Dr. Curtis Jay Bonk, Ph.D., CPA
Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology,
4022 Education Building, (812) 856-8353
E-mail: cjbonk@indiana.edu
Course Description
This course is intended to orient beginning students to social science inquiry. My hope is that you will become familiar with the strategies and dialogue of both quantitative and qualitative educational research. The focus in the early part of the cours
e will be on research terminology and later on research methods and procedures.
Course Goals
This course aims to help students become intelligent readers and interpreters of educational research reports. In addition, this course should help build the foundation for graduate research as well as action research in one's present job (if applicable). This course also should prepare one for other tracks and courses that emphasize more in-depth understanding and skills of quantitative and qualitative methodologies such as: Y502 Applied Statistics in Education, Y527 Educational Measurement, Y535 Evaluation Models and Techniques, and Y611 Naturalistic Inquiry. In terms of my philosophy, I agree with Laurie R. Gay (1992) that this course should be more skill and application oriented than knowledge and theory. I want you to understand more about research and the research process as a result of enrolling in this course. A useful goal for this course is to become a good consumer and producer of research, not a statistician. Along these same lines, during this course, I would like for you to select a research problem of interest that has some relevance to your profession; the earlier you start to think, collect data, or analyze relationships the better. I want you to understand how to analyze existing literature, formulate hypotheses, develop research and grant plans, evaluate measurement instruments, select from possible experimental designs, analyze data, and prepare final reports.
Each day our classroom activities will include a combination of two or more of the following: lecture, statistical package presentations and hands-on workshops, discussion and reactions to the readings, discussion of research ideas, presentation of research proposals, relevant videos on research and educational inquiry, in-depth analysis of educational research cases and simulations, and discussion of thought papers and volunteer assignments. As a prompt to keep up with the readings, there will be a midterm exam in the first part of the course and I reserve the right to a 10-20 point quiz at any time. I plan to refer to other texts, research articles, and case examples that refer to actual published research in order to make educational research more authentic and palatable. Daily readings from the textbooks will be supplemented by at least one research article or theory/position paper. As there is a lot of material to cover in 5-6 weeks, this will most likely be a mentally and physically demanding course. To be successful, you must keep up with the readings stated in the syllabus.
There are many important reasons why this course is included in your program of study. First of all, as educational research continues to proliferate, we all need to know the most effective ways to search, access, comprehend, and evaluate "supposedly" seminal research. Though you are often unaware of it, you are deluged with research findings/reports each day. As a result, I have embedded a number of options for your major project including: Article Honesty Rewrites; Expert Advice Columns; Article Rebuttals; Personal Publications; and Rebuttal Tracing. Just reflect for a moment on when in your school or work life you are given the opportunity and responsibility to distinguish between legitimate findings and ill-founded claims. When? How?
Texts
We will use the following new texts (#2 and #3 are optional, please select 1 of them):
Other Reference Books of Interest:
Specific Objectives
Daily Schedule
(Note: a partial list of daily classroom activities is provided)
Day 1 Tues, May 9th, Orientation: Ethics; Computers, Ed. Research, and the 1990s
Read: BOK: Glossary of Terms; Ch. 3 of F & W
Comment: Howe & Dougherty "Ethics, IRB's, and the Changing Face of Educational Research"
Comment: Fisher & Fryberg "Partic Partners: College Students Weigh the Costs/Benefits of Deceptive Research"
Class Activities: Examine syllabus, review assignments, ethics, computer tool/library resources
Day 2 Thurs, May 11th, Scientific Method, Problem Statements, and Brief History of Educational Research
Read: Ch 1 and 2 of F & W; Chapter 1 of B & B or Ch 1-3 of M & M.
Case #2: Alamsi, Palmer, Gambrell, & Pressley "Toward a Disc Inquiry: Method. Analysis of Whole Language."
Comment: Daiute & Dalton "Collaboration and Cognition in Writing"
Comment: Cizek "Crunch Granola and the Hegemeny of the
Narrative"
Day 3 Tues, May 16th, Lit Reviews, Hypotheses, and Prep/Eval of a Research Plan/Reports (Due: Critique #1)
Read: Ch 4, 5, and 19 of F & W; Chapter 2 of B & B or Ch 4 of M & M.
Case #3a: Krendl & Williams "The Importance of Being Rigorous"
Case #3b: Bangert-Downs "The Word Processor as an Instructional
Tool"
Day 4 Thurs, May 18th, Sampling and Instrumentation
Read: Chapter 6 and 7 of F & W.
Case #4: Huebner "Bias in Teachers' Special Education Decisions"
Comment: Gay "Evaluation of a Research Report"
Comment: Tuckman "A Proposal for Improving Quality of Educational Research"
Comment: Fiske & Fogg "But the Reviewers are Making Different Criticisms of my Paper"
Comment: McEwen "Quality Criteria for Maximizing the Use of Research"
Class Activities: Evaluation Criteria and Questions; Development
of Evaluation Forms
Day 5 Tues, May 23rd, Reliability/Validity and Descriptive Statistics (Due: Critique #2)
Read: Chapter 8, 9, and 12 of F & W
Case #5a: Pittenger "The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator"
or Case #5b: McLain, Gridley, & McIntosh "Value of a Scale to Measure Metacognition"
Comment: Bracey "The Numbers Game"Day 6 Thurs, May 25th, Inferential Statistics in Perspective (Midterm Exam on Chapters 6-12 of F & W)
Read: Chapters 10 & 11 of F & W
Comment: Dalhstrom "Tests: Small Samples, Large Consequences"
Day 7 Tues, May 30th, Collecting and Gathering Data in Qualitative Research
Read: Chapter 17 of W & F; Chapter 3-4 and Appendix of B & B or Ch 5-7 of M & M
Case #7a: Freedman & Katz "Pedagogical Interaction during Composing: The Wtg Conference"
or Case #7b: Dyson "Transitions & Tensions: Interrelationships b/t Drawing, Talking, & Dictating"
Comment: Flinders & Eisner (1994). "Educational Criticism as a Form of Qualitative Inquiry"
Comment: Purves (1994). (In response to Flinders & Eisner)
"The Need for Critics"
Day 8 Thurs, June 1st, Analysis and Reporting of Qualitative Research (Due: Generative/Evaluative Assignment)
Read: Ch. 5-7 of B & B or 8-10 and Appendix of M & M
Case #8a: Delgado-Gaitan "School Matters in the Mexican-American Home"
or Case #8b: Kuh "In Their Own Words: What Students Learn
Outside the Classroom"
Day 9 Fri, June 2nd, Experimental and Causal-Comparative Research (Due: Research proposal topic: tell me)
Read: Ch. 13 & 15 of F & W
Comment: Pickett & Burrill "The Use of Quantitative Evidence in Research: A Comparative Study of Two Lits"
Class Activities: Cases and Research Proposal Ideas; video on
blocking designs?
Day 10 Tues, June 6th, Correlational and Survey Research
Read: Ch. 14 & 16 of F & W
Cases #10a: Six-Seven Articles on Alcohol, Wellness, and Learning in College Settings
Case #10b: Marsh & Gouvernet "Multidimensional Self-Concepts"
Class Activities: GB-STAT/Sample Studies; video on correlational
research
Day 11 Thurs, June 8th, Historical and Action Research by Practitioners
Read: Chapter 18 & 20 of F & W
Comments: Sprinthall, Schmutte, & Sirois "Getting Started: Research Simulations and Errors"
Class Activities: Analyzing Cases and Simulations
Day 12 Fri, June 9th, Catch-up and Presentation (Due: Educational Research/Grant Proposals)
Read: (catch up or vegetate)
Case #12: Wang, Haertel, & Walberg "Toward a Knowledge Base for School Learning"
Comment: Salomon "Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate"
Comment: Research News and Comments "Research and the Renewal of Education: Exec Summary/Recs"
Class Activities: Research/Grant Presentations
Grades
In attempting to help you become good consumers and producers
of research, you will think about research not fully yet formed
in your head, evaluate research already published, discuss research
findings and possibilities with your colleagues, and present some
new ideas for research to your classmates. Grades will be based
on the five criteria stated below. Incompletes typically only
involve health or other unavoidable problems which make it impossible
to complete assignments.
Summary of Course Point Allocation
Tentative Grading Scale
Course Assignments
I. Readings, Attendance, Effort, and Discussion (10 (attendance) + 20 (participation/effort) = 30 points, 15%)
Note that it will be difficult to meet the "participation"
requirement if you do not attend class regularly. Students will
read about 2-3 chapters and 1 (i.e, case) per class. Students
will be expected to form personal reactions to the assignments,
lectures, handouts, and videos presented. Naturally, any personally
confusing or interesting aspects of the readings will be discussed
in class. All class members are required to do all the required
readings each day. If there is limited participation, I reserve
the right for additional quizzes.
II. (2) Article Critiques (30 Points, 15%)
Students must submit two 1.5-2.5 page double-spaced critiques
of educational research articles from any educational research
journal, paper, or book for peer review. Literature searches
of ERIC documents can be performed in the Education Library.
I prefer a journal at the levels of one the following journals:
College Student Journal, Journal of College Student Personnel,
American Educational Research Journal, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Journal of Learning
Sciences, Child Development, Developmental Psychology, ETR&D,
Journal of Reading Behavior, Cognition and Instruction, Journal
of Research on Mathematics Education, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Learning Disability Quarterly, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Learning Disabilities Research, Developmental Psychology,
Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Educational Computer Research,
Research in the Teaching of English, Written Communication, Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.
This task is important to this course since we need to apply the research analysis skills we are gaining from the readings to authentic research. The format for your critiques will vary, though the basic questions are listed below. One sample format that I like is as follows:
Title (with reference); (1) Problem Statement/Introduction, Rationale/Theoretical
Perspective; (2) Methodology/Design (Research Question(s), Hypothesis,
Subjects, Procedures, Analyses); (3) Results, Conclusions, Interpretations,
and Implications; Overall Problems and Suggestions.
Identify strengths and weaknesses of each report you critique.
You should address both areas of concern and concordance in your
review. IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE PEER REVIEW, PLEASE USE AT LEAST
THESE THREE HEADINGS FOR YOUR CRITIQUE. It is advisable to flavor
in your opinion in the conclusions and implications sections;
do not simply summarize the article. See syllabus for due dates
(Tues: May 16th and 23rd).
MAIN COMPONENTS OF CRITIQUE:
(1) Introduction, Problem Statement and Theoretical Review--critique/analyze the development and clarity of the problem, questions, and hypotheses, relevancy and completeness of literature review, manner of presentation, historical development of the prob
lem, and assumptions made.
(2) Study Design and Method--identify nature (qualitative or quantitative)
and type (e.g., correlational, descriptive, experimental) of study,
the independent and dependent variables (if applicable), adequacy
of description of sample, instruments, and procedures (i.e., could
this be replicated?), key design issues and methods (e.g., quality
of sampling, measurement, instrument validity and reliability,
control for experimenter bias), choice of statistical or thematic
analysis, and ethical issues.
(3) Results, Implications, Interpretations, and Conclusions--organization
of results and discussion, appropriateness of patterns noted in
the data, any unnecessary analyses (fishing expeditions), methods
used to present and analyze the data, applicability of the findings
to other research, appropriateness of conclusions and implications
to original research questions and results, rationale used to
link to previous results, attempts made to generalize findings,
and quality of questions and suggestions for future research.
Peer Grading criteria for critiques:
Critique Grading Scale
0 (low/poor) to 1 (needs some work) to 2 (good) to 3 (high) for each dimension above.
Sample questions to ask yourself and respond to in your critique (DO NOT SIMPLY STICK IN ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS IN YOUR CRITIQUE; ONLY USE THESE QUESTIONS IF THERE IS A RELEVANT AND COHERENT POINT TO BE MADE):
III. Personal Midterm Analysis (PMI) (40 points, 20% of grade)
There will be one (40) point exam on Chapters 6-12 of Fraenkel
and Wallen on May 25th. Format to be matching and multiple choice.
Exact percent of each to be negotiated with the class. I reserve
the right for additional exams and quizzes should students appear
to be neglecting the daily readings.
IV. Generative-Evaluative Assignment: (50 points, 25% of grade)
In this assignment (Due June 1st), you can use and build either
your creative abilities or your critical thinking skills. Guidelines:
Average length of the assignments below is 2.5-3 single spaced
pages; absolute max is 4-5 pages.
Generative Options:
1. Article Honesty Rewrite--read a successful study and rewrite
it as if the results were incorrect and nothing was significant,
or, at least, none of the major findings/questions. Concentrate
your focus on rewriting the results, discussion, and implications
sections. A copy of the original article would help the reader
here.
2. Expert Advice--read a series of 5-6 articles on a topic you
are interested in and write a reader advice column pointing out
the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate audience for each of
these articles (at least 3 paragraphs/article). Basically, you
should be acting like a movie or rock concert critic and help
one decide if the item (i.e., article) is worth perusing. There
should be an introductory and a closing/summary paragraph to this
review. (Note: this is an intriguing and creative, but often
very difficult assignment.)
3. Rebuttal Beyond Wallen (Let's be Fraenkel!)--select an interesting
research article in the F & W text and write a rebuttal or
critical review beyond that provided in the text. Then take the
Researcher Comments provided in the text and write a few plausible
arguments the original authors might make to your claims and concerns.
(Note: you could also write to the authors for an update. Did
they heed F & W's points?)
4. Personal Publication--create your own journal (e.g., Journal
of My Educational Research (JMER)) and find/rebind 5-6 of the
highest quality articles on a certain topic during the period
1/91-6/93. Please label the journal, insert a purpose and scope
for your journal (1 page), admission and review policies (e.g.,
length of manuscripts, response time, acceptance rate), provide
an article introduction section (including an introduction and
overall summary across the articles as well as 1-2 paragraphs
describing each article), and, at the end, put out a "call
for papers" on a topic of your choice. Other items (e.g.,
a sample evaluation form for your peer reviewers) would also help
flavor this assignment with a personal touch.
5. Internal Minigrant Research Proposal (say $2,000)--thoroughly
read an article or topic area and write/send a research proposal
to the institution where you work (or would like to work). If
a minigrant will not suffice, you pick the funding agency and
monies needed. In the proposal, you should discuss such things
as the topic, timeline, procedures, implications, and budget.
I. Application Form (1-2 pages) 1. funding agency; 2. title/topic; 3. $ needed; 4. timeline; 5. sign/date.
II. Brief Project Description or Abstract (1-2 Pages).
III. Full Proposal (6-14 pages) 1. lit. rev; 2. res. q's; 3. procedures; 4. implic's/sign; 5. refs; 6. appendices.
IV. Other (2-? pages) 1. budget; 2. reviewer names, and, perhaps,
2-3 peer reviews; 3. vitae/resume.
6. Research Roundtable--identify 2-4 key players/researchers in
a field and select a controversial article on a topic they might
be interested in. Write the transcript to a research roundtable
they might have on a controversial topic or article. What research
flaws and constraints would be highlighted by each member.
Evaluative Options:
7. Rebuttal Tracing--trace arguments made in a sequence or series
of article rebuttals and author responses. Any critique of methodology
made in these articles as well as replies should be highlighted
(rejoinders, point- counterpoint). In the past, a combination
of verbal and visual tracing has helped this reader.
8. Article Sorts--take a topic you are interested in and sort
a number of articles (say 15-25) by research type or chapter (e.g.,
correlational, descriptive, or qualitative). Attach a paragraph
introducing each main category or section of articles and some
of the main findings. A summary page of what this topic is, why
you chose it, and what one might find in reading these articles
should be attached to the front of the packet. (You need not
attach the articles; though perhaps the first page of the seminal
ones might help the reader.)
9. Peer Reviewers--a third option is for you and a peer to act
as journal reviewers of two published articles. Both of you are
to evaluate the articles (i.e., should each be published, is this
the appropriate journal and good timing, does the literature review
seem complete, are the findings and implications clear) and write
comments for the author to consider. Finally, you should compare
and contrast your notes with your peer.
Other Option:
10. Volunteer Assignment: In the spirit of a think-tank or seminar,
students can volunteer to do a special project for the class in
lieu of one of the above tasks. What I had in mind for Y520 students
would be to do some qualitative research such as interviews or
observations or a grant proposal or small pilot study and then
report excerpts of their findings back to the class. Or students
might volunteer for a scholarly or investigative activity that
the class or an individual decides is needed to understand some
topic better. Such impromptu assistance may be needed in clarifying
an issue, finding out if any other recent research exists on a
topic, doing an ERIC search on an author or topic, describing
and demonstrating a new statistic software package, or writing
to a researcher for more recent research on a topic. It is the
exploratory, inquisitive nature of a true scholar or researcher
that is prized here, not the actual form of the task. Students
will present the results of their volunteer efforts throughout
the semester, at the most appropriate moment. A one page summary
of this activity must also be turned in.
Generative-Evaluative Grading (Five 10 point subscales = 50 points):
1. Clarity/logic/coherence
2. Originality/creativity/risk
3. Completeness/depth
4. Relevancy/linkage to class
5. Overall holistic performance/effort
V. One Research Project or Presentation (50 points) 25%)
You have two options for the final task. Students must either
present in written form or orally: an educational research proposal
that extends or modifies the research of someone else or suggests
a totally unique but reasonable research project or study. Written
proposals should be about 8-15 double-spaced pages in length on
a topic of one's choice, while oral presentations will be held
during the final two or three class periods for approximately
7-10 minutes each. These presentations will be grouped by a common
theme (e.g., cooperative learning) and I will serve as discussant/critic
at the end of each session/symposium. Session Chairs will be
solicited to introduce speakers, pass out food and handouts, keep
track of time, and get the discussant to quit talking. Your proposal
can be within any domain or age group. A brief (one page) written
summary of your topic is due on June 2nd including topic, age
group(s), proposed intervention, and why this is a unique but
important research effort (or just tell me). The final report
is due June 9th. Any data from your actual work setting (or mock/fake
data) included in this report should raise the grade of your report
and also make the chapters you read appear more relevant. Note
that APA format is required for the written proposals.
Option A: Research Proposal
Research Proposal Grading Scale (Note 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the following criteria):
1. Review of the Problem and Literature (interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough)
2. Research Activity/Design/Topic (clear, doable/practical, detailed, important research q's)
3. Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, future directions)
4. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence/flow, synthesis, style, accuracy)
5. Overall Completeness (adequate info presented, explicit, relevant,
precise, valid pts)
Format for Research Proposal: (8-15 pages)
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgements)
II. Review of the Literature (4-6 pages)
1. Intro to Topic/Problem (purpose, history, importance) (1 page)
2. Review of Lit (contrast relevant literature on the topic) (2-5 pages)
3. Stmt of Hypoth/Res Q's (what do you expect to occur) (1 page)
III. Method Section (3-7 pages)
1. Subjects and design (i.e., sample, who and how assigned to groups)
2. Materials/setting (i.e., hardware, software, text, models, figures)
3. Dependent measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
4. Procedure (i.e., training); 5. Other (i.e., coding, other materials); 6. Exp analyses or comparisons
IV. Results and Discussion (OPTIONAL) 1. Antic/dummied results; 2. Disc. of results
V. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
VI. Appendices (e.g., charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures, pictures of your grandmother)
Option B: Research Presentation (most likely a symposium/table of papers, but could be a roundtable, a structured poster session, a town meeting, a single presentation session, an advance paper session, a demo.):
The purpose of the presentations on June 9th is to provide practice
in presenting information in the style required for conferences
and to get feedback from the class. While research proposals
will be graded based on similar criteria to the critiques (e.g.,
richness, coherence, completeness, and mechanics), presentations
will be graded on the following sample grading criteria
1. Review of the Problem and Literature: interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough
2. Research Activity/Design/Topic: clear, doable/practical, detailed, important research q's
3. Organization of Presentation: flow, length, sequence
4. Topic/Materials Stimulation/Usefulness: informative, excitement, active, clear, easy to see/understand
5. Knowledge of topic: has good ideas for the field, insights***Book of Reading Bibliography:
a. Preface: Syllabus and Daily Handouts
Day/Case #
1. Glossary of terms
1a. Nelson, L. (1994). Glossary for Y520.
1b. Sprinthall, R. C., Schmutte, G. T., & Sirois, L. (1991). Understanding Educational Research, Glossary (pp. 366-384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1c. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (4th Ed.). Appendix B: Glossary of research-related terms (pp. 585-595). NY: Merrill.
Comment: Howe, K. R., & Dougherty, K. C. (1993). Ethics, IRB's, and the changing face of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(9), 16-21.
Comment: Fisher, C. B., & Fryberg, D. (1994). Participant
partners: College students weigh the costs and benefits of deceptive
research. American Psychologist, 49(5), 417-427.
2. Alamsi, J. F., Palmer, B. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (1994). Toward a disciplined inquiry: A methodological analysis of whole-language research. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 193-202.
Comment: Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1988). Let's brighten it up a bit: Collaboration and cognition in writing. In B. A. Rafoth & D. L. Rubin (Eds.). The social construction of written communication (Chapter 11, pp. 249-269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
Comment: Cizek, G. J. (1995). Crunchy granola and the hegemony
of the narrative. Educational Researcher.
3a. Krendl, K. A., & Williams, R. B. (1990). The importance of being rigorous: Research on writing to read. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(3), 81-86.
3b. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., (1993). The word processor as an
instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing
instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.
4. Huebner, E. S. (1988). Bias in teachers' special education decisions as a function of test score reporting format, Journal of Educational Research, 81, 217-220.
Comment: Gay, L. R. (1992). Educ. Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (4th Ed.). Eval. of a Research Report: Self-Test for Task 9 (pp. 565-568). Method Specific Eval. Criteria (pp. 556-557) NY: Merrill.
Comment: Tuckman, B. W. (1990). A proposal for improving the quality of published educational research. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 22-25.
Comment: Fiske & Fogg "But the Reviewers are Making Different Criticisms of my Paper"
Comment: McEwen, N. (1992). Quality Criteria for Maximizing
the Use of Research. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 21-32.
5a. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467-488.
5b. Mayer McLain, K. V., Gridley, B. E., & McIntosh, D. (1991). Value of a scale used to measure metacognitive reading awareness. Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 81-87.
Comment: Bracey, G. W. (1994). The Numbers Game. The American
School Board Journal, June, 26-29.
6. (No cases)
Comment: Dalhstrom, W. G. (1993). Tests: Small Samples,
Large Consequences. American Psychologist, 48(4), 393-399.
7a. Freedman, S. W., & Katz, A. M. (1987). Pedagogical interaction during the composing process: The writing conference. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes. (Chapter 3, pp. 58-80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7b. Dyson, A. H. (1986). Transitions and tensions: Interrelationships between the drawing, talking, and dictating of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(4), 379-409.
Comment: Flinders, D. J., & Eisner, E. W. (1994). Educational criticism as a form of qualitative inquiry. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 341-357.
Comment: Purves, A. C. (1994). The need for critics. Research
in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 358-359.
8a. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 495-513.
8b: Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn
outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal,
30(2), 277-304.
9. (No cases)
Comment: Pickett, W., & Burrill, D. F. (1994). The use
of quantitative evidence in research: A comparative study of two
literatures. Educational Researcher, 23(6), 18-21.
10b: Six-Seven Articles on Alcohol, Wellness, and Learning in College Settings
10d. Marsh, H., & Gouvernet, P. J. (1989). Multidimensional
self-concepts and perceptions of control: Construct validation
of responses by children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81(1), 57-69.
11: Sprinthall, R. C., Schmutte, G. T., & Sirois L. (1991).
Getting started: Research simulations and errors. Understanding
Educational Research, Portions of Chapter 7, Research Simulations
and Errors, pp. 195- 222. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12: Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a Knowledge Base for School Learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.
Comment: Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18.
Comment: Research News and Comments, (1991). Research and the renewal of education: Executive summary and recommendations. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 19-22.