Gall, Gall & Borg Ch. 2: Developing a Research Proposal

A practical guide to proposal writing http://members.dca.net/areid/proposal.htm

Proposal Writing and Research Development http://www.umass.edu/research/ora/dev.html

Proposal Writing Guide http://www.pitt.edu/~offres/proposal/propwriting.html

Beginner's Guide to the Research Proposal http://www.ucalgary.ca/md/CAH/research/res_prop.htm

Annotated Bibliography - Ethics in Educational Research www.aare.edu.au/ethics/aareethc.htm

Ethical issues in research involving human participants www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/cbm/hum_exp.html

Ethical and policy issues in International Research: www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/clinical/Chap1.html

A Guide to Ethical Decision Making for Insider Research www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/lpt/nwpr/309

Thanks Joanna!

I found this article interesting too, although I'm not sure I believe all of it.

Maybe hardly any of it.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

I will give them this much: they have pulled together an impressively long list of articles to support their 'findings'. With that many references, what are the chances anyone's actually going to check up on them?

I have gotten into the habit of digging around a bit when I come across an interesting article (which this certainly is) to try and establish credentials of some sort. I think with the explosion of information available, reputation building takes on a whole new dimension. There are thousands of 'experts' out there - many even have PhD's ('Dr. Laura' has a PhD too, in PhysEd.) - I've met enough of them in my 25 years in academia to know that a PhD is no assurance that the person behind it is actually worth listening to.

While I can sympathize with, and even to some extent agree with the sentiment of the body that published the article, I think it's worthwhile to 'consider the source'. The group that posted this article is an American consumer group - a single moderator who is also the owner and primary author (Stone); it also has no peer-review process.

Even so, it provides for some interesting food for thought. I think this paper is an excellent example of 'bias' and of authors trying to promote an agenda without actually stating it upfront.

My take on this was that Stone and Clemments are trying to make a case for the "back to basics" movement. There are definite negative overtones in their discussion of most of the newer, less prescriptive methods. I think a less biased examination of the literature might show that there have indeed been some significant changes. The testing instruments used have to be different though. It stands to reason that if one were to use fact recall as the basis for an assessment, then memorization, drill, and practice would come out as the methods of choice for achievement. If, on the other hand, we are testing higher-order thinking skills, problem solving strategies, etc. I think there will be a difference.

As to why so little of what we have learned through research has made it into classrooms: while I don't have the answer, I am equally sure that Stone and Clemments don't either.

A related question might be:

How come university teaching has remained virtually unchanged since the invention of the printing press? If you really think about it, most classes in university still use the traditional lecture format and really on, and teach from a (one) book. I was in a curriculum committee meeting recently and suggested to a group of mathematicians that they might consider teaching a particular course *without* a textbook. I suggested that instead they develop their own support materials since they had all been complaining that they could not find a suitable text. I might as well have suggested they eat their first-born children! They simply could not get their heads around the idea that it is possible to teach a course without a course text.

Teachers at all levels lack the necessary support: institutional, financial, temporal, etc. to actually become properly informed about recent advances in knowledge of learning, and to do what is necessary to properly implement and incorporate new knowledge. Diverging from the tell-text-test model takes a great deal of time - especially if we want to provide something approaching authentic, relevant learning.

Personally, I think we are on the edge of some substantial changes. The potential of the internet and the compute power we now have will change the face of learning. That part is already happening. Whether or not it changes education remains to be seen.

This is a wonderful question Afroza!

It's one that can be asked and examined on so many levels.

A different spin on this might be to ask this about our learners. Not that kids in school should be accused of merely taking space: instead we might ask how the system is positioned to assist learners to make, rather than simply take, space.

It was suggested by one of the speakers at the conference I was at recently that the current institution of public education really serves three main purposes within (American) society today:

1. babysitting

2. entrainment to authority

3. the creation of an efficient underclass workforce

Making space isn't in there (it should be). That's kind of dismal, but I fear there is an element of truth in it. I think the situation is different in Canada, but we should be wary of becoming too smug.

I've heard it said by several unrelated sources that about the only thing our school system prepares people for, is more school. People who get top marks in school have successfully demonstrated that they are good at test-taking, but not much else.

As researchers, it is terribly important to remain open to new learning ourselves, and to try and prevent our own biases from colouring our findings. I think it is equally important that we retain that passion we all have for improving the human condition. I would hope that it is one of the main reasons *all* of us are here.

A proposed research studying the effects on present family behavior of Parent-adults that were abused as children, has the purpose to determine specific psychological treatments to heal those older emotional wounds, but can have some psychological damage risk for the new-formed families. Should this study be approved to go ahead?

My first reaction upon reading the question was, I think we need more information.

I would want to know a great many details about the "some psychological damage risk for the new-formed families", before either permitting or repudiating this study.

What kind of damage? Permanent? Treatable?

How big a risk? Stress? Further abuse? Suicide?

Would the danger/damage be likely to affect minors in the family? or just the adult(s) involved?

What kind of new-formed families are we talking about?

Are both adults abuse survivors or just one?

Married < a year?

Children from pervious marriages?

Children from 'new' marriage?

Are there members of the family who have apparently been unaffected by the abuse?

Are we distinguishing between physical and sexual abuse?

This question highlights one of the really messy aspects of research involving people in society: the influence and interactions of both the personal bias and experience of the people conducting the study, and the biases and experiences of the 'subjects' of the study.

I think, like so much else, the answer can only be, "It depends."

One needs to look at what groups are going to be involved (parents; social services; psychologists; etc.). The process required to answer the questions is tricky in and of itself - there are a significant number of people working in the 'helping professions' who are themselves victims of some form of abuse, and only some of them have dealt sufficiently with their own issues to be able to make judgements like those required for the risk assessment on this study.

I for one, would have liked to have seen more detail in the text's section on risk assessment. A page and a bit in a 650-page book is barely enough space to define the term.

For the question at hand, if it could be determined, for example, that the risk to the children of these families is negligible, then some form of informed consent for the adults may be sufficient (pp69-72).

I find it curious that the text does not identify children as generally being a vulnerable population. I would assume that any group under the age of majority should be classified as vulnerable. Any discussions I have had in previous courses have emphasized the uniquely sensitive nature of conducting research that involves children.