Review #2Data CodingReview #2 page 1 Kevin D. McMahonStudent ID#: 78513SED 600March 8, 2007Review #2Data CodingThe ActivityOn Wednesday, March 7, the class was given an activity to code data from a survey conducted by Dr. Foley. The survey was taken by elementary school student teachers. Our group (Linda, John, and myself) was asked to code the student teachers’ responses to three questions pertaining to a scenario in which an elementary school student, Stephen, did not understand the process of desalination. The questions asked the teacher (1) what the student did not know, (2) how they knew that the student did not know, and (3) what intervention could be undertaken to promote student understanding. We were asked to examine the data (student-teacher responses) with the intent of identifying categories/domains. We were then to define a coding scheme, try it, refine it, and then do the full coding.When I began the activity I found that I tried to analyze the student-teacher response. It took some effort to shift from this perspective to one of simply categorizingReview #2 page 2 the response. In discussing this process with the other members of my group they all expressed having gone through a similar process within their own thinking. Once we got on the same “cognitive page” we began discussing the responses looking for patterns. After about ten minutes we initially agreed on four categories into which student-teacher responses could be grouped:A. Reference to the Scientific Method. (ex: Stephen doesn’t understand need to do Experiment)B. Repeats question without elaboration. (ex: Stephen believes salt evaporates)C. True but not relevant. (ex: salt is hydrophilic)D. No response. (ex: answer box left blank)Once we agreed on these four categories we divided the surveys between us and began theprocess of data coding. After a few minutes it became apparent that we needed to “fine tune” our coding scheme by adding two additional categories:E. Teacher accurately assesses student knowledge. (ex: Stephen does not under- stand that salt does not evaporate with water.)F. Reference to pedagogy. (ex: Draw illustrations to help Stephen understand the process of evaporation).We re-evaluated the surveys we had completed and then continued the coding activity without further adjustment to our coding scheme.Review #2 page 3 ReflectionI found this activity to be valuable because it provided the opportunity to experience a shift in “cognitive perspective.” By this I mean that science teachers are used to working with “quantitative data” and that teachers, in general, spend much of our time comparing responses to an expected result. The consequence is that we see our task as one directed towards “accuracy.” This activity, on the other hand, demanded that we “simply” categorize. Here our goal was not to assess the “accuracy” of the student-teacher responses, rather it was to precisely categorize these responses without valuation. It took about five to ten minutes for this cognitive shift to occur; during this time we all expressed a level of confusion about the activity. Eventually, however, class discussions and readings from Active Research began to filter into our thinking until each of us eventually had our metacognitive “Ah-ha.” The activity also provided us with real world data in which to experience the process by which categories are developed. Additionally, we quickly discovered the valueof collaboration in the development of categories and coding. The fact that we agreed on categories was evidence that precision is achievable with qualitative research. Finally, working with qualitative data has made me consider, in a very practical manner, the type of data I might be collecting in an Active Research project.Review #2 page 4 ApplicationAn Action Research project I am considering involves students’ understanding andattitudes regarding the nature of science in the larger context of ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Although my thoughts on this are still somewhat embryonic I envision the project starting with a survey/assessment which will likely incorporate both closed-response and open-ended questions the latter requiring data coding such as we experienced in this activity (Johnson, 2008, p.94-95). I will then introduce, as a daily warm-up activity, simplified instruction in philosophy using a model I developed when I taught a philosophy class a couple of years ago (I briefly described this model in last semester’s Issue Paper and is also available on my website). After about a month of philosophy warm-ups and chemistry instruction I will begin my unit on the atom. The unit will begin with a pre-test based on State Content standards for the topic. Throughoutthis unit I will incorporate a historical approach to examine areas where science and philosophy interface such as (1) the Democritus versus Aristotle debate (ontology: materialism versus metaphysics), (2) the development of the Periodic Table and early twentieth century of models of the atom (epistemology: predictability and criteria of truth), and (3) the atomic scientists Bohr, Heisenberg, and Oppenheimer and their role in society (ethics: is the virtue of the scientists independent of their science?, etc.).Review #2 page 5 How these topics are covered will determine the type of data I will collect. I anticipate that I will be maintaining a journal into which I will record my thoughts duringthe process as well as my classroom observations. I anticipate video taping one or more activities which will require some form of coding scheme (Johnson, 2008, p.90-91). I also expect that there will be student projects that will be evaluated. At the end of the unit the students will take the content standards pre-test as a post-test. Also, the students will complete the initial assessment/survey that they took at the beginning of the project. Additional questions may be added asking them about what they thought about the process and if they thought what they learned regarding the science/philosophy interface was valuable. Since I teach two periods of honors chemistry, I may include a control group of one of the honors classes. Whether I have a control group or not I suspect that the project will give me ample data (pre & post-tests/surveys, journals, video, student projects) to triangulate my results (Johnson, 2008, p.101-102). References: