Methods of Oxford University‟s Tutorial in the High School ...englishlanguageartseducator.wikispaces.com/file/view/Methods of... · The bulk of discussion based learning simply

Running head: DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 1

Methods of Oxford University‟s Tutorial in the High School Classroom: Using Discussion

Based Learning to Increase Student Performance

Emily Lott

Columbus State University

DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 2

Introduction

Background

The Tutorial System is a higher educational system adopted centuries ago by

England‟s Oxford and Cambridge Universities; which has now developed into the

conglomerate colloquial identity of Oxbridge. For this proposal, however, the main focus will

be set on Oxford‟s system in particular, not because one system shows greater promise than

the other, but due to the intimate knowledge the researcher has with the Oxford System. This

system, as W.S. Rouverol (1955) discusses in “The Tutorial System,” is quite different than

its American University counterpart (Rouverol, 1955, p.3) and also quite different from the

American high school.

For each subject, the pupil is required to write a paper and meet with a tutor once a

week, for eight weeks, to then discuss the paper they have written. Yet, the undergraduate

gains a degree in three years that an American counterpart would gain in four, and what the

Oxford system lacks in classroom hours, they make up for in intimate knowledge and

mastery of disciplines, enough knowledge that Rouverol suggests may even be equivalent to

an American Master‟s degree(p. 5). Thus, there is something to be learned from the Tutorial

System that is not used in traditional American schools, and being that the large difference is

the active dialog between tutor and pupil and intense preparation of knowledge, an increase

in discussion based lessons appears to be the answer.

Statement of the Problem

This proposal is an attempt to assist in adapting to the ever intruding limitations that

teachers experience daily; issues such as: classroom size, budgets for materials, and limiting

textbooks. The bulk of discussion based learning simply requires the students and their

voices, as they can be outside, in a gym, in the classroom, or even in the cafeteria. It also


teaches these students to engage. In a time when separation by technology is prevalent, this

type of learning delivers the verbal and conversational skills that are essential to surviving

and excelling students in the post-classroom environment. Thus, the problems of classroom

size and budget are both null to this form of learning. Granted, the first portions of

assimilating the knowledge can require some monetary expense, but after that point, there is

not a single cost to the teacher or student.

Review of Literature

A large portion of the initial intentions of this research were educated by Harwood‟s

(1989) article “The Nature of Teacher-Pupil Interactions in the Active Tutorial Work

Approach: Using Interaction Analysis to Evaluate Student-Centered Approaches.” This

article established that teachers regardless of intention typically still maintain attention in

what are considered student-centered approaches, and assisted in the determination that a

simple student-centered approach will not suffice in creating a larger understanding of a

discipline. This article created the understanding that a teacher must teach students to

academically spar with one another, and then also academically spar with the teacher.

Therefore, instead of a teacher becoming egotistically offended, they should rather take that

time as part of the passive conversational education being created for the student. As

Harwood dictates, “The successful implementation of any new pedagogy is crucially

dependent, at least initially, upon the roles and behavior of the teacher” (p.179). Thus, he

defines the initial accountability of teachers to take action against limited ability in the

classroom and conformity, and encourages teachers to experiment with structure and practice.

Rouverol‟s (1955) article, mentioned previously, also helped in defining where the

gap was between the American system of education verses the Oxford education. The detail

to which Rouverol outlines the oddities of both academic systems made the job of adapting


the higher education system to high school level much easier. Another article to help

exponentially in developing the classroom adaptation was Baxter‟s (1988) article “Turn-

Taking in Tutorial Group Discussion, Under Varying Conditions of Preparation and

Leadership.” This article was written to discover the reasons why turn-taking is difficult to

develop in the Tutorial System. A large portion of this article proposed and proved that

preparation is a key issue in creating authoritative students. Thus, creating a week of

preparation, much like students do in the tutorial system and then creating a week of

discussion in the classroom arose from the research in this article.

McQuillian‟s (2005) article “Possibilities and Pitfalls: A Comparative Analysis of

Student Empowerment,” is the final seminal article for the development of this research

proposal. McQuillian claims that the three areas that develop students to be most effective in

life are social, academic, and political (p. 642-643). Two of these are essentially exhibited

within the discussion based model of learning. A student will gain academic power by being

rehearsed on the concepts and vocabulary of a unit, while the discussion oriented class

requires students to participate socially within the classroom.

There are many articles that focus around either student-centered approaches in

various levels of education or reviews and quantitative research done on the Oxford tutorial

system. For further readings there are more articles included in the reference section that have

marginally helped conform the ideas of this proposal. Yet, none of these articles have created

the amalgamation of grade school academics and the authoritativeness required by the

Tutorial System. Therefore, the creation and enacting of this experiment will be bridging a

large gap between the higher educational triumphs of a long standing academic giant and a

potentially newly rejuvenated high school setting.

Hypothesis


Through the use of the Oxford Tutorial Model of discussion based learning, students

will gain higher performance grades at the end of an academic unit. If this research and

application is not effective, through the use of the Oxford Tutorial Model of discussion based

learning, students will see no change in their performance grade at the end of an academic

unit.

Method

Participants

The participants for this experiment consist of two eleventh-grade English classrooms

in Hardaway High School, located in the Muscogee County School District of the Georgia

Public School System. This school contains 1,736 students and offers grades 9-12. They

racially divide into: 1 American Indian/Alaska Native, 12 Asian/Hawaiian Native/Pacific

Islander, 0 Hispanic, 939 Black/Non-Hispanics, 651 White/Non-Hispanic, and 132 more

than one race students. 883 students are eligible for a free or reduced lunch. It is not a Title

One school and the student to teacher ratio is seventeen to one (2012). The demographics of

the two classrooms chosen should not be determined until after the selection of Class A and

B, as the demographics of a typical classroom are not controlled.

This lack of contrived selection will maintain and increase not only practicality for the

implementation of the discussion based method outside this experiment, but will also

increase the experiment‟s validity, as this is a real classroom setting. Any attempts to

manipulate the classroom will corrupt this experiment‟s validity. While the demographics are

not to be considered before beginning the experiment, they are to be recorded three times

within the experiment: before Unit One, before Unit Two, and after Unit Two. This is to

maintain a consistency within data reporting and to also to adequately remove any student


data that is not in all three recordings, as that indicates a student being removed or introduced

into the classroom during the experiment which will skew data findings.

The requirements for each classroom is that the same teacher, who has discussed the

classroom procedures with the researcher, teaches both classes, the students are being taught

within the same semester, and that they are both eleventh-grade classrooms with no Special

Education orientation. Thus, inclusion students may exist within the classroom, but these

classes should not be labeled either remedial or gifted as a whole. These two classrooms will

take on the titles of Class A and Class B for the remainder of the experiment and as stated,

are from the English/Language Arts discipline. However, this experiment, if found effective,

should be encouraged in all disciplines as improvements in any classroom are beneficial to

the education system.

Materials and Apparatus

The materials used within the experiment are a set of surveys and tests that correlate

with unit information. Unit One will be followed with Survey One and Test One; Unit Two

will be followed with Survey Two and Test Two. Survey One and Survey Two are identical

in every way. They contain a scale reading for qualitative information about the student

readiness for Test One and Test Two. They also contain two locations in which the students

can openly answer about what would have been beneficial and was beneficial in their

learning process during Units One and Unit Two. These surveys are not the primary data

point for the experiment, but do allow the research to gain some insight into each

participant‟s level of confidence, test preparedness, and educational preference. A sample

survey has been included in Appendix B.

Due to the focus on performance in this experiment, the primary data for this

experiment are Test One and Test Two, a pre-test and post-test scenario. Test One


information will derive directly from Unit One and should be modeled after the sample test in

Appendix C. Test Two information will derive directly from Unit Two and should be

modeled after the same sample test in Appendix C. This repetition in structure and specificity

in level of difficulty will allow for more reliability in the testing instrument and also more

validity in testing from the control Unit One to the experimental Unit Two. To gain even

further validity, the researcher and teacher will be required to hold a conference prior to each

test. These conferences will be conducted to assist in establishing the correct format for the

tests and also to maintain the level of difficulty for all given sections. Granted, difficulty is

subjective, but with an experienced teacher who understands student performance and the

researcher with which to confer, the tests should be fairly equitable. From this point, the

attempts to gain approval and then conduct the experiment can be made.

Procedure

The approval by the Muscogee County School District and the Principle of Hardaway

High School are essential to the continuation of this experiment. Once this experiment is

approved, and the paperwork located in Appendix is complete, each student within Class A

and Class B will be required to return a letter of consent from his or her guardian. A sample

of this consent form can be found in Appendix A.1. This will ensure that the experiment is

not rejected because of improper procedure. Once approval from all levels of Hardaway High

School and guardians of students are documented, and only when all approvals are gained,

may the research begin. There is an anticipated time schedule of three months for the

completion of the approval phase in this experiment.

Once the approval phase has gained completion, the research may begin. As the

selection of students is blind and quazi-experimental, the preliminary demographics of each

class will be notated by the researcher. In an effort to be able to study the depth of results at


the end of the experiment, each element of a student will be taken, including: age, gender,

socio-economic background, and race, any registrations with the American Disabilities Act

and disability services, and current class averages that exist before the experiment begins.

These demographics should not change the way in which the teacher should teach the class, it

is only to gain further information later in the experiment. However, if the researcher feels

that these factors will sway a teacher, to continue keeping this experiment reliable, the

teacher should not be allowed access to student demographics and will only be able to infer

items within the classroom.

Both classes will begin with Unit One, which will be taught will no discussion based

techniques, but in a similar fashion in both classes. This Unit and Unit Two will remain

within the Georgia Eleventh Grade English Standards, as removing the students from the

required subjects will remove this experiment‟s validity for practical use. When Unit One is

complete, Class A and Class B will take Survey One and Test One. Survey One will be

administered the day of Test One. Test One will correlate with the information provided in

Unit One. It will contain varying levels of difficulty and formulation in regards to the

information learned. From this point the researcher and the teacher must remain blind to the

results of Test One, as validity within the experiment will drop if either is swayed within Unit

Two to teach differently, due to results in Test One.

However, when this data is developed at the end of the experiment, the researcher will

use this information as a foundational level of performance for Class A and Class B. These

grades will be examined in comparison of one another and also cross-examined from the

results of Unit Two. Unit One should last the same amount of time anticipated for Unit Two.

Ideally, the time needed is up to the teacher instructing the students, but since the discussion

based design for a large classroom indicates two weeks, Unit One will take two weeks to

complete as well.


At the start of Unit Two, a second recording of demographical data will be taken,

including: age, gender, socio-economic background, race, and any registrations with the

American Disabilities Act and disability services. It is important to record any changes in

class size and students from Unit One to Unit Two, as classrooms do not always maintain the

same number of students from week to week. If the research finds that a student has left

within either Unit One or Unit Two, all test scores and data of that student should be

excluded in the final data findings.

Within Unit Two, Class A and Class B will begin a pedagogical separation. Class B

will continue their lessons in the same manner taught in Unit One and will remain the control

group for this experiment. Their lessons will contain no discussion style teaching. However,

both Class A and Class B will be receiving the same information in Unit Two. If Class A and

Class B are not taught the same information, the experiment will be corrupted and thus

rejected.

Class A will be taught following the discussion based learning as adapted by the

Oxford Tutorial Method. The teacher involved will follow the class outline as designed

within Appendix D, and will not rely on students learning through individual work after

Week One of Unit Two. Once Unit Two is complete, the teacher will administer Survey Two

just before Test Two, an identical match to Test One in difficulty and structure. The only

difference from Test One to Test Two should be the information in which the students are

tested, as Test One will correlate with the information taught in Unit One and Test Two will

correlate with the information taught in Unit Two. Survey Two should also be identical two

Survey One. At this time, a third round of each student‟s demographics will be recorded, as

Classroom A and Classroom B‟s student population may have shifted within the two weeks

of Unit Two. This recording of demographical data will include: age, gender, socio-economic

background, race, and any registrations with the American Disabilities Act and disability


services. If the researcher has found a student has permanently left/ been removed from the

classroom within Unit One or Unit Two, this student‟s scores will be removed from data

interpretations as it is corrupted due to a lack of completion.

Data

Once the data is collected from Test Two, the researcher will then begin to examine

the data. This is a score based test which should be observed in two parts: the overall class

grade mean median and mode, and then each student‟s individual performance change from

Unit One to Unit Two. The individual performance change in test score from Test One to

Test Two will indicate if that student, if in Class A, responded in a positive or negative way

to the implementation of the discussion style teaching. The individual performance grades for

Class B are the controls for the information change from Unit One to Unit Two. This

increases the validity, as the performance grades should maintain the same quality in Class B.

However, if Unit Two was more or less difficult, the Class B performance grades will

indicate this issue, as Class B Test Two will show the same increased or decreased rate of

change from Test One. At this point, the researcher should include demographics, as one

demographic may respond better than another to the style of teaching. By comparing Test

One and Test Two of Class A, if there is a large change in a certain demographics‟

performance, this may propose more study in that specific field. If that is the case, part of the

information taken from this experiment is how to teach specific demographics in the

discussion based lesson. When considering data analysis of the entire class, demographics

will play much less of a role.

The overall class grades will be compared in multiple ways. From Unit One, Class A

and Class B mean grades will indicate a base level of understanding in regards to class

performance, as they compare to one another and as they will compare to Unit Two. Once

Unit Two is complete, Class A test scores from Test One and Test Two will be contrasted. If


the Class A average of Test Two scores is higher than Test One, the preliminary statement

that the discussion based model is effective may be made. However, Class B Test One and

Test Two should also be compared. If the mean for Test One to Test Two for Class B

increases substantially or at the same rate of Class A, then there will be an issue with the

statement, as that shows Unit Two was simply a less difficult Unit either in subject matter or

the design of Test Two. If Test Two for Class B increased at a higher rate that Test Two for

Class A, then it will be understood that the discussion model actually hurt the performance of

Class A.

This can only be reconciled by comparing the levels in which Class A and Class B are

performing. If Test One showed Class B as the higher performing class, then Test Two may

also show this fact. For this experiment to be positively effective, the rate of positive change

between Test One to Test Two for Class A should be substantially higher than that of Test

One to Test Two for Class B.

The Survey One and Survey Two data is simply that of collection and interpretation.

The researcher will look to see if students collectively felt more confident about Test One or

Test Two, and the researcher will also look to see if any students from Class A felt that the

discussion based model actually helped or hurt their test performance. Again, this is not the

primary focus of the experiment, but still gains an awareness of student confidence in the

classroom either increased by the discussion based lesson or decreased by the discussion

based lesson.

Timeline and Budget

Timeline

The timeline for this experiment is really dependent on the participation of the

Muscogee County School District and the Principle of Hardaway High School. This part of


the process could take three months to five months, depending on the time in which the

experiment is started. The proposal will be taken to the Muscogee County School District in

March of the experimental year, and then once approved, will be taken to the Principle of

Hardaway High School at an estimated time of mid-June to the first of July.

This timeline will allow students to be researched in the Fall semester of that same

year, or Spring if approval takes longer than anticipated. From this point, it is anticipated that

sending out consent forms and awaiting their arrival can take up to a month. Thus, the first

month of the school year, from mid-August to mid-September, will be designed to await

guardian approval. Once all consent forms have been documented, the experiment will last

four weeks. Unit One and Test One will take the first two weeks and Unit Two and Test Two

will take the second two weeks. From this point, the researcher will no longer need the

school‟s participation in a large capacity, and will begin data analysis. This will take no

longer than a month, as the data is fairly basic.

Budget

The budget for this experiment is also basic. Due to the auditory nature of the

discussion based lessons, much of the materials needed to teach Class A will not be needed.

Thus, the basic costs are: any fees incurred by approval from the Muscogee County School

Board, paper for the consent forms, paper for tests, paper for surveys, and the typical supplies

used for an English Unit. There are no special or outside costs that are to be created.

Monetary compensation for the teacher being researched is unacceptable as that may change

his or her performance and thus decrease the validity of the research.


References

Ashwin, P. (Nov., 2005). Variation in students‟ experiences of the „oxford tutorial.‟ Higher

Education, 50 (4), 631-644. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068115

Baxter, E.P. (1988). Turn-taking in tutorial group discussion, under varying conditions of

preparation and leadership. Higher Education, 17 (3), 295-306. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447066

Chiriac, E.H. (May, 2008). Higher Education 55 (5), 505-518. Retrieved from


Cornelius, L.L. & Herrenkohl, L.R.. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom

environment shapes students‟ relationships with each other and with concepts.

Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 467-498. Retrieved from


Lopez, O.S. (Mar., 2007).Classroom diversification: A strategic view of educational

productivity. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 28-80. Retrieved from


Greenlaw, S.A. & DeLoach, S.B.. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic

discussion. The Journal of Economic Education, 34 (1), 36-52. Retrieved from


Harwood, D. (1989). The nature of teacher-pupil interaction in the active tutorial work

approach: using interaction analysis to evaluate student-centred approaches. British

Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 177-194. Retrieved from








McQuillan, P.J. (2005). Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of student

empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (4), 639-670. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699475

Newman, F.M., . Marks, H.M & Gamoran, A.. (Aug 1996). Authentic pedagogy and student

performance. American Journal of Education, 104 (4), 280-312. Retrieved from


Rouverol, W.S. (Jan., 1955). The tutorial system. The Journal of Higher Education, 26 (1), 1-

9+55-56. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1978106

Shimahara, N.K. (1983). Polarized socialization in an urban high school. Anthropology and

Education Quarterly, 14 (2), 109-130. Retrieved from


Van Zee, E. & Minstrell, J.. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 6 (2), 227-269. Retrieved from


(2012) Find Good School: Hardaway High School Columbus Georgia. Retrieved from

http://findgoodschool.com/school/130387001397-HARDAWAY-HIGH-SCHOOL-

COLUMBUS-GA



http://findgoodschool.com/school/130387001397-HARDAWAY-HIGH-SCHOOL-COLUMBUS-GA

http://findgoodschool.com/school/130387001397-HARDAWAY-HIGH-SCHOOL-COLUMBUS-GA


Appendix A

Permission to Conduct Research Sample Form

Researcher:___________________________

Project/ Date: ___________________________

Institutional Affiliation: ___________________________

We the below signed, authorize ________________________ to conduct research in

Hardaway Schools for the semester of ______________________, with the constraints that

no student information or participation will be used without the written consent of the

guardian of that student and the student‟s permission. Failure to do so will result in

immediate closing of the research and will not be readmitted until proper permission

procedures are followed. All students within this research group have the right to reject

consent at any time within the research timeline. We, as the heads of the Muscogee County

School District and Principle of Hardaway High School can stop this research at any time

with due cause and will do so to protect and lead our school in the best way possible.

Signature of Superintendent of Schools Date

__________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Other Presiding Office Date

__________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Principle of Hardaway High School Date


Appendix A.1

Consent Form Sample Student/Guardian Inclusive

Hardaway High School

2901 College Drive

Columbus, Georgia 31906

(706) 748-2766

Dear Student Guardian and Student,

The Muscogee County School District and Principle of Hardaway High School have

approved a research study within your student‟s classroom. This experiment in no way will

cause undue stress on your student and is interested in improving the classroom in which

your student is learning. This experiment could be foundational in studying a solution to large

class sizes while also improving your student‟s performance as well as students in the future.

Your student will undergo two surveys and two tests that will be recorded. Your student‟s

participation may also be recorded as well as the demographics of each student. Your student

will remain anonymous and will only be recorded through the assignment of a random

number. No student names will be discussed in the research.

I, the parent or guardian of the student listed below, affirm my understanding that

this form is designed to gain consent to release all scores and class participation information

made by my student within the research time scheme. I also affirm that all demographical

information will be released with the understanding that my student will remain anonymous

and if given any identification will be one of randomized numerical value and not any given

or legal name.

I, the student also understand the above, and the procedures have been explained to

me in class as to what this research includes. I understand that any information released to the

researcher will be kept private and that my name will not be included in the publication for

privacy purposes.

___________________________________________________________________

Student Name (Print)

___________________________________________________________________

Student Signature Date

I grant permission for my student to participate in this research. Yes____ No___


___________________________________________________________________

Parent/Guardian Name (Print)

___________________________________________________________________

Parent/Guardian Signature Date


Appendix B

Survey

1. How do you feel about taking this test?

a. Not at all Confident

b. Somewhat Confident

c. Neutral

d. Confident

e. Very Confident

2. Do you feel that you are prepared to take this test?

a. Not at all prepared

b. Somewhat prepared

c. Neutral

d. Prepared

e. Very Prepared

3. Is there something that would have better helped you learn information in the Unit?

a. _______________________________________________

4. Is there something that you helped you learn information in this Unit?

a. _______________________________________________


Appendix C

Test One and Test Two Structure

Each Multiple Choice and Matching question are worth five points. The Short Answer

questions are worth fifteen points each. The total possible score for this test is 130 points.

Section A: Vocabulary- Multiple Choice, Medium Difficulty

1. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

2. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

3. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

4. Questions

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

5. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

Section B: Vocabulary- Matching, Medium Difficulty

1. Question A

2. Question B

3. Question C

4. Question D

5. Question E

Matching should contain correlating answers that are presented at random in a column to the

right of the questions.

Section C: Concepts- Multiple Choice, Hard Difficulty

1. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D


2. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

3. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

4. Questions

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

5. Question

a. Answer A

b. Answer B

c. Answer c

d. Answer D

Section D: Concepts- Matching, Hard Difficulty

1. Question A

2. Question B

3. Question C

4. Question D

5. Question E

Matching should contain correlating answers that are presented at random in a column to the

right of the questions.

Section E: Concepts- Short Answer

1. Question One should require the articulation of an easy concept taught in the Unit and

can be answered in less than 250 words.

2. Question Two should require the articulation of a difficult concept taught in the Unit

and can be answered in less than 250 words.


Appendix D

Example Unit Plan for Class A Unit Two

Week One

1. Day One: Introduction with PowerPoint Unit Vocabulary Definitions

2. Day Two: PowerPoint Jeopardy for Unit Vocabulary

3. Day Three: Apply Vocabulary to Concept in Unit

4. Day Four: Continuing Applying Concept through Written Work

5. Day Five: Question and Answer for Teacher about Concepts and Vocabulary

Week Two

1. Day One: Discussion- Each student gets one vocabulary work and must argue that

their word is the best word in Unit Two. If class finishes early, do another round

giving students different vocabulary words.

2. Day Two: Discussion- Each student is given a different vocabulary word and a

concept learned in class last week. They then tell the class how the vocabulary word

either connects or does not connect to the concept.

3. Day Three: Speed Tutorials- Pairs of students argue with one another about concepts

proposed by the teacher for five minutes and then rotate.

4. Day Four: Discussion- Students stand up at the start of class. Teacher pulls a name

and a concept or vocabulary word. The student then, in front of the class,

academically spars with the teacher. They can sit down when they finish their round.

5. Day Five: Survey Two and Test Two taken


Appendix E

Institutional Review Board Sample Submission Form- To be completed at time of research

Columbus State University

Institutional Review Board

Application for Institutional Review Board Review

Part I – To be completed by researcher:

General Instructions for Completion of Protocol: Unless otherwise instructed, type all

information in the area below each question, using as much space as necessary.

I. Principal Investigator(s):

-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-

Mail:_________________

Mailing Address: _____________________________________ Phone:

_________________

-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-

Mail:_________________


_________________

-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-

Mail:_________________


_________________

Faculty Supervisor (if applicable): ______________________ Department:

____________

Faculty Supervisor E-Mail: _____________________________ Phone:

_________________

II. Title of Project:

____________________________________________________________

III. Dates of Proposed Research: Start: ___________________ End:

___________________

IV. Source of Funding for the Protocol: _________________________________________


V. Purpose of the Study: In a brief statement, clearly describe your reason for performing

this study, including: 1) all of the objectives of the study (including hypothesis when

applicable), and 2) the anticipated outcomes.

VI. Description of Participants and Recruitment:

Number of Participants: ______

Age of Participants: ___ 18 and older ___ under 18 (specify age(s)): __________________

How are participants to be selected and recruited?

What is your relationship to the participants?

Compensation: If compensation is to be awarded for participation in the study describe

below, be specific. If no compensation will be given, state “none”.

VII. Methodology: Explain exactly what the participants will be asked to do. Include the

amount of time that each participant will need to devote to the study. Insert copies of any

questions or surveys that will be given to the participants. Researchers should take care not

to collect any data, especially demographics, unless doing so is necessary and they have

specific plans to analyze or otherwise make use of the data. Explain how each variable

measured supports the purpose of your study. If this is part of a thesis or dissertation, insert

the Methodology section of the thesis or dissertation proposal below. Use as much space as

necessary.


VIII. Risks of Participation: List all physical, economic, social, and/or psychological risks.

If the risks of harm to a participant are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily

life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations, then state:

“No more than minimal risk.” If, however, the protocol involves more than minimal risk,

specify procedures for protecting participants.

IX. Benefits: Describe the potential benefits to the participants and/or others as a direct

result of this research project.

X. Informed Consent Process: Explain the process through which you will provide the

potential participant all the information they need to decide whether or not to participate.

Append a copy of any written forms, cover letters, verbal scripts, and/or assent scripts that

you will use. Waiver of the informed consent process is limited to research involving the

collection or study of existing data, publicly available information, and observation of

unmanipulated public behavior where data is recorded in such a manner that identifiers

cannot be linked to individuals.

a. What types of information will be collected? Attach a copy of all survey instruments,

interview questions, word or activity tests, etc.

b. Will demographic information be collected? ___ Yes ___ No List all demographic

information that will be collected, if applicable:

c. Will participants be identifiable to anyone? If so, explain how their identity will be

safeguarded:

d. For what purpose is the information being collected (e.g., publication, thesis, dissertation,

presentation)?


XI. Electronic Signatures: This page may be submitted in hard copy if necessary. It may be

faxed.

Principal Investigator(s):

I understand and will abide by federal policy concerning human subjects research. In

addition, I agree to:

•Obtain approval from the IRB prior to instituting any change in project protocol.

•Inform the IRB immediately of any unforeseen risks or adverse effects.

•Keep signed consent forms, if required, from each participant for the duration of the project,

including publications.

•Submit a Continuation/Conclusion report at 12- month or shorter time intervals (as indicated

on the approval letter).

I accept the responsibilities indicated above. I have attached a copy of my training

certificate. (Attach training certificate only if not previously submitted.)

Signed: ______________________________________ Date: _____________

Principal Investigator 1

Signed: ______________________________________ Date: _____________

Principal Investigator 2

Faculty Advisor (if student-only project)

I have collaborated in the development of the research proposal described in the attached and

have reviewed all of the information enclosed and will oversee the work described. I will

endeavor to ensure that all of the PI responsibilities are fulfilled. I have read the protocol

submitted for this project for content, clarity, and methodology.

____________________________ __________________________ __________

Faculty Advisor (Please Print) Faculty Advisor‟s Signature Date

Part II - To be completed by the IRB:

The proposed research has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

According to the Federal common rule regulation, it is designated:

Exempt

Expedited

Full Board Review

________________________________________________________________________

Approved

Not Approved


Conditional approval with required modifications/recommendations.

Signature of IRB Chairperson or Member: ________________________________________

Date: __________________________________________________

*This format is found directly from researcher‟s home institution. The researcher is in no way

claiming this as her own design: http://research.columbusstate.edu/irb/process.php

http://research.columbusstate.edu/irb/process.php

Documents

Methods of Oxford University‟s Tutorial in the High School ...englishlanguageartseducator.wikispaces.com/file/view/Methods of... · The bulk of discussion based learning simply