Paradigm reflection

     As I reflect upon my research interests in my search for a dissertation topic, I have to keep in mind some recently discovered aspects of my personality. I have learned that I have a tendency to be very judgmental, see issues in black or white, and rush into a ‘fix-it’ mode when I sense an injustice.  How I got that way serves more as a topic for psychoanalysis than a memo on paradigms, but I must keep those tendencies in mind when planning research because they push me towards positivism to get the facts, compare variables and make a judgment.

     When I started thinking about the kind of research I wanted to do, my ideas kept centering on bilingual education programs, especially the dual language program which was started four years ago in my low-performing, unaccredited elementary school.   I was faced with a puzzlement: is a two-way bilingual program good for the low-income, non-
English speaking children who enter this school?  Do children without home literacy support in their first language, find it doubly difficult to learn academic material in both the home language as well as the second language?  Is it right to place two groups of children with very different economic and literacy backgrounds together and expect the same high academic outcomes? That is my puzzlement and I acknowledge that I will probably spend the rest of my life investigating pieces of the puzzle. 

     Looking at the question as a whole, I see a very positivist approach to get a black or white answer.  A quantitative approach, using the test data from standardized tests of the children in the dual language program could be compared with the test data of the children who are not in the dual language program.  The variables of proficiency in first language, home literacy support and achievement in second language tests could be examined in the dual language group and compared to those children who had English only education.  My gut feeling, after working with the Spanish speakers in the dual language program (with the students as an ESL teacher and parents as the translator for parent-teacher conferences), is that even though research (Collier & Thomas, 2002) shows that a dual language program produces higher and longer lasting academic achievement than an English only program, these students will not show the expected gains.  Their lack of literacy background compared to the children of a highly literate group, puts them on unequal footing right from the beginning.  Armed with that kind of quantitative data, I could get in there with my fix-it attitude and redesign the program intake process.

     But now I am reevaluating my motivation in doing this kind of research. As an educator, I am working for what is best for the student.  Would a study like this be the best for the student? What would be more useful?  I think that my contribution to the field of dual language education would be more valuable if I contextualized a dual language program, studying the family background of the children who enroll in the program. Why did they choose that program?  What are their expectations?  What do they feel is their own role in their children’s education?  My research question is evolving to be along the two-pronged lines of: What are the expectations of the two groups of parents, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking, who place their children in this dual language program?  And then, if and how do these expectations influence classroom practice?

     Now that I am striving for understanding, I see my research questions tending more towards the interpretivist paradigm.  The study would be a search for meaning from two very different groups of families: the English speakers who tend to be highly educated, middle class, highly involved parents, and the Spanish speakers who tend to be illiterate, lower middle to lower economic level and unseen in the school.  Is this a correct profile of the two groups? This is how I see them.  How do they see themselves?  My study tends towards interpretive constructivism.  I would be interpreting how the participants viewed themselves, or how they perceived themselves and their role in the education of their children.  I believe that there are multiple perspectives represented among the families involved. There are probably as many social realities as there are families in the program.  The idea of each family representing its own reality makes me wonder whether Realism enters into my question. But since I will be interpreting their reality as they view it, I am back to interpretivism.

     The commonalities and differences could be quantified but in a positivist approach, their realities would become variables and their uniqueness would be lost to numbers and statistics. The value of studying a program with such a richness of family backgrounds is to listen to their stories and consider their points of view and their reasons for participating in the dual language program.  This rich description, data presented in words rather than numbers, can teach us more about the social reality of the people who choose this kind of program.
Another paradigm which enters into my research interest is critical theory.  Because of the two economic levels represented by the two language groups, there might surface some hidden and not so hidden patterns of domination by the majority language group, the English speakers.  If that is so, then a logical ‘next step’ in my study would be to recommend measures to make all the participants aware of the imbalance and to work for social equity among the participants in the context of the program.  

     By searching for the multiple realities and constructing the meaning of the dual language program for the program participants, I believe that we can discover information which can help in the design of future programs.  When dealing with minority and majority cultural issues, there is the danger of the majority groups’ expectations and understanding of a situation dominating the interests of the minority group.  Critical theory will point this out and create a basis for action.  In the era of No Child Left Behind, educators of minority children have the responsibility to ensure that programs for minority children are serving their needs.  In this context, I will let my judgmental and fix-it attitude take over to serve the needs of the student.  

     In conclusion, my two-pronged question about the families who send their children to the dual language program and their influence on teaching practices relies generally on two paradigms.  The constructivist approach will guide the study of the families themselves and their perception of their role in the program.  Critical theory will enter into the second part of if and whether their perceptions and their influence enter the classroom along with the children.
 
 

Forward to the assignment

When I read the proposed assignments for this module, I thought that analyzing QRA software would be very interesting and relatively easy. It would also help me decide whether and what I would buy for future use. To begin my search for software I started with Weitzman’s four questions and the two supplementary questions.  
Question 1:  What kind of computer user was I?

 
     I am very comfortable with the computer.  In my house I am the one who has researched and bought the hardware for my husband and adult daughter, and installs and figures out how the software works.  I consider myself very good at reading the manuals and applying the information.  Yes, I read the manual and then try to figure it out.  I am a ‘hands-on the manual’ before a ‘hands-on the keyboard’ kind of person.  I looked forward to the challenge of figuring out QRA. 

 Question 2:  Was I choosing for one project for the next few years?  I really don’t know at this time.  So far in my dissertation planning, I think that I will be dealing with a small sample of participants and so the QRA that I might need, will not have to have the capacity for large quantities of data.  I just don’t know at this time.  Because I’m not personally familiar with any QRA software I am concerned about “fragmentation of data” and dealing with data out of context.  That is my image of coding and classifying QRA at this time.

 Question 3:  What kind of database or project will I be working on?  I think that I will be starting with a survey to find out basic background information about families who request the dual language program at my school.  Then, from that information I will choose a number of parents to interview and then write up profiles of the two language groups involved in the dual language program.  In terms of software, I will be dealing with interview data from more or less 10 families from each language group to write a synthesis of each group.  At this time I can see a word processing program (like Word) and a data base manager like Excel being effective for organizing data.  For data display, Inspiration comes to mind because it is very user-friendly.  For entering the interviews I would like to try Naturally Speaking so that after training the software because it seems less labor-intensive than typing from recordings.  Dragon Dictate is now available for Mac.

 Question 4:  What kind of analysis am I planning to do?  In order to choose software, I have to have an idea of what I need to do with the data. Since I will be dealing with interview information, I could choose coding software that lets me search and find phrases and expressions as well as coded themes.  I think that I would like to be able to code ‘chunks’ and be able to assign multiple codes to chunks.  That way I can use phrases like ‘they just took a look at us and sorted us accordingly’ (Interview #3) for both the category of them versus us and feeling of discrimination.  

 Now I am thinking more about the things I would like software to do.  I want to be able to enter the interview data that is already in a Word document easily into the QRA.  I also want to be able to easily include the text-source information in the text.  I wonder whether I would use a frequency count of expressions or themes. I read in the Weitzman article that some programs can give quantitative data in a matrix. For data display, I can use Inspiration because I’m familiar with it. At this point, I’m not sure which QRA software includes data displays the way SPSS does.

 Weitzman’s two ancillary questions deal with cost and closeness to data.  Closeness of data is something I can’t answer until I actually try the software and see if I feel that I’m losing touch with the context of the words.  The issue of cost is the one that has thwarted me even in this introduction to QRA. The software is expensive but there is some that is downloadable—like EZ-Text.  But, software for a Mac is not as available as for a PC.  Since I work on a Mac, I looked for Mac-compatible software first.  I found EZ-text and downloaded it for my operating system.  I could not open the download.  The computer technician at my place of work could not open it either.  So I deleted the download and looked for another program. I did not find any other downloadable trial program that would download and open on my iBook.  
 My next step, if I want to use QRA is to buy a PC.  Once I do that, I will download demos of Qualrus and HyperResearch.  I read about the features of Qualrus and looked at the way it displayed data. I would like to try it.  The single copy price for students is $199 (as of 2002). It seems reasonable.  HyperResearch has a tutorial that shows how to manipulate data inside the program. It seems very straightforward.

 So, after hours of research on QRA, I feel that the only advice I can offer is to get a PC.  Until I can afford to buy the hardware and software, I will continue analyzing data manually.  

 Module 3:  Narrative Analysis

 In Chapter 5 of Coffey and Atkinson, the authors say that ‘writing is a positive act of sense making’.  That phrase described how I saw narrative analysis.  Identifying the units in a narrative helps to make sense of the data found in a narrative.  I used the elements of Abstract, Orientation, Complication, Evaluation, Result and Coda to look at an interview with a 3rd grade Spanish teacher.  I tried to identify the stories that she told to see if they fit into what Labov calls an ‘evaluation model’.  Here is one excerpt and the units as I see them: (The following narrative is taken about 1/4 of the way into the interview with a Mexican-born Spanish teacher.)

Me:  You mentioned individual situations  especially in your family.  Can you give me an example in your family who experienced/not experience a bilingual program and what their experience was and if it’s made a difference?
Olivia:  Well, I have a brother who is 11 months younger than I am.  We both came from the same home.  My family was very academic. I always saw someone reading and writing.  My parents they were avid readers and writers. I read before I went to school in Mexico because I always saw my siblings and I wanted to do what they did. And I wanted to go to school. Well my same brother who tended to be quieter than me.  We went into school together.  He struggled.
Me:  same grade? 
O: Same grade actually.  They had a thing about if you were Caucasian-looking-Mexican they would put you in the appropriate grade.  But if you looked Hispanic they would put you one grade behind. Don’t ask me why?  That’s how we figured it out.  We had two blondies in our family and the two blondies got to go in the appropriate grade level and all the other browns they had to go one grade below.
M:  this is in El Paso?
O:  Yes, this is in El Paso.  And I know it was practiced that you always put a student back and I don’t know why. But basically what we found out was that our blonde siblings didn’t have to do that.  I don’t know why. Same family, same kids, same parents that register. They just took a look at us and sorted us accordingly.  But my brother who was in the first grade like I was (not in the same class) had to struggle.  I mean I had to translate to my mother when I was in 2nd grade because his 2nd grade teacher. Let’s see, yes, 2nd grade. I was already in 3rd, he was in 2nd, claimed that he was mute, deaf and dumb because he didn’t speak.  So my parents got a notice that the teacher wanted him in SpEd.  My mother said he can talk, what is she talking about.  She went in, asked me to translate, my father went with us.  We talked to the teacher and she said that he doesn’t talk, he can’t hear.  I think he has a problem.  So my mother turned to my brother and said “What’s your problem?  Why aren’t you talking? And my brother answered well I don’t understand what she says.  She talks English. And that was the first time.  You should have seen the teacher’s face. She said, “he speaks!” He never says anything he just sits there and says nothing. So my mother, being the true Mexican that she is, threatened him that he had better get on the ball.  And he did but he always struggled.  Same family. My parents regard education very highly.  Teacher’s word was gold and what she said had to be done and you didn’t want my mom there. Because she would tell you that your job was to go to school.  Your job was to go to school.  And school was not an easy thing for him.
 
Abstract is in the question.

Orientation: She tells who (her brother); what (went to school);when (starting in 1st grade); where (in school in El Paso).

Evaluation:Don’t ask me why? I don’t know why?

Complication:
He was put back a year and struggled to learn.  The teacher wanted to refer him for testing for SpEd because he didn’t speak in school.

Result:Parents went to school to talk to the teacher. The brother was reprimanded by the mother.
Coda: He always struggled.  School was not an easy thing for him.
 
 
 

After using the structure for narrative analysis I see a clear story in her words.  I reviewed the other long passages where she talked without interruption and I see a number of other stories she told.  When I compared her responses to the other participants, I see that she is much more of a storyteller in the way she answers.  I would like to go through the entire interview and see if I can organize her mini-stories into a narrative which tells her life and her decisions about how she became a teacher, in her own words.   I think that when I collected this data (for EDRS 812), my focus was on coding and breaking the data into segments.  After learning about narrative analysis, what I am seeing now in the interview data is a story that is guided (and sometimes interrupted) by my questions.

Module 4:  Validity

     To me, the two questions above boil down the essence of validity.  At every step of the research process, I have to be aware of validity issues so that when I reach the conclusions I can feel confident that I have gotten it right. I will try to acknowledge and deal with validity threats from the beginning of the literature review through to the writing of the project.

     I think that my concept of validity is a combination of Wolcott’s and Maxwell’s. To me they go together nicely. One aims to get it right and the other aims not to get it wrong. Wolcott talks about being involved in the setting and not separating his personal and professional view.  That seems a bit extreme to me, especially after knowing the extent of his involvement. (But, I digress.) Wolcott mentions recording first impressions and using them as a baseline. I like that idea as a way to gauge how my impressions change as I gather more knowledge from observation and reflection.  So far, after four years of observing the dual language program, my ideas have changed considerably as I understand more about that specific program and about bilingual instruction in general. 

     My topic has to do with dual language programs and the two language/ethnic groups who select the dual language program for their children.  When starting my research to investigate what has been written about DL programs, I feel that I should cast a wide net.  According to Jim Crawford, in 2003 most dual language programs were found in schools with a high economic group that benefits from the DL program and a low economic group that the program is designed to serve.  If I go by this information, I would limit my background information to only that formula. So instead, I think that I should investigate dual language programs not found in those demographics. For example, I would look into the Oyster Elementary program and Arlington dual language programs, as well as Texas, Arizona and California border programs.  A broader knowledge base might bring up issues that I hadn’t thought of because they are not obvious in the school program I’m studying.   

What validity threats am I most concerned about?
How can I be wrong and what can I do to acknowledge it or guard against it? 

      How can I consider validity while designing the study?  In planning the interviews, I have to be careful not to ask questions in a biased way. I can have others check the questions/field-try the questions/make sure the questions are open-ended enough so that the participant can answer freely.  I can design a core of questions that dig at what I want to know and ask the same questions to everyone. I should be aware of whether the questions are guiding the data or the data guiding the questions. 

     Can I find negative evidence or negative cases?  I’m sure this will come up as I am interviewing parents from two seemingly different groups.  Instead of looking for the differences from the beginning, I will try to ask the same questions to everyone and consider all the families rather than discard those who offer differing information.  I will have to remain open to all cases (families) and not disregard any ‘case’ until I have looked at all the data.  It would be very easy to find stereotypical families of the two groups.  I must consciously make the effort to include everyone until my categories are set and I decide what to focus on. Then the other cases or the ‘outliers’ will be mentioned as part of the data but not necessarily as part of the two case studies—the two groups of language speakers.  We’ll see. At this point, I’m not sure what I will find.

     If I write profiles or case studies of the families, do the families agree with what I have written?  Here, definitely ‘member checks’ will help.  Each section will be read by a selected person or group of people who supplied the information, to make sure that I have characterized the group properly.  Since it will be a composite of information from a group, I want to make sure that what I wrote is a description of the group as a whole rather than just of a set of verbally active parents.

     Are the participants giving me the information that they believe I want to hear? This could be a real validity threat. With the Spanish-speaking parents, I would try to overcome this threat by asking another person, the family liaison (a Mexican woman who deals mostly with the Hispanic parents) to sit in with me during the interviews.  Having her with me will: 1) be a check on my Spanish when asking the questions to make sure that I phrase them in a way that the parents can understand and respond to; 2) also help me to verify the translation to make sure that I understood the meaning implied in the answers as well as the words.

     When writing up the research, I have to be clear about whether I am explaining, describing or interpreting.  I think that all of these enter at some time in looking at the research.  For example in interviews, what am I looking for? A description of what parents want for their children. The danger I see here is that I have to balance description with analysis.  I think that my tendency is to interpret what I hear through my own cultural filters. When dealing with another ethnic group, I have to be very careful not to interpret when I should describe.

     When explaining the living situations of the two groups of families, it would be easy to offer explanations that boarder on interpretations. My researcher bias on where the Hispanic families come from and what their life was like before coming to this country, has to be checked by others to make sure that my bias doesn’t enter into the description.  Since I have lived in Central America and Mexico, I understand the living situation that the families have come from.  As part of my job in Mexico, I had to interview families who wanted to come to the US and therefore I know the economic situation they have left behind.  

     My background helps me gain entry into both groups. For one group, I speak the language and therefore I can communicate with the Spanish-speakers. In many cases, I know their children and have been their translator for the past 4 years for parent/teacher conferences. For the English-speaking group, I am ‘one of them’ as a resident of the neighborhood and have been active in the parent/teacher group composed mostly of Caucasian mothers.  I am known by both groups but am not seen as part of either.

     In general my main bias is the topic itself. I started studying the DL program because I thought it was poorly run.  Then my ideas evolved to finding out more about it. I did this by studying the teachers who taught in the program. I have also studied the evolution of the program and how it started and how it has evolved over the past 4 years.  Now I am studying the families who send their children to the program.  Am I still circling the wagons on a program I feel is poorly run?  No, but I think that my original attitude forms the baseline from where I started. Now, I think that this study will provide valuable insight into the two groups of people represented in this dual language program.  

      In the end, I am aiming for a descriptive account of why two diverse groups of families support the same program. My hope is that other schools in similar demographic areas will look at the study and question whether my findings could inform their decisions. I aim to get it right by being aware of and considering, at every step of the way, how I could be wrong.