For The Purposes Of This Given Exercise

For the purposes
of this given exercise, the goal was to take into account the research question
that I had initiated and developed earlier, which was to discover if there is
any particular, direct or correlation that exists between a faculty member’s
amount of research that he/she conducted so far and his/her underlying teaching
capacities and capabilities. At times,
there is the general assumption that those teachers that might have been
actively engaged in doing a lot of academic research might have collected a lot
more data and information which they could then utilize for teaching purposes
and, by doing so, might make that teaching even more conductive and
efficient. Or, alternately, that the
time spent teaching is time that is taken away from research (and vice
versa!) Hence, the identified
relationship as part of this research question is how well a teacher performs his
or her academic and teaching requirements based on the amount of academic
research (such as in the form of scholarly publications, articles, or authored
texts) that the faculty member has conducted so far. The independent variable here is the faculty
member’s research productivity; whereas the dependent variable would be his or
her teaching ability. Given the way you
have framed the hypothesis, this makes sense.
The expectation is that the greater the amount of research that has been
performed, the better and more effective the teaching mechanism, manner, and
mode would be. Next, from the available
multiple method designs, the one selected as deemed to be most appropriate for
my research is the use of Creswell & Plano-Clark’s (2007) 3 Basic Mixed
Methods Design approach. Well, there
were 3 designs presented. It sounds like
you are using the “merge” design. The reason that this particular mixed method
design was selected over others is because it is able to take an in depth look
at the analyzed and gathered quantitative data, but at the same time, also
decipher the results of the qualitative data and partially “merge” the results
from the two inherently different sets of data.
OK My approach as part of this
research is to create some sort of linear link between a professor’s teaching
performance as measured by what? and the
amount of research to
me this sounds quantitative that is this teacher has undertaken and published. In analyzing and creating such a link, I
would need to first gather the qualitative data that is part of their academic
research such as what type of literature has been produced by the given
professor, what the subject matters of that academic research was, and what
sort of publications were used to publish the articles (such as trade journals,
scholarly magazines, newspapers). After
that, the quantitative data would also be analyzed in terms of the frequency of
the publications that have taken place, the amount and content of the
literature, and also the numerical design and data patterns I’m not sure what
you are referring to here exactly that are found within that professor’s
published research. Is that really
qualitative data though? This mixed
method does a good job at being able to connect both the qualitative and the
quantitative data either in a given sequence (such as quantitative data
analysis è
qualitative data analysis è end results) or rather by taking a sub grouping of
one data type versus the other. For
example, I could classify the qualitative data as the main data set to be
examined and within that, another subset based on the underlying “quantitative
data” could then be created. By using
such an approach, I strongly feel that it would make it easier to take an in
depth look at the quantitative results and determine how applicable they would
be to the qualitative factors and eventually, ensuring that I am able to
discover a number of themes, points of views, and also my undertaken hypothesis,
which itself is based on the connection of faculty research productivity with
their overall teaching capabilities. These
two approaches of analyzing the quantitative and the qualitative data would
hopefully give me more of a “holistic” perspective into the hypotheses and help
to determine if there is any sort of validity as well as reliability in terms
of the amount of faculty research that exists versus their academic teaching
and performance. The most important
strengths of this design is that it will help to uncover hidden patterns /
themes such as? as well as make it
easier to observe if such a linear relationship does exist (such as more
research being equal to better academic teaching and vice versa). But a potential weakness could be that I
might find some contradictory patterns and what would be the problem
there? and also some faculty members
might not have a long enough academic tenure to be able to provide both a fair
and a reliable assessment of their teaching abilities with the limited amount
of academic research that they have respectively undertaken so far but you
could construct your sample to only include more experienced faculty members.

How will you measure teaching
ability/productivity? I see the
quantitative research here, but not the qualitative. I also don’t really see a merging of data
since you talk about the types and quantities of research – which seems like
the quantitative data (in addition to the teaching data, which you don’t talk
about) – but you don’t really talk about qualitative data. For example, what about interviewing faculty
to better understand how they balance teaching and research roles and how they
understand those two roles as being complementary to each other (or not)?