alignment between the stated purpose, variables, research question, hypotheses, and analysis
Ramona must ensure alignment between the stated purpose, variables, research question, hypotheses, and analysis. Currently, her purpose, research question, and hypotheses do not align with her quantitative analysis. She must revise the purpose, research question, and hypotheses to align with the analysis and delete any variables that are not stated in the hypotheses. Examples are provided to guide Ramona in her revisions. These examples should be considered illustrative, not exhaustive.
Page numbering.Ramona should delete all page numbers preceding the dedication page.
Frontmatter order.The List of Tables normally precedes the List of Figures. Ramona should revise the order accordingly.
Level 3, 4, and 5 headings.Ramona should revise all level 3, 4, and 5 headings; the headings must be appropriately indented.
Spacing. Ramona should review the document for consistent use of two spaces between sentences.
Study tense. As stated in the previous reviews Ramona should ensure that the study is consistently referred to in the past tense. For example;
p. 7. “Specifically, this study aims to determine the effect teacher evaluation has on a change in classroom instructions. This will identify if teachers vary their classroom instructional practices after receiving their teaching evaluation.”
Variable clarity. Ramona must ensure that every stated variable is reflected in the hypotheses. For example, the following variables are not reflected in the hypotheses. She must revise the hypotheses or eliminate the variables;
p. 8. “One variable for this study was the value teachers place on a teacher evaluation.”
p. 76. “Additionally, the analysis determined if the demographic variables of grade level taught, times in teaching, and time in school, were statistically correlated with the responses on the three survey questions pertaining to the two research questions.”
Alignment. Ramona must ensure alignment between the purpose, variables, research question, hypotheses, and analysis. Although the purpose, RQ1, and hypotheses focus on the relationship between teacher evaluations and changes made in a teacher’s classroom practices, the quantitative data collection and analysis does not treat these stated variables, teacher evaluations and changes made in a teacher’s classroom practices, as separate variables. Rather than collecting separate data to quantify these two variables Ramona collected only Likert-type scale data on three questions that integrate the two variables;
1. Does the teacher evaluation process provide data that helps you determine if significant changes in instructional practice are necessary?
2. Does the information provided by the evaluation document intrinsically motivate you to make significant changes in classroom instruction?
3. Do you use the results of the teacher evaluation as a catalyst for changes in classroom instructional practices?
The data collected cannot address the stated research question and hypotheses;
RQ1: What is the relationship between the teacher evaluation process and intrinsic motivation of the teacher to make changes to classroom instructional practices?
H0: Teacher evaluation process is not significantly related to intrinsic motivation of the teacher to make changes to classroom instructional practices
H1: Teacher evaluation process is significantly related to intrinsic motivation of the teacher to make changes to classroom instructional practices
Ramona must replace RQ1 and the hypotheses with a research question and hypotheses focused on the three demographic variables used in the quantitative analysis–grade level taught, times in teaching, and time in school. She should also ensure that the entire document from the abstract through chapter 5 correctly reflect the purpose of both the qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Clarity of purpose. Ramona should revise the following to eliminate the closed-ended purpose;
p. 75. “The focus of the quantitative survey was to determineifteachers use their evaluations to drive change.”
Design clarity. Ramona should revise the following to correctly convey the intent of correlational studies;
p. 79. “The research design was correlative, meaning that one type of data should support or not support the other”.
Table formatting.Ramona should not split tables across pages. She should use a page break accordingly.
Potential research question clarity. Ramona states that “the research question could have been worded to ask ‘what do you do with your teacher evaluation’…” (p. 127). The question is stated as an interview question rather than research question. She must revise the discussion accordingly.
Personal information. Ramona must delete her personal information in Appendix F.
Confidentiality. Again, rather than block out the information Ramona must delete any permission to use premises form that does not allow use of the school’s name.