NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/bit/listserv/qualrsl/2024

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 3.3 KB | 78 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SFU.CA!MICHAEL_ROTH
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:08:06 -0800
Sender:       Qualitative Research for the Human Sciences <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      student views
Comments: To: [e-mail]
Lines: 65

I was wondering if anyone has some idea how to deal with the following
situation concerning the revision of a manuscript:

The context:
I recently completed a project in which I had selected 43 student
statements from various essays/reflections & interviews about a
teaching-learning strategy (concept mapping) and put them together to see
to what degree the students from 3 sections of high school physics
agreed/disagreed (5 point scale SA, A, N, D, SD).  My research
constructions including the "questionnaire" was submitted to about 25% of
the students (reflecting a cross-section in terms of gender, academic
achievement, and agreement/disagreement with teaching learning strategy)
for a critical review (something like a member check).  I used the written
feedback and debriefed all students in audio-taped sessions to modify the
manuscript.

The problem:
The editor of the journal to which I submitted the manuscript asked me to
attend to the following criticisms:
Reviewer 1: All except one of the statements are written in a positive
manner that may tend to bias students toward positive views of concept
mapping.  This structure makes me doubt the validity of the instrument. (In
the remainder of his/her critique, the reviewer asked for quantitative
rather than qualitative work).
Reviewer 2: A methodological concern has to do with the positive phrasing
of all statements in the survey.  My concern was heightened when looking at
the items 2 and 3 on p. 45.  On item 2 (expressed negatively), 51% agreed
with the statement and 38% disagreed.  On item 3 (phrased positively) 51%
also agreed and 29% disagreed.  Thus, two items aske close to the same
thing both get 51% agreement (I don't learn from reflection vs. It helps me
to think about my own learning).  This is problematic.  However in the view
of other data (e.g. member check), one has some more confidence in the
interpretation.  I think though that there need to be some acknowledgement
of the pootential weakness of phrasing all problems in the same
direction there is a high likelyhood of a response set being created.

The question:
I had intended the procedure as a part of my member checking (in
conjunction with debriefing and critique by 25% of the students).  I
explicitly used student statements in the exact phrasing rather than
changing them into my own preferred form.  How can I react to the
reviewers' concerns?

Thanks for any feedback.

Michael

PS: Please send responses to me privately.  If anyone is interested, I
would send out a summary of the responses, unless this is an interesting
problem for a number of people so that the discussion should be made
public.




Wolff-Michael Roth, Ph.D.
Wendy MacDonald Research Fellow
Research Methods & Science Education

Faculty of Education
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada  V5A 1S6
Tel:       [phone]
FAX:      [phone]
internet: [e-mail]