the ability of q-methodology to study the character development of college students
Post on 20-Jan-2016
23 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The ability of Q-Methodology to study the character development
of college students
Chris M. RayOklahoma State University
Introduction
There is a common perception of decreasing values in America’s youth (Wynne, 1985). Violent crimes, teen pregnancy, and suicide have all been increasing in recent years.
Additionally, children’s self-report of cheating and lying in their personal and public lives is increasing (Murdock, et al, 2004).
Introduction (contd.)
Recent scandals such as those involving the Enron Corporation and WorldCom indicate that these declines are not limited to children.
While these events are increasing the research regarding moral and character education, Q-methodology remains a rare exception.
Introduction (contd.)
Research suggests that individual perceptions are the best predictors of individual behavior and that educators’ beliefs influence their perceptions, judgments, and practices (Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).
As such, understanding the nature of beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions is essential to understanding choices, decisions, and effectiveness.
Q-Methodology
Introduced in 1935 by William Stephenson in a letter to Nature
In 1953, Stephenson published The Study of Behavior, which has provided the groundwork for later Q-research
Q is essentially “the scientific study of subjectivity” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)
Concourse Theory
A Concourse Defined: “the flow of communicability surrounding any topic”
(Brown, 1993, p. 94) Essentially, it consists of all the ideas associated
with any given research topic
Can be examined through interviews with individuals related to the research topic, or through the collection of ideas such as books, articles, newspaper clippings, radio or television recordings, etc.
The Q-Sample
The Q-sample is a smaller selection of ideas that is used to represent the larger concourse.
Item Sources (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)Naturalistic - statements taken directly from the target
populationReady Made - taken from an external source
Q-Sample Designs (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)Structured - All areas of the concourse are uniformly
coveredUnstructured - No attempt to create uniformity
The Q-Sort
The actual process of ordering the statements.
Condition(s) of Instruction The directions given to the participants that
tell them how to compare the items
The completed Q-sort represents the subjective perspective of the participant (Brown, 1993)
Statistical Analysis
Data is then analyzed using three statistical procedures (Brown, 1993). Correlation Factor Analysis Statistical Rotation
People, rather than traits, are correlated and factor analyzed
Factor Interpretation
Interpretation attempts to identify what is unique about each factor
Considerations for Interpretation Distinguishing Statements Extreme Statements Consensus Items Demographic Information
A Sample Study
According to Colby, et. al. (1983a) and Gould (1978), character development has been determined to continue beyond the college years into the mid-30’s.
Research indicates that character education has a direct relationship to the development of individuals (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs & Lieberman, 1983a; Colby, et. al., 1983b; Rest, 1983; Kohlberg, 1969).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of college faculty, staff, and students concerning the ways that higher education influences the character development of college students
Research Questions
What are the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students regarding methods and approaches to the character development of college students?
How do current methods and approaches relate to ideal practices?
Are there any demographic differences among the various perceptions?
Method
Q Method
Q-sort procedure 48 statements Range of -5 to +5 2 conditions of instruction
What are ways that college students currently develop character and human values?
What are ways that college students could develop character and human values?
Demographic survey
Instrument Development
Quasi-naturalistic sample Dalton’s (1985) “Values Activities Matrix”
Structured (deductive) factorial design 3 Methods 4 Approaches 12 combinations, 4 statements each
Participants
Structured sample Snowball sampling procedure Factorial Design
Categories: Faculty, Staff, and StudentsLevels: Male and Female
Actual Participants Students: 11 (6 M, 5 F) Staff: 10 (5 M, 5 F) Faculty: 1 (1 M, 0 F)
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using PQMethod (Schmolck, 2000). Principal components factor analysis (PCA) Varimax rotation Q-analyzed
Results
Factor A Factor B Factor C Total
% Expl. Var 21 16 8 45%
Sorts/Factor 18 14 6 38/44
6 sorts did not define any factor 3 Confounded 3 Non-significant
Participant Perceptions?
Factor A - Formal Learning “Traditional settings are the key” Strongest Defining Statements
By encountering appropriate role models (+5)Through class discussions of moral issues (+5)By being informed of institutional rules and
regulations (-5)Through participation in a committee reviewing
student fees (-5) Lecture style (transmission/assimilation) Externally-imposed
Participant Perceptions?
Factor B - Judicious Learning “Rule systems shape character” Strongest Defining Statements
By participating in individual counseling (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By participating in orientation classes (-5)Through meetings with academic advisor (-5)
Experiential in nature Self-imposed
Participant Perceptions?
Factor C - Guided Learning “Future preparation builds character” Strongest Defining Statements
Through meetings with academic advisor (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By familiarizing themselves with the student
code of conduct (-5)Through participation in an advisory committee
to develop a new campus policy (-5) Utilizes a mentor / guide
Actual vs. Ideal?
Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define
Actual 7 7 5 3
Ideal 11 7 1 3
Demographic Differences?
Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define
Faculty 2 0 0 0
Staff 4 10 3 3
Student 12 4 3 3
Position
Demographic Differences?
Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define
Male 9 4 6 5
Female 9 10 0 1
Gender
Demographic Differences?
Age
Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define
18-25 12 3 3 4
26-33 2 9 1 0
34-41 0 0 0 2
42-49 2 2 2 0
58-65 2 0 0 0
Conclusions
Actual vs. Ideal “Guided Learning” (Factor C) is perceived to occur,
though it doesn’t seem to be perceived as ideal There were no major differences between actual and
ideal for the other two factors
Demographic Differences Position - Staff tend to view judicial systems as the
primary effort whereas students and faculty tend to view the formal setting as the primary effort
Gender - Factor C seems to be predominately male (all sorters were male)
Age - Most sorters for Factor A were 18-25, whereas most sorters for Factor B were 26-33
Discussion
Character education research is highly complex Lack of clear definition of “character” and
“character education” Knowledge, interest, and commitment from
the leader and others involved Perceptions of school community have an
impact Requires transmission of subjective values
Discussion
All of these issues can be explored using Q-methodology
As such, Q can serve a much-needed role within the study of character education
Questions?
top related