Embedded Units

In addition, I used other embedded units of analysis to triangulate the data: Essay comparison, Writing Attitude Survey, Online Attitude Survey, and self-reports of four participants.

Essay Comparison

Since this was a writing class, one of the major concerns was that of writing improvement. Ideally, students will leave the writing class with more skills than they had when they entered. Two peer experts, well-acquainted with holistic evaluation on the compositions, were asked to compare the first essay of each participant to that of one written later. I had hoped to use the first and last, but not all students completed all five essays. These essays were evaluated with a heuristic, The Analytical Scoring Guide (Appendix H & I). From that guide an evaluation sheet was generated. The areas of evaluation were: (a) Controlling Idea/Thesis/Unity, (b) Organization, (c) Development, (d) Expression, (e) Writer Engagement, and (f) Grammar and Mechanics.

Writing Attitude Survey

Another measure designed to depict a more complete picture of these participants was an instrument designed by Harris (1997), in collaboration with Wambeam, Smith, and Craig (1994), as part of on-going research on the effectiveness of Internet-based English Composition teaching as compared to traditional methods of instruction (Appendix G). Using a Likert scale, students were asked a series of questions, to elicit their feelings about writing. The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (agree strongly). Eight questions were asked:

1. I enjoy writing.
2. I have frequent practice in writing.
3. I feel comfortable with the writing process.
4. I write well.
5. I write to communicate with others.
6. When I'm writing, I have a sense of writing to an audience.
7. Writing helps me explain things to other people.
8. Writing is important to my future

Online Survey

The third embedded method (Yin, 1989) used to gather data about the class was an instrument designed by the Virginia Community College to access how well online courses will fit the needs of the student (Appendix E). Students were given nine questions with three choices from which they could select: a, b, or c. Each question is designed to elicit how well students can work on their own in a non-traditional classroom. Again these data are offered as a way "to synthesize the existing case studies" embedded within in this class (Yin, 1989, p. 124).

Self-reports

The final embedded unit consisted of emails sent to me by students during the course of the semester. When I had originally contacted students and asked for their participation in this research project, I also requested that they send me an informal response about their experiences with the class. The instructor asked me to put the request in those terms, as he did not want anything to detract from their class work. Four students, whose names have been changed for this study, sent messages to me during the course of the class: Carl, Rhonda, Sue, and Cassandra.

Subsections of Chapter III in Order of Apperance
[Research Design] [Data Analysis] [Embedded Units] [Limitations of Study]
[Researcher Bias] [Interpretive Method] [Case Selection]
[Methological Assumptions]

Write to Jan -- jan@js.spokane.wa.us

Last Updated 10/20/01

These pages designed, maintained and copyrighted by Jan Strever, © 2001.