningful feedback that is ongoing through the whole process; part of reflection & internalizing of the knowledge; self-assessment process
Summative – comes at the end or conclusion, the grade, yes/no student is ready to move onto next level
Perhaps an argument as to why the constructivist learning method is required first, but the inquiry based process that this method utilizes usually requires no convincing. People all agree that yes you learn by doing. So the question then becomes can SBT be used to provide that learn by doing? Does it provide for building of community? Is it really centered on what the student brings to the experience and how to best provide them with more knowledge or skills? Does it just focus on made up problem or real world scenario that students can understand? Is the student done when they pass a certain level or test, or does it keep evolving to meet even greater needs?
Potential References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., National Research Council, National Research Council, & National Research Council. (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Constructivist learning environments. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://leocontent.acu.edu.au/file/ad4c28f6-329b-41fa-a625-bb4dccb18a26/1/html/ped_1_20.html
Topic #2: Do the teachers/students feel that SBT could train as well or better than traditional methods?
• More comfortable because they know that a mistake doesn’t equal real world injury?
• If they do make a mistake, can they learn from it quickly?
Than waiting for let’s say summative test score?
They can try again and again until they get it right?
• Allow more time practice due to limited:
Equipment, Supplies, Lab, Teacher
• Is there still a need or want for the instructor to be there and guide the process?
• Is there still need for learning expectations to be given before start of training or allow the students to set these goals?
This question can apply to teachers, students, administrators, parents, legislators, etc… Do we feel that SBT can do as good job or perhaps better that traditional classroom methods? Do we feel safer because no real world injury will happen? Is feedback quicker? Can student reflect and learn faster? Does it make up for lack of equipment, supplies, labs, teachers? Do you still want the teacher present? Do you still want the learning expectations clearly outlined? All of these need to be followed with the caveat questions of why they feel this way.
Potential References
Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). Instructors' Intended Learning Outcomes for Using Computational Simulations as Learning Tools. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 220-243. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00049.x
Topic #3: What about SBT excites/concerns teachers/students?
• Does it affect student confidence in what they learned?
• Does it affect student satisfaction in what they learned?
• Does it affect motivation to learn?
• Do they feel that SBT is user friendly or have anxiety about it?
• Do they feel that SBT skills really transfer to real world or work place?
• Worried will lose job or not be hired because used SBT?
This question can apply to teachers, students, administrators, parents, legislators, etc… What excites or concerns them about the use of SBT? Do they have confidence in what they learn via SBT? Are the satisfied? Do they want to learn more? Does SBT cause any anxiety? Will the skills really transfer to the real world and equal employment or in teachers case loss of employment? All of these need to be followed with the caveat questions of why they feel this way.
Potential References
Murray, C., Grant, M. J., Howarth, M. L., & Leigh, J. (2008). The use of simulation as a teaching and learning approach to support practice learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(1), 5-8. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2007.08.001