UPDATED FOR S'19 interim update -
4/1/19
►Senior Seminar
__MASLOW-----AND-----MORE____
Testing,
Analyzing, Writing
This is
a multi-part activity designed to synthesize and provide a "low cost"
opportunity to practice the
various goals of this course: testing theory,
quantitative analysis & presentation of results, and eloquent scholarly
writing.
The entire Maslow-And-More activity is a progressive, workshop unit; therefore some (but not all) of the work will be conducted during class time—often occurring simultaneously with Professor-conference sessions. This semester, the planned in-class workshop time = 4/1, 4/3, 4/8, 4/10[tent]. Check online course calendar for any updates. For all of these workshop days, you will want to have your Laptop/Tablet with you.
=====================================================
■
Luke C & Olivia & Andrea--Hyp
# 6 //
Methodology: Experiment | N=___ | data depiction via _____________-chart|graph|histogram|?| // Presentation>
■
Veronica & Luke B
& Tyler
■
Kelsey & Aitana &
Cliff --Hyp #1
'■
===============================================================================
Pt I
: TESTING MASLOW
{team
activity}
Rationale
for Part I:
The
theory known as “Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs” is widely familiar as an explanation for various motivating
factors which underlie our communication behaviors and many of our personal choices.
Abraham Maslow devised this as
Basic Research but it also has been
utilized as
Applied Research in a variety of fields such
as the recent book:
Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo
from Maslow by Chip Conley.
Because most of you are already quite familiar with Maslow’s concepts, we
can jump right to the testing
(of theory).
Activity’s goal =
To experience the quantitative investigation process by performing some rudimentary,
numbers-based research.
Participants will gain additional familiarity with the procedures of
conducting and understanding positivist /quantitative techniques.
It is not designed to be as
statistically comprehensive as a fully realized Senior Seminar research project,
nor to provide training in serious statistical projects, nor to turn you into a
full fledged quantitative researcher. Also, since most of these mini-studies
will be done using very small, nonrandom samples or assignments [mostly using
the people in this class
& nearby classrooms/hallways] we are not likely to achieve “statistical
significance” or "reliability”.
Nevertheless, to some degree, this project should help to increase your understanding
when you encounter numerical research. It should also reinforce your skill in
structuring investigative tasks; several of you are including some sort of survey data in
your projects. {In
summary, you & your partner(s) will Devise & Conduct & Report Back to class on a
SURVEY
/or/
EXPERIMENT
/or/
INTERACTION ANALYSIS/CODING
methodology that
you used
to test the Maslow Hierarchy concept
from a BASIC /or/ APPLIED
[tbd] research approach.}
Overview of Testing
Maslow:
·
With your partner(s)
(matchups
will be announced in class or listed above), select a
hypothesis from the list below. All of them pertain to Maslow’s theory. Then select a
methodology to test it. You can devise a
mini-survey /or/
a mini-experiment
/or/ a
mini-focus group
/or/ mini-observation,
etc. —whatever you decide is the best way to achieve your
investigative goal.
·
Conduct your
research using your classmates ( mostly uyour seminar-mates) as your subjects. Since all teams will be working
on this activity simultaneously, in class, over the next few weeks, you may find
that your own Team’s brainstorming , creating of a
research instrument, completing any needed Literature Review, etc. will
be interrupted by being called upon to serve as another team’s research
subjects. If you want, you also can go outside of class & solicit the use of additional
subjects ( anyone you can grab) .
·
Compile your “raw
data” (e.g. questionnaire results, coding results , etc.)
Step-by-Step
for the
Testing Maslow Teams
I Pick a hypothesis to “test”.
Select one from this list
[ first come-first served]
:
1 –
“Given a choice, most people in contemporary
2-
“Although many people have heard of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the average college student is
unaware of the other major Needs Theorists
3-
“ Although mention of Maslow’s basic idea is quite ubiquitous throughout
society, the majority
of people are unable to name
the steps in the correct
sequence.”
4-
“There is a positive correlation between a person’s concern with
physiological needs & their annual
income.”
5-
“Most non-psychology writers who refer to “self-actualization” in
their writing do not use the
term
with the same meaning that Abraham Maslow originally intended.”
6 – “When engaged in oral discussion & explanation of Maslow’s concepts of esteem & safety, most people
cite more real-life, personal experiences than they do when discussing
physiological needs
&
belonging”.
7- “Contrary to Chip Conley’s business-oriented application in this book, college students are more likely to encounter
Maslow’s theory being applied to
Psychological &/or Humanities
contexts, such as ...”.
II.
Pick a method:
EXPERIMENT
/or/
CONTENT/TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
via CODING
/or/
SURVEY
III.
Pick a unit of measurement:
e.g. words, actions, Likert rankings, etc.
IV.
Pick a numerical analysis technique:
e.g. EXCEL / SAS / SPSS /
SYSTAT /
V.
Pick a statistical approach:
Descriptive Statistics /
Inferential Statistics
=====================================================
Pt II: PRACTICE WITH STATISTICS
{team
activity}
Rationale for Part II: Using quantitative analysis actually has multiple considerations: What numbers will enhance your DISCOVERY? What do the numbers mean; what is their significance to the body of knowledge? What’s the best way to visually depict the numbers?
Overall, the statistical approach to handling
data can be useful what you want a concrete way of measuring and
interpreting countable results. However,
it requires the researcher to make strategic choices concerning visual representations of the patterns found in the resulting numbers. (e.g.
a bar graph depicts one kind of relationship &
a line graph
depicts
another kind & a histogram
another kind & a table
another kind ,etc.etc.)
Overview of
Statistical Analysis:
·
Apply your planned
statistical analytical tool.
Depending upon your level of knowledge in quantitative research,
you could use simple arithmetic (e.g.
computing a mean or a percentage) or you
could utilize formulas from your text or you can use whatever statistical
software you are familiar with. (e.g. SPSS)
·
Depending upon whether
your goal is toward descriptive or toward inferential statistics, create an
appropriate visual depiction of your stats. [ e.g. a powerpoint graph slide]
·
Eventually, each team
will have 5-10 minutes to present to the class. Teams will get to explain (
briefly) their
quantitative process & their choice for visual depiction of the findings [e.g. chart,
graph, histogram, etc]. A copy of
the slide with your "visual" + a
team written abstract should be emailed to the Professor in advance.
|
(2) " We decided that using a __________
[histogram, chart, graph, etc]
|
=====================================================
Pt III: WORKSHOP IN WRITING
{individual
activity}
Rationale for part III: To enable you to experience a microcosm of the scholarly paper process:
Writing> Peer Review > Revision > Resubmit . Since this is only a mini-paper activity, each person’s
submission is meant to be merely a sample of your writing & will be no longer than 1-2 paragraphs.
Overview of Workshop In Writing:
Step 1 (Writing) – Use the details from the data & results that you gathered while “Testing Maslow” for
writing 1-2 paragraphs of one section of your mini-research report on this topic. In other words, imagine that
you were writing an article for journal submission & you are basing it on the research you ( & your partner)
conducted in order to test the Maslow theory & you then are writing a segment of a research report based
on that data. Then, you will submit that writing segment for scholarly review.
For the purposes of this activity, your choice of a possible section to write is limited to:
“Introduction” | Method” | “Results” | “Discussion” . Only one section is required for submission.
However, IF you want additional feedback, practice, & (possible) extra credit , you can write & submit an
additional
section.
{In summary:
minimum submission
= any 1 of the above-listed
sections / maximum =
any
2 of the above-
listed
sections}
Step 2(Peer Review) – You will be a reviewer as well as a reviewee.
In order to accomplish the reviewee part of this process, upon completing the writing of your sample, you will
email your “mini-paper” to a designated seminar-mate for evaluation. (see designated match-ups below)
Similarly, someone will be emailing his/her “sample” to you - in which case you will serve as their reviewer.
{In
summary: you will serve as a pseudo-journal reviewer of the writing + clarity in
your classmates’ writing sample. In addition, one of
your
classmates will review the writing +clarity in your work.}
Document submission format =
via
email attachment in MS WORD.
Step 3 (Revise & Resubmit) Via email, your reviewer will reply to you by returning your writing sample with
specific comments & feedback, but probably not with many extensive edits.
(It’s recommended that reviewers use
the “Track Changes” tool in
Microsoft WORD & create a new name for the annotated document when you save it
before
emailing it. )
As the original writer, YOU will then rewrite your sample [ONLY ONE!] & then email your Professor a new,
clearly-labeled, three-part, document. This new document will be composed
as follows:
(1) a copy-&-paste
of the document you received from the
peer reviewer + (2) your
rewritten section + (3) the original writing
sample submission. {In order to make this three-part document easier for the Professor to navigate, you can
use varied fonts, colors, borders, shading, etc in addition to section labels/headings in order to delineate
the 3 different components within this composite document.}
Additional Guidelines:
FYI--as a
quick reminder-- the standard sections:
for a scholarly article/report/essay include: [also
refer to your text & to the Frey chapters in eReserve]
TITLE
ABSTRACT
–
summarizes the contents of the paper: incl. goals, method, findings, basic
conclusions; helps the reader determine if this article is relevant to
his/her needs. Freestanding.
INTRODUCTION
–
addresses the need/impetus/relevance for the research study;
contains claim
[RQ/H]
LITERATURE REVIEW
–
summarizes
the key extant, relevant research in this area, also functions as warrant (why
data will prove…)— i.e. uses discussion of the context of previous research
(what
has come before) to justify how the evidence of this current study is on this
right track to support the current claim.
METHOD –
explains
the why[rationale]
& how of the chosen investigative methodology(ies); includes key
definitions
RESULTS
–
discusses the findings
of the investigative research; often clarified via tables, graphs & models.
DISCUSSION
/IMPLICATIONS/LIMITATIONS/FUTURE RESEARCH-
as
appropriate
for
researcher’s goals
CONCLUSION
–
Similar to
Abstract but is less free standing & is more integral to the actual paper.
REFERENCES
-
using APA style sheet- refer to the 6th
edition manual or use one of the online “cheat sheets”.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE for Completing the Workshop In Writing
Step 1:
Re-read
the 2 items on eReserve: Frey, et al. -
Chapters: 15
[“Epilogue-Concluding Research
“]
&
_3_
[“Finding.,Reading & Using Research
“]
Step 2: Re-read the Professor’s online summary of criteria for grading written work [available via www.pirate.shu.edu/~plummeev]
Step 3: Read over any notes you & your partner have written about your procedures and findings in conducting the “Testing Maslow” research. That material = your “data set” for reference in whichever one(1) of the four(4) sections you choose to write.
Step 4: Select a section to write. Since this emphasis for this workshop is on your writing, not on the accuracy or the validity of the information, you might want to select a section based on the aspect of writing where you have the most difficulty and/or you have the least experience & therefore need the most practice.
Step 5: Write, Review, Submit your sample section to your designated reviewer via email. At about the same time, you will receive a paper to review as well. (NB: LENGTH: 1-2 well organized essay paragraphs should be about ¾ to 1 typed page.)
Step 6: Just as with “refereed” scholarly journals & conferences, your submission will be subjected to a review from a comparable researcher (& vice versa!) We won’t be using the blind review procedure which often occurs in such situations. Despite the reciprocal matchups, your reviewer will be ethically & objectively & honestly evaluating several things:
> how clearly your express your ideas by connecting point/main idea to supports
> how directly you say things-- avoiding vague generalizations (using “grounded” commentary)
> how smoothly you construct your sentences
> how skillfully you structure your paragraphs
> how correctly you use appropriate terminology
> how professionally you express yourself
( i.e.
the more complex, senior-level
quality – analytical, not merely
Descriptive kind of writing expected of college graduates )
Reviewers will add their general feedback comments & constructive criticism to
the submitted writing sample. If major errors in structure, spelling, word use
are noticed, the reviewer can highlight such errors but will not actually
correct them.
(& vice versa)
Step 7: Based on the reviewer feedback received,
Re-write one page of the evaluated section. Submit a composite document
to the Professor as an email attachment. This NEW document should contain, three
clearly labeled sections:
(1) a
copy & paste of the peer reviewer’s feedback sheet + (2) the rewritten section +
(3) the original mini paper.
{you can use fonts, colors,
borders, shading, etc to delineate these 3 different items within this composite
document}
Step 8: In general, the submission dates are flexible, but aim to have your revised, 3 part document submitted the Professor on or before 4/29/13
W - I - W Writing Workshop matchups: (S’13)
{I usually pronounce as “Whee” –predates Geico’s “Maxwell”}
Writer
& Reviewer |
↔ |
Writer & Reviewer |
Matt Bartel |
↔ |
Nick Cahill |
|
|
|
Patricia Henderson
|
↔ |
Brittany Klett
|
|
|
|
Gabby Ottaiano |
↔ |
Allyson Horn |
|
|
|
Ana Gonzalez Rivera |
↔ |
Emily Governale |
|
|
|
This semester, all of the matchups are fully reciprocal. You will submit your
writing sample to the same person who is reviewing yours & vice versa.
Maslow Research teams: Matt & Patricia / Gabby
& Ana / Nick & Allyson / Brittany & Emily