Qual 2/Dissertation Fieldnotes

"What's happening in my thoughts:  I am realizing that I am deciding where exactly I want to go with this whole thing...(Duh.)  Do I want to go with measuring objectives or faculty perceptions.  I think that both would be meaningful, but if the educational world is headed online regardless of the objective scene, then maybe I am more interested in faculty perceptions right now.  My institution (SNU) is in a unique position for me to study this because we are in transition and are making the change in very unique and undirected ways. 

 

I think I would ask 'how' and 'what' questions of the objective topic, but I am not quite sure what I would ask of the perceptions topic. Hmmmm."

 

I think that measuring perceptions would be easier and more interesting.  Whether or not online courses meet objectives would be interesting -- certainly -- but more complicated.  With the 'prove' factor I could go crazy.  I am really really needing to get done. 

 

Also, in an interview with my academic dean (work unrelated to this particular assignment) the topic of my dissertation study arose -- as it always does.  I mentioned to her the two ideas and she latched onto the perception study.  From her perch, it's intriguing.  So maybe I would kill two (or three?) birds with one stone if I went the route of faculty perceptions.

 

All of my analytic statements taken from Brian's interview set up a great structure (I think) for coding in the future. I am pasting my analytic statements below in this blog post.

 

Based on the interview with Brian Montgomery (pseudonym) I have done as a requirement for this course, I created a list of eighteen potential analytic statements.  I anticipate that these analytic statements will help me in my coding process, and I also find they are helping me formulate/develop my purpose and proposal for my larger, dissertation project.

 

1. Faculty may perceive scholarly reading and study as a higher level of academic activity than teaching.
2. Faculty may experiment onland with ideas/practices that could shift or adapt to online environments.
3. Faculty may seem satisfied with electronically verifying student participation in online courses.
4. Faculty may be willing to employ and adapt traditional onland methodologies to online courses.
5. Faculty may find ‘freedom of movement’ in teaching online courses.
6. Faculty may consider physical attendance onland unnecessary if they (faculty) are confident and/or satisfied with the delivery of an online format.
7. Faculty may consider the future of educational trends and movement a significant influence on their (faculty) willingness to adapt to online teaching.
8. Faculty may hold negative perceptions of online courses.
9. Faculty may perceive online classes as a more effective way of reaching 21^st century students.
10. Faculty may perceive some courses suitable for online delilvery and other courses unsuitable for online delivery.
11. Faculty may feel concerned about the duration (length of course time) of an online course.
12. Faculty may consider money/income a positive incentive for becoming involved in teaching online courses.
13. Faculty may have concerns about academic integrity in online courses.
14. Faculty may have various strategies of measuring the academic integrity of their online courses.
15. Faculty may perceive varying/various degrees of difference between onland and online courses.
16. Online courses may be less engaging in terms of discipline and further study than onland courses.
17. Faculty may have fear or distrust of online courses.
18. Faculty and students may prefer onland courses because they enjoy the face to face interaction more than building online community.