Christopher S. Hlas UW-Eau Claire. 1. Literature review 2. Research questions 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Discussion ◦ Interpret results ◦ Limitations

Christopher S. HlasUW-Eau Claire

1. Literature review2. Research questions3. Methodology4. Results5. Discussion

◦ Interpret results◦ Limitations of study◦ Suggestions for future research

6. References / Appendix

SoTL in Mathematics:Moving from Anecdotes to Analysis

What data is relevant for answering the research questions?

What statistical analysis is needed to answer the research questions? (should be decided during planning)

How can data be organized to illustrate patterns?


Dimension Pre-survey Post-survey Mean difference

Composition 3.26 3.03 .229**

Structure 2.32 2.05 .273*

Status 2.67 2.66 .014

Doing 2.34 2.35 -.007

Validating 2.80 2.64 .157*

Learning 2.92 2.71 .209*

Usefulness 1.89 1.84 .055

Paired t-test (N=22)


* Significance at the 0.10 level** Significance at the 0.05 level


Usefulness 1.89 1.84 .055

Structure 2.32 2.05 .273*

Doing 2.34 2.35 -.007

Status 2.67 2.66 .014

Validating 2.80 2.64 .157*

Learning 2.92 2.71 .209*

Composition 3.26 3.03 .229**

Paired t-test (N=22) -- FINAL


* Significance at the 0.10 level** Significance at the 0.05 level


Provide analysis only for conclusions you wish to draw

Assume your audience has a professional knowledge of statistics

Don’t repeat table/figure information in prose

Start with result then provide supporting details

Be succinct (patterns, not each little detail)


Next >> Discussion

How do the results impact the research questions?

How do the answers to research questions impact the field?

How else could the results be interpreted? What does “significant” mean?


Likert scale:1. Strongly agree2. Agree3. Slightly agree4. Slightly disagree5. Disagree6. Strongly disagree

Issues: Comparing means of

ordinal data Can questions be

combined into one dimension?

Is 3.26 functionally different than 3.03?



Composition 3.26 3.03 .229**

Be careful to support claims well! Do NOT include new data Avoid words that do not allow that results

may be misinterpreted, e.g. “proved”



Next >> Limitations

What are areas of weakness in the study? What rationalizations were used to

compensate for these limitations? What are possibilities for bias? (anything

non-randomized) What are possible lurking variables? What

variables have not been controlled for?


Methodologies: Case studies Interviews Observations Pre/post assessment Surveys

Examples: Small N Lack of control group Author was part of

study Volunteers Lurking variables Reliability Validity


Identify relevant limitations Discuss alternate interpretations of the

results Validity?


Next >> Suggestions

What new questions arise as a result of this study?

How can the limitations be overcome?


Next >> Causality

Causility by philosopher John Stuart Mill1. The cause is related to the effect2. No plausible alternatives exist3. The cause precedes the effect

Which came first? (chicken or egg) Citations (would you use a result that you

didn’t understand?) Shark attacks & ice creams sales


The general model tested in the present study has suggested ways in which school systems could be more “healthy” by providing more autonomy-supportive contexts, less pressure, and more frequent quality informal feedback.


It is important to recognize that simply focusing on the correlation relationships of kindergarten performance and reading outcomes in subsequent grades is not adequate for deciding which variables are the best predictors.


Our findings indicate that individual differences may be important in determining who is open to pedagogical approaches that involve change such as the teaching as persuasion metaphor, teaching for critical thinking, or conceptual change pedagogy. However … our results are preliminary, correlational, and further investigation is needed to more fully understand their implications.


Findings from this study suggest the importance of early and continued intervention by educators all over the world to help all students maintain positive beliefs about themselves as mathematically and scientifically competent.


The third way in which our results add to current canonical views about the word recognition processes of children with reading disabilities is by providing support for the hypothesis that a different balance of phonological and orthographical skills characterizes children with reading disabilities when they are compared with younger children without reading disabilities who are reading at the same level.


Results of this study indicate that psychological dysfunction may justifiably be added to economic and cognitive consequences on the list of negative outcomes of not graduation from high school. Such results further testify to the importance of providing a nourishing learning environment for all children.


American Psychology Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington DC: Author.

Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education, (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Klingner, J.K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34, 14-20.

Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W., & Silverman, S.J. (2000). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Robinson, D.H., Levin, J.R., Thomas, G.D., Pituch, K.A., & Vaughn, S. (2007). The incidence of “causal” statements in teaching-and-learning research journals. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 400-413.


“Mathematicians work with perfect data, whereas educators work with imperfect data.”

-- Andrea Foster, math grad student


Documents

Christopher S. Hlas UW-Eau Claire. 1. Literature review 2. Research questions 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Discussion ◦ Interpret results ◦ Limitations