STANFORD UNIVERSITYSchool of Education

EDUC 250C: Introduction to Qualitative ResearchSpring 2012

Tuesday, 2:15-5:05CERAS 300

Pam Grossman Sam Wineburg532 CERAS 225 Cubberley723-0791 725-4411pamg@stanford.edu wineburg@stanford.edu

TAs: Sarah Kate Selling sselling@stanford.eduMelissa Kemmerle kemmerle@stanford.edu

Overview:

This course is designed to introduce doctoral students to the traditions and tools of qualitative research. Through readings, lectures, class discussion and activities, and a series of methodological exercises, we introduce both a set of ideas and a set of methodological approaches about the design and conduct of qualitative research in education. The course addresses the kinds of questions that lend themselves to more qualitative inquiry, as well as the disciplinary differences in how such questions have been investigated. Throughout the course, we will be reading examples of qualitative research, as well as readings about research methods.

Required Texts:

Geertz, G. (1973) The Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I, & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weiss, R.S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative research interview studies. New York: Free Press.

Recommended:

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Class Expectations 1. Please do the readings for the class ahead of time and come prepared to discuss them;

the quality of our class depends upon your preparation beforehand and your engagement during class.

2. We expect you to attend class regularly and to participate actively in class discussions and other small and large group activities. If for any reason you must miss class, please notify Sarah Kate or Melissa beforehand and ask a classmate to take notes and pick up assignments for you.1

3. Assignments must be completed on time. If for any reason an assignment will be late, please talk with us ahead of time.

4. All written work will be held to high standards and should conform to rules of proper grammar, usage, punctuation, and spelling. Please double-space all written work and make sure you have page numbers. We are old school (or maybe just old!), and thus will require hard copies of all assignments.

Course Assignments

The assignments for this class consist of three methodological exercises that give you experience in using qualitative methods and analyzing the data that result from them. The final assignment is a review of an article that draws on qualitative methods.

The methodological exercises are designed to give you experience conducting observations in educational settings, interviewing respondents, and in analyzing a small chunk of qualitative data. We will be preparing you ahead of time for each of these exercises, but do not be concerned if you don’t feel completely “ready” prior to collecting data. There is no substitute for direct experience in learning how to conduct research, and you will learn as much, if not more, by what you did wrong as by what went well. The purpose is not to conduct a small study, but rather to engage in a series of “practicings” (a term from the sociologist Erving Goffman) to help you understand more deeply some of the challenges and delights of qualitative research.

Writing a review of a manuscript is a professional genre that many of you will be asked to write during your professional lives. We will provide a set of manuscripts and, from this set, you will choose one paper to review. Your review should address the quality of the research reported, the relationship between the data presented and the conclusions

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 2

1 Given that we will meeting for only ten sessions, we unfortunately cannot grant credit for the class if you have missed more than two sessions, except in extenuating circumstances that we have approved.

drawn, and any other aspect of the paper relevant in making an evaluation. We will also help you understand the genre of manuscript reviews, how to write them, and how to interpret them once you’ve submitted something of your own for publication.

Methodological Exercises:

#1: Observation of an educational setting: Due May 1, in classFor this exercise, we will ask you to observe an educational setting in pairs for at least one hour. Educational settings can include schools, classrooms, afterschool programs, a preschool, extracurricular activities (dance classes, karate classes), youth organizations, professional education (e.g. law school, med school), professional development. Members of the pair should sit in different places and take separate field notes.

To be turned in: Complete field notes from the observation and a methodological memo that details how you observed and how the nature of the observation affected what you were and were not able to capture in your field notes. You should also address how your fieldnotes compared to your partner’s and, if there are differences, what might account for them. The methodological memo should be no longer than five double-spaced pages.

#2: Interviewing respondents: Due May 15, in classFor this exercise, we ask that you conduct an interview with an adult who is knowledgeable about some educational issue that you’re interested in. This could be a teacher, principal, policymaker, student, professor, professional developer, educational entrepreneur, etc. You will be asked to develop an interview protocol ahead of time and audiotape the interview. You will also be asked to transcribe at least 30 minutes of the interview.

To be turned in: A copy of your interview questions, a transcript of 30 minutes of the interview, and a methodological memo analyzing your strategies and techniques as an interviewer, your strengths and weaknesses, and how these affected what you were and were not able to learn from your respondent, and, finally, what you would do differently if you could do this over again. The memo should be no longer than five double-spaced pages.

#3 Preliminary analysis: Due May 29, in classFor this final exercise, we ask that you analyze either your observation or interview data. This will include formulating codes, and then coding either your field notes or interview data. You will then write a conceptual memo that details the patterns, themes, concepts, big ideas, as well as new research questions that

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 3

emerge from your analysis. Your conceptual memo should be no longer than five pages and should include both how you analyzed your data and what you found.

Professional Review of a Manuscript: Due Monday, June 11 at 5 pm

You will be conducting a professional review of a manuscript that uses qualitative methods. We will post a set of articles on Coursework and you can choose one to review. A goal of this assignment is to introduce you to the culture of scholarly analysis and critique otherwise known as “peer review.” We’ll ask you to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript according to criteria we provide and the examples of reviews we distribute.

Assignments will be weighted according to the following scheme:

Methodological Exercises: 60% Professional Review: 30% Participation & Attendance: 10%

Schedule of Classes

Class #1: April 3 Why use qualitative methods? What are they good for? Geertz, Clifford, (1973). Notes on deep play in Bali. In Interpretation of Culture (pp.

412-454). New York: Basic Books.

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1979). An exploratory study of school district adaptation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (on Coursework, CW)

Class #2: April 10 What are qualitative methods? Traditions & tools of inquiry Becker, H. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, and

R. Schweder, eds., Essays on Ethnography and Human Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition). (pp. 119-139). New York: Macmillan.

Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & De la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.). Everyday Cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67-97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 4

Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means. Language in Society,11(1), 49-76.

Class #3: April 17 Conducting Observations in Qualitative Research

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, pp. 1-35 .

Jackson, P. (1968). The daily grind. In Life in classrooms (pp. 3-37). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Cole, M., & Traupmann, K. (1981). Comparative cognitive research: Learning from a learning disabled child. In A. Collins (Ed.) Minnesota Symposium on child psychology, v. 14: Aspects of the development of competence (pp. 125-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Class #4: April 24 Interviewing, Part I

Weiss, R. S. Learning from Strangers, pp. 1-150

Jiménez, T. R. (2008). Mexican immigrant replenishment and the continuing significances of ethnicity and race. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (6), 1527-1567.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education (Appendix, Common Problems in Fieldwork, A Personal Essay). New York: Rowan & Littlefield.

Class #5: May 1 Interview, Part II (Tasks, Clinical Think Alouds)

Ginsburg, H. (1981). The clinical interview in psychological research. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 4-11.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively construed reading (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.

Class #6: May 8 Design & Issues of Sampling

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 5

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13, 522-525.

Small, M. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(5), 5-38.

Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.

Class #7: May 15 Qualitative data analysis: Coding

NOTE: For today’s class, please 1) Bring your computer 2) Write one paragraph about a good learning experience and one paragraph about a bad learning experience and save them all as separate files and 3) Sign up for a free trial of Dedoose a day or two before the class at www.dedoose.com.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove, Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-49). London: Sage.

Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, chapter 6: Coding and memoing.

Smith, M. & Shepherd, L. Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and practices. American Educational Research Journal 25(3), 307-333.

Guest speaker, Prof. Jonathan Osborn: “Use of computer programs in coding.”

Class #8: May 22 Qualitative data analysis: Beyond coding

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 172-206). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rose, M. (1999). “Our hands will know”: The development of tactile diagnostic skill-teaching, learning and situated cognition in a physical therapy program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 30(2), 133-160.

McDermott, R. P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 269-300). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 6

Class #9: May 29 Issues of Reliability & Validity

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition) (pp. 139-158). New York: Macmillan. [note: this is the second half of the essay you read earlier]

Gottlieb, E., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Between Veritas and Communitas: Epistemic switching in the reading of academic and sacred history. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 84-129.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Evaluation, 12, 311-329.

Class #10: June 5 Ethics & Access

Teacher response to Grossman, Wineburg, Woolworth, Theory of Teacher Community

Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education and research on teaching. Harvard Educational Review 56 (4), 496-510.

Wilson, S. M. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 231-254.

Qualitative Methods Spring, 2012

p. 7