Building a Convincing & Engaging “Front End”

1. Building a Convincing & Engaging “Front End” Day #2, June 19th CEP 955 Summer Hybrid, 2013 Jack Smith Michigan State University

2. Getting Started: Checking In • Did you sleep? How long? • For lodgers: Local exercise and R&R possibilities • For road warriors: Still good? • James’ question: Adding to the top-ten • Reactions to Example Proposals? • Nice work on schedulingtheory bites

3. Where we stand: the GD table • Thanks for your timely work • What do you see in terms of similarities and differences (among most if not all)? • What Jack sees • A few are comfortable with the basic shape of their current proposals • Some are in the midst of major rethinking => little from the 901B paper may remain • Most between the two

4. How to start? (different views?) • Smith: problem statements (educational or scientific problems) • Creswell: introductions (chapter 5) • Gall, Gall, & Borg: introductions (chapter 2) • Shared elements (across the three) • Engage the reader • Describe the problem the study will address • Situate in theory? • Outline the approach? • The problem can be “bigger” than your study • Options: Problem statement only, Introduction only, Problem statement after Introduction • What do the Example proposals do?

5. Other Front-End Sections • After the introduction/problem statement… • Review of Related Literature • What are the major trends/results? • Importance of synthesis across studies => common results not individual studies • In what order to discuss them? • Communicate with less-knowledgeable readers • Jack’s experience: Very hard section to write • Focus: Empirical work (but can engage theoretical issues) • Role/importance • Show that you have “done your homework” • Frame your study (along with theory) • Review does not have point singly to one and only one study • Bookend (in the research report): In Discussion, how does this study contribute?

6. Structuring your Lit Review • Assumption: There is literature that relates to multiple elements in your inquiry, e.g., • Research on the nature of your participants • Research on constructs or phenomena • Issue #1: Deciding the order of discussion (relative to your problem statement) • Issue #2: Synthesizing across studies • Issue #3: Pointing to issues that you wish had been addressed but have not been

7. More Sections • Theoretical and/or conceptual framework • Knotty issues here • Issue #1: Broad framing theory or specific conceptual framework? • Issue #2: What is the theory that frames this work and situates my conceptual framework? • Conceptual framework: How are the key concepts in my study (and named in the RQs) related? • Example from Jack’s work • Examine the front end of the Wentzel article • How does the diagram help to focus the reader’s attention?

8. Theoretical issues to work on • Issue #1: Characterizing scholarly texts • Empirical vs. theoretical; worthy but not sufficient • Saw this as an issue in your 901B proposals • Tracked it in your top-ten references • Review your top-ten references • Other types of scholarly work (besides empirical research reports and theoretical treatises)? • Additional types

9. More Theoretical issues • Issue #2: How does theory (of teaching, learning, or technology) frame or influence inquiry? • My work • The work of other scholars in my review • Examples from your work • Joel: Is there work with EBD kids that is more cognitively than behaviorally-oriented? • Colin: Are there alternatives to an information-processing orientation to distraction and multi-tasking? • Many: If I want my students or teachers to manage their time and effort well, am I adopting all of self-regulated learning theory? • Issue #3: Do I need a separate theoretical perspective section? • Options • Separate section (before or after Literature review) • Use (different) theoretical perspective to structure the Lit review • Stick with a Conceptual framework only • For now, consider a separate theory and conceptual framework section

10. One More Section • Purpose statement (see Creswell, chapter 7) • The reader needs to read a clear purpose in your proposal • Lots of ways to effectively express purpose • In its own section • As part of the Introduction • Just before your RQs • Purpose statements need to articulate achievable goals; don’t promise more than you deliver

11. Work time (on your front ends)

12. Theory Bite #1 (Colin) • Review the content and the time frame • Five slides usually translates into five minutes of talk time • You have 10 minutes max (but your job is not to use up 10 minutes) • Q&A should be as important for all as the presentation content

13. Homework for tomorrow • Focus tomorrow is research questions, the heart of your proposal • Review SRIE on this issue • Read Creswell, chapter 7 (he gives examples) • Jack’s intro to Creswell’s approach • Questionable claims: “5-7 specific questions for qualitative studies” • Which terms in your RQs are technical and need explication? • Where do you do that work in your proposal and are you clear enough?