Reflection
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Belhaven University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
610
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by MajorIronPrairieDog44
1
Reflection
Jodie B. Stepro
Department of Education, Belhaven University
EDU 610: Research Methods and Procedures
Dr. Kimberly Harrell
June 18th, 2022
2
Reflection
Research ethics must be evaluated to increase the validity of this research. When it comes
to research ethics, this proposal was created from a utilitarian viewpoint. According to Johnson and Christensen (2020), in a utilitarianist view “ethical decisions are based on weighing the potential benefits that might accrue from a research study against the potential costs,” to the research participants or society at large (p. 371). From this study, it is expected that little to no harm will come to the participants because their participation is completely voluntary, and their results are coded to avoid bias and to respect their privacy. The study has a limited cost because the researcher is already working at the school; therefore, this negates travel expenses, and no one is being paid to conduct or participate in the research. The students’ academic time will also not be impacted because they will already be participating in the district's systematic phonics program and the assessments are either already written into the pacing guide or will be given during homeroom time resulting in little disruption to their day. Teachers will need to give up some time to respond to their surveys; however, this is done at their convenience in a digital format to cause as little disruption as possible. The benefits far outweigh the costs because the student, teacher, and district benefit from the results of this study as it could lead to either confirming the value of the program or a realization that a different approach is needed. According to Johnson and Christensen (2020), there are three areas of “ethical concern” that need to be addressed, “the relationship between society and science, professional issues, and the treatment of research participants” (p. 373). Each of these will be addressed to circumvent possible threats to the validity of this study.
The first concern addressed is that related to “society and science” (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.373). Although society may “encourage research in areas that are
3
considered important,” such as education, this study arose from a direct need to evaluate a program in a specific school the researcher personally teaches at (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.374). As mentioned previously, there is little to no cost associated with this study therefore no federal or government funding has prompted this investigation to occur. That being said, in an attempt, to be fully transparent, this proposal is a requirement of a private institution’s master’s degree course; however, they have in no way determined the direction of this study nor will they interfere with its process. To address the second concern, “professional issues,” one must ask if there is anything to be gained by fabricating the results (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.373)? For this study, the answer is nothing. I am not set to gain fame or fortune by having specific results that lean in either direction because I am not a researcher by trade and no money is being exchanged as a result of the study. There is also no promotion being offered nor any other favor to be gained by the execution of this study. The pure reason for this study is to determine the best course of action in a specific second-grade classroom. Johnson and Christensen (2020) bring up other unethical practices of concern such as “overlooking others’ use of flawed data, failing to present data contradicting one’s own work or circumventing minor aspects of human-participant requirements” (p.377). In addressing multiple aspects of this concern, I specifically sought out opposing viewpoints as evidenced by the inclusion of Bower’s (2020) research which proposed that other researchers who proclaim systematic phonics as “an end to the reading wars” may not have fact-checked their data enough (p.682). I further considered his points when determining the validity of the information included in this research project. The third, “most important and fundamental” concern is “the treatment of research participants” (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.379). One component of this mentioned in the text
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
is the unethical practice of experimenting on people without their consent or without them knowing the true purpose of the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.380). As mentioned throughout the proposal students are fully aware of what is being evaluated and why and they must have a signed parental consent form to participate. Another concern might be that of peer reactions to the study; however, by having all students participate in the district-mandated curriculum and evaluations as they would without the study occurring and by coding student and teacher results there is no chance a student or teacher may be singled out. Johnson and Christensen (2020) mention that “research participants can, and often do, reveal sensitive information” not pertaining to the study which “the researcher must be prepared to address,” but as a teacher and a mandated reporter, I have already been prepared to handle such occurrences (p.382). Any concerning remarks will be passed on to the appropriate professional be it the principal, guidance counselor, or Child Protective Services (CPS). In addition to the guidelines mentioned above, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) (2011) has its own standards to ensure the protection of children participating in educational research:
professional competence
integrity
professional, scientific, and scholarly responsibility
respect for people’s rights, dignity, and diversity
social responsibility (AERA 2011, p.1)
Regarding standard one, “professional competence,” I am a board-certified, state-licensed teacher so I am “competent” to study the reading habits of the elementary class which I teach. I also am staying “up-to-date” in research practices by furthering my education in the pursuit of
5
my master’s degree (Johnson & Christensen, 2020, p.384). Standard two, integrity, goes hand in hand with my personal, Christian ethical standards in which the Bible says, “Every way of a man
is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts" (King James Bible, 1969/2012, Proverbs 21:2). This reveals that I cannot ignore what is best for my research participants simply to achieve my research goals. Standard three concerns the specifics stated in AERA’s (2011) twenty-two ethical standards, many of which have already been addressed (p.1). Standard four focuses on leaving out bias and maintaining respect for diversity. Students and teachers are randomly selected without regard to ethnicity and coded to avoid any bias from me. Consent forms will be signed by all involved, I will explain freedom to withdraw rights in a way that students can understand, and all participants will be debriefed following the project. Standard five is demonstrated by my willingness to publish the results of my study so that others may benefit from my research and again in my treatment of my research participants who will at all times be treated with dignity and respect. This study is not mandated to be brought before the Institutional Review Board (IRB) because there is “no risk to participants” and because research will be “conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices” without utilizing “identifiers linked to the participants” which would invade their privacy (Johnson and Christensen, 2020, p.416). Although the utilitarian viewpoint typically is one where the end justifies the means, I believe that this study takes all necessary precautions to ensure the safety and well-being of all of
the research participants as well as limits any ethical dilemmas that may arise. There are far more
benefits to society than potential harm to those involved and practically no financial tie-ins.
6
References
American Educational Research Association Council (AERA). (2011). AERA Code of Ethics. pp. 145-146. [Online]. http://www.aera.net/PORTALS/38/DOCS/ABOUT_AERA/CODEOFETHICS(1).PDF
Johnson, R. B, & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational Research Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (7th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 371-416.
King James Bible. (2008). King James Bible [Online]. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Links to an external site.). (Original work published 1769)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help