Theoretical Framework
For each dissertation, (a) identify the theoretical framework, and (b) discuss how the framework appropriately supports the research problem.
Charnock, Nathan Lee
2016
Predictive Modeling of Enrollment and Academic Success in Secondary Chemistry
Side note: I like how he phrased the ‘Audience’ portion of the Problem Statement. I had so much trouble with that on the last assignment, and now I see how it is properly done. So this one was on predicting what makes you successful in a 10th grade Chemistry class.
He mentions that there are certainly conflicting views, 3 of them actually. The first is that the level of math and/or science in the early grades is the key to success. Another is that not only math and science are factors, but general achievement in the intensive reading classes, such as history and literature will also weigh heavily on success. The most controversial view (well to me anyway) is that it only depends on student demographics and behavior in classes contributes uniquely to their success in chemistry. (oh really?). Also learned a new word here - parsimony. I sure did google that thing! That’s why we are on this journey, no? To live and learn. :-)
I’m thinking he listed views because there aren’t really theories to this part of the research. (shrugs shoulders)
But as luck would have it, his views match up rather nicely with the research questions:
Does academic achievement (letter grades) in general subjects predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Does student demographics predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Does behavior (absences, suspensions, etc.) uniquely predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Does the score on the FCAT predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Do student demographics uniquely predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Does student behavior uniquely predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Does the gpa of the student predict success in 10th grade chemistry?
Ok, not luck. Purposeful planning and thoughtful prose. I kind of think we should be reading dissertations in every class, thoroughly. This is hella helpful.
Crochet, Corey M.
2020
So the theory behind this Transformational Leadership seems to be based on Burns theory. This is a bit weird since his theory was that there was no theory to emerge in any specific discipline because people are basically hard at work in their own respective subject areas. Wait, what? THIS is why I prefer math and a simple formula, however complex.
Burns said that the leaders should pull out every trick in their hat, basically, to make it happen. The change should be a real change to their attitude, norms and behaviors that govern our lives on a daily basis. He defined leadership as 5 things: collective, dissensual, causative, morally purposeful and elevating.
Over the next 100 years or so, principles were observed in going from being managers of schools to more social and personal influencers (not the instagram kind) but you know, evoking true change.
Bass expanded on Burns’ work and said that transformation moves the followers beyond what we expected. He came up with 3 strategies: a) increase the level of awareness b) putting the team or organisation above your own self interest and c) changing our need on the hierarchical level or expanding our needs and wants section.
Leithwood bridged Bass and Burns work and stretched the heck out of it to 6 approaches to Transformational Leadership, 11 practices and 4 categories, which I will not list at this time, but suffice it to say, he went above and beyond.
Before Transformational Leadership, Sun and his crew wrote about the unpublished studies (cool idea huh?). He chose the unpublished ones because:
They provided information that wasn’t reported yet
It reduces the chance of publication bias (yes this is a real thing)
Unpublished stuff is hella original and might actually be a good read
He reviewed the Chinese and American studies to see if there were any similarities before this ‘Transformational Leadership’ was coined
Cote, Giordana M.
2017
Vygotsky and his importance of play and social development and the zone of proximal development. Elkonin (yes the letters in the box guy) was also into the constructivist theory of learning. Side note: I don’t really feel like those boxes help so much in reading, but hey, it’s not my name on those boxes!
Bodrova was into self-regulation and that it was necessary for social and academic success.
She even listed others who did studies on a connected topic and/or the same region. That was decent.
The framework relates to the research question in that the question is ‘What are the KG to 3rd grade teachers experiences while facilitating social-emotional learning?’. She conducted 6 face to face in depth interviews on teachers in New England (and yes I recently found out that this is not a real region in the US). My daughter and I would refer to this area as the ‘news’. So the Patriots are basically homeless then?
Anyway, providing Social Emotional Learning can help academic success, but there seems to be no fidelity in implementing this across the nation. Every state has their own way of tending to this business, which doesn’t seem so united to me.
I get it now. You have to lay out exactly what you are researching, and then dive into the theories that support your proposed work. It also helps to get some recent work in the same field and perhaps demographic subjects to analyze as well.
Am I a slow learner or what?!