Marcia's Partial Self - Review

Marcia M. Pearce
April 27, 2010
Partial Self-Review

Growth as a Researcher (10)
I learned that I can be a teacher and a researcher at the same time. Creswell (2008) states that in order to develop as a researcher there is a code of ethics one must never compromise: do no harm and the participant should know what is going on in the form of a written consent letter. At no time should a study jeopardize the health or well-being of the participant. In the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, black men were told they were receiving treatment when they actually weren’t. These participants were lied to, in the name of research, by the medical community. The do no harm and tell your participants the truth principals were clearly absent. Writing IRB (even just for practice) proved to be helpful: getting that promise for the university, school, and parents, along with consent forms, will ensure the safety of the participants. As a researcher, I learned that this process is long and taxing but necessary to maintain a code of ethics. In addition to the strict adherence to the codes, “good” research effectively outlines the conceptual framework. First, when doing any research, a clear purpose must be stated: What are you asking or looking for—what is the importance of this study? Why did I choose to investigate this issue? In the theoretical framework, definitions of key terms need to be explained plainly. For example, the topic of “democratic values” in the classroom is what I am interested in as an educator. Within my mini pilot project I had to clearly define “democratic values” and how this relates to students’ perceptions. I revised my purpose statement several times and really consider the lens that I will use to code and analyze data. It is a painful process but one that is necessary in order to understand the research question that will lead me to collect the appropriate data to thoroughly analyze. With a well-developed conceptual frame (purpose statement, statement of problem, and rationale for the study) there is a solid focus and a clear direction. It is okay to change the conceptual frame several times until it’s the shape of the appropriate research inquiry. Second, during the research, what role do I play? The role that one play’s has a lot to do with the qualitative approach: narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnographic, and case study. In addition to choosing the right approach, I learned that “My I’s” definitely influence the role: I am a non-participatory observer—my ethnic I is not compromised and I can focus on the individuals within the study. Reading James’ (2009) section on the “I’s” caused me to question “who I am” and if my essence will have an “impact” on my research inquiry.

Openness to Revising Views (5)
An openness to revise my views was evident throughout this semester. I started with a teacher-centered view of democratic values—as long as the students’ views did not conflict with my ideology everything was fine. Reading Smith (2007) made me realize that in order to improve my pedagogy and provide the best optimal learning environment, I needed to view my students’ views as important in building a classroom where youngsters can express “personal freedoms” along with other values on establishing a democratic classroom to self-reflection (how do I feel) to a clear focus on how students assess this issue. A “true” democratic classroom is built by teachers and students with a mutual respect for each other and ongoing interaction. In addition, during a peer-sharing session on 4/14/10, Dr. Turner and Brian pointed out a theme from the students’ writing. This theme related to the “lack” of personal freedom they were allowed to express in the classroom. With that important knowledge, I decided to question my “one size fits all” policy. Allowing students to be a part of the decision-making process does not mean giving up my authority as a teacher—democratic values and practice are a collaborative effort.