Sunday, April 24, 2016

Reflective Journal 4



Module 5

1. What more do you hope to learn about EDR and why?

I hope to learn about the sustainability of EDR. It is a very interesting research design that plans for formal evaluation and feedback. I also want to know the likelihood of it being adopted community colleges or other institutions that are not primarily known as being research-driven.

2. Will you consider conducting an EDR for your dissertation? Why or why not?

I will not consider conducting an EDR for my dissertation because I like the idea of qualitative research. I am a social constructivist and feel the voice of participants are my primary concern for reaching the audience. My study focuses on attitudes which, which is not an EDR emphasis.

3. What aspects of the Peer Review activities did you find most beneficial/challenging?

I am still uncomfortable evaluating other papers because of the criticisms I received about my writing. the most beneficial part is seeing other ideas for writing and opportunities where my peers’ proposals would be the answer to some of the workplace problems my college face in similar areas.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Reflective Journal 3

Reflection on Module 4 


The reflective journal posting for this module asks not only to reflect on the assigned readings, but to share progress concerning our EDR projects. I did not do well in developing an EDR project. Instead, I created qualitative project. I received great feedback concerning my EDR project. My professor took the time to read my literature review and recommended changes. This feedback was an aspect of this module that went extremely well. Feedback is important. The recommendations were very timely and it allowed me to change direction. The discussion forum was also helpful and provided a template to develop our thoughts and shape our project. The template served as a guide and allowed us to look at each phase of our project to develop an evaluation plan. The recommendations of my professor and the discussion forum helped in remedying my project from being a qualitative study to more of an EDR study. Now, I have a good direction for where the project should go. I will rework my literature review for the project and use what I posted in the discussion forum.

Muddiest Points 


There are no muddiest points for this module. The feedback on my literature review provided clarity for the direction of my project.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Reflective Journal 2


Muddiest Points


The main question I have about EDR is the use of qualitative feedback. I am also confused about when its appropriate to use EDR versus action research. The two seem very similar and, when discussing EDR with colleagues, I want to make sure they do not come across as interchangeable.

Literature Review Reflection


I cannot be the only person that used prior ideas for research. My goal was to take the idea I have for my dissertation and frame it into an EDR format. My original research idea is to fit a qualitative study. This assignment allowed me to expand my literature review and frame it better for EDR. I think it fits EDR, even though it’s a study on faculty attitudes. The only concern I have after transforming this from a qualitative study to an EDR approach is if research on attitudes allow for rapid adjustments. One of the advantages of using EDR is that it leaves room for flexibility and necessary adjustments, but the only component to my study that may allow adjusting is determining what would make attitudes about OER adoption positive. This realization was based on some of the responses to my discussion board posting.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Reflective Journal 1

Task 1: Muddiest Point


The muddiest point I have about EDR/DBR pertains to research questions. The articles I chose to review for Module 2 did not have research questions specifically listed. Readers must discern the questions through the article's context. Both articles were very good and I felt it less constraining than other ones I have read with different research approaches. I wondered if those articles reflected the entire EDR methodology or were these random occurrences.

Concept Map for EDR/DBR


I created my concept map by adopting the information presented on Page 13 of our text. McKenney and Reeves (2012) listed numerous descriptors for the essence of Educational Research Design (EDR). After documenting each descriptor, I developed four categories. My reasoning for developing categories, as opposed to listing them straightforward, was to illustrate an emerging theme I discovered. The categories are (a) approach, (b) osmotic, (c) adoptive, and (d) content.

Approach. In my opinion, the descriptors for approach represent construction. If I were to build a dream home for someone, my job would be to meet the vision of the architect. They will provide blueprints and schematics to support my role in the process. The descriptors in approach symbolizes the nature of EDR in terms of its process and construct.

Osmotic. According to Merriam-Webster, osmosis is defined as “a process of absorption or diffusion suggestive of the flow of osmotic action; especially:  a usually effortless often unconscious assimilation.” When discussing how EDR is osmotic, I speak to participants’ perspectives. Although there is a lot of work involved in the process of research, the goal for EDR is to provide an explicit research framework. Participant expectations are clearly defined and actionable, resulting in effortless collection (not analyses) of data. This is because structure for research represents the rigor EDR requires from its users.

Adoptive. Adopters should be able to view EDR and learn from its findings. From the perspective of researchers, the design is flexible enough to make necessary changes to keep the study on track.

Content. EDR is transformative, theoretical, and interventionist. These three descriptors represent EDR’s core being.