The design of my paper is something I've been wrestling with, contemplating, and just playing around withn for the last couple of weeks now. Although the major components of my paper ("Defining 'Relevant' Shame," "Examining Student Silence," "Personal Observations and Native Teachers'Observations") have already been established, and are in place sequentially, other components aren't aren't as yet. Literature "review," for instance in my study is a questionable label, since a great majority of the research comes from investigating literature; it also forms the dual bases for my "connective theory/phenomenon." So looking at the models and examples in this chapter gave me some ideas for the layout of the paper.
The results of the interviews which I intend to give will hopefully serve corroborate or validate my initial theory rather than exist for the basis of field data collection. The questions must not only have the rigor of of adhering to the topic and their role in the paper, but also need to be unbiased as possible and avoidant of leading the interview subjects.
Beyond that, this chapter reminded me of the ethical components not only of the interviews-creating a waiver-form with assurance of anonymity and fair compensation for the interviewees' time, but also the ethical implications of the entire thesis. Such questions as.....How does this paper serve the Korean students and the foreign teachers teaching them? And does it contribute to the literature of the education researchers who are attempting to understand the educational process better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's interesting because I'm trying to do the same thing. Having settled on a topic I narrow in on it, in ever decreasing circles, only to discover that I need to redefine my topic again.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that I'm getting closer though - if only through the process of elimination.