ee full S In this discussion, your instructor will assign and post your mock professional learning community (PLC) group of approximately two to three peers. Once your group has been identified, begin

Week 3 Discussion 1 Working Together to support Collaboration

In this discussion, your instructor will assign and post your mock professional learning community (PLC) group of approximately two to three peers. Once your group has been identified, begin collaborating with the group in this discussion and in the Ethics in Research discussion. In this discussion, your first step is to get to know your partners in your mock PLC.

Initial Response: In your assigned discussion group posting area, post an initial response that addresses the following areas:

• Post a brief introduction of your professional and/or educational background and current or future goal within the education profession.

I am a lead contact supervisor with the U.S. Department of Treasury. As a Mid-Level Manager with demonstrated leadership, organizational, and business acumen with over 36+ years of service with the Internal Revenue Service. I lead, develop and educate a team of eighteen employees. I am organized, results-oriented with a proven track record in directing teams and process improvement initiatives, particularly strong in customer service, staff development, employee engagement, training, and evaluations. I have a BA in “Applied Behavior Science” and an MA in “Organizational Management,” specializing in Organizational Leadership. Currently, I am pursuing a dual Masters of Arts in Education,” specializing in Family and Community & Instructional and Curriculum. I may retire from the government within three to four years. Within a year, I would like to become a part-time substitute teacher. I may pursue a Doctorate degree and teach college online /virtually. My dream is to own a daycare facility in my community.

Group Leader:As a group, identify a leader. The leader will then

• Complete and attach the Group Agreement document.

• Post your group name.

• List each member of your group and which of the bulleted points listed in the Ethics in Research Discussion each member of the group will be working on.

• Identify what mode of communication you will use to work together to complete and disseminate the discussion points. Use the Group Agreement document as your guide while collaborating in the Ethics in Research Discussion.

Learning Outcomes

This week students will:

1. Evaluate decisions about data collection in relation to anticipated results.

2. Examine ethical guidelines for conducting action research in the education profession.

3. Analyze the various effective practices as a group member, facilitator, and leader.

Introduction

Week Three provides an opportunity for you to sharpen your collaboration skills as you work with your peers in mock professional learning communities (PLC). You will work in groups of two-to-three and take on the role of educational professionals who have been selected by a local university to advise them regarding the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). More specifically, in your mock PLC, you will write a proposal in which you persuade a university of why it is important to create an IRB to review all proposed studies within the College of Education. Additionally this week you will look at the action research proposal you selected in Week Two and discuss ethical considerations of the research.

In preparation for this week’s activities, it is strongly recommended that you review the course textbook and the weekly assignments so that you have a global understanding of the expectations and pacing. It is suggested that the resources shared in this week be saved in your “link library” to be used for reference later in the class, future course work, and professional practice.

Please be sure to take about an hour to review this week’s Instructor Guidance. There you will find a wealth of useful information that will supplement your understanding as you progress through the week’s discussions and assignments. This document can also be used as a scholarly reference in this week’s assignments. If additional guidance needed, please access the Ask Your Instructor section of your course.

It is important to note that the Instructor Guidance has been developed to directly compliment the learning outcomes in each week of this course. As in any course, the Instructor Guidance supports the required texts and other readings but does not replace it. For your continued success in this program, it is highly recommended that you are prepared for each week’s instruction by accessing all of the available resources.

Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (5th ed.) [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

• Chapter 4: Developing a Research Plan

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a professional learning community? (Links to an external site.) Schools as Learning Communities, 61(8), 6-11. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may04/vol61/num08/What-Is-a-Professional-Learning-Community%C2%A2.aspx

• In this article, DuFour discusses what professional learning communities are and how we can incorporate them into our schools to ensure students learn, create a school culture of collaboration, and a focus on results. This resource will be used to support your work on the discussions this week (i.e., Working Together to Support Collaboration, Ethics in Research, and Review of Ethics).

• Accessibility Statement does not exist.

• Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1979, April 18). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research (Links to an external site.). The Belmont Report. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

• This article provides a historical report and information about ethical principles and guidelines for human research participants. This resource will be used to support your work on the discussions this week (i.e., Working Together to Support Collaboration, Ethics in Research, and Review of Ethics).

• Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

• Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Students will be assigned one of the following studies to inform their Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Berg, J. (1996). Legal and ethical complexities of consent with cognitively impaired research subjects: Proposed guidelines. Journal of Law: Medicine & Ethics, 24(1), 18-35.

• Cross-disciplinary article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Connelly, L. M. (2014). Ethical considerations in research studies. MedSurg Nursing, 23(1). 54-55.

• Cross-disciplinary article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Daley, T., Singhal, N., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2013). Ethical Considerations in Conducting Research on Autism Spectrum Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 43(9), 2002-2014. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1750-2

• Journal article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research in the field of special education which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Irvine, A. (2010). Conducting qualitative research with individuals with developmental disabilities: Methodological and ethical considerations. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 38(1-2), 21-34.

• Journal article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research in the field of special education which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Kanner, S., Langerman, S., & Grey, M. (2004). Ethical considerations for a child’s participation in research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 9(1), 15-23.

• Journal article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research in the field of special education which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Keteian, S. (2015). Ethical considerations in research: Focus on vulnerable groups. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 33(1), 164-172.

• Journal article that supports your evaluation of the goals, origins, and application of action research for student populations which will be used in Week Three Ethics in Research discussion response.

Go to top of page

Welcome to Week Three of EDU 694: Capstone 1: Educational Research. Please be sure to review the Week Three homepage for this course to see:

• The specific learning outcomes for the week

• The schedule overview

• The required and recommended resources

• The introduction to the week

• A listing of the assessments

Next, be sure to read this entire Instructor Guidance page.

Knowledge gained in Weeks One and Two prompted you to consider how Action Research can be used in the education profession and the beginning work of your final assignment by selecting a topic and Action Research proposal. This week, you will learn about the practice and principles of ethics in research and the creation of  professional learning communities (PLC) to further enhance the work of Action Research. This is an activity packed week while you work in groups with class peers in a mock PLC group so lets get started

A PLC might consist of a group of teachers, administrators, and other school stakeholders working together on a particular initiative related to the school. The function of a PLC may vary, but universally a PLC consists of a small number of people, usually 5-15 (DuFour & Eaker, 2010). Typically, a PLC meets over a long period of time, normally a year, and everyone works together helping each member reach a goal of learning or completing an initiative. 
For more information, view this less than three-minute video from SolutionTree (2009) (Links to an external site.) about PLCs in a school setting.

While watching this video, think about how you could create a PLC in a school setting to help with Action Research. If you already have PLCs in place working on Action Research, consider sharing your thoughts on the video as part of your discussions responses this week or start a conversation in the Ashford Café!

Though the concept of a PLC may be generally understood by most, the impact a PLC makes in the staff community is sometimes easily overlooked. According to Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas (2006) and Williams, Brien, Sprague, and Sullivan (2008), when PLCs are incorporated into a school’s culture, the following experiences are observed: 

• There is a reduction of teachers who work in isolation. 

• An increased commitment to the mission and goals of the school that increase school vigor in working with students. 

• Teachers feel a “…shared responsibility for the total development of students and collective responsibility for students' success” (Stoll et al., p.27).

• There is a tendency for an increased meaning and understanding of the content that teachers teach and the roles they play in helping all students achieve expectations. 

• There is a higher likelihood that teachers will be well informed, professionally renewed, and inspired to inspire students.

For students, the results might include:

• A decreased dropout rate and fewer classes "skipped" (Williams et al,. p. 31).

• Greater total academic gains than in traditional schools that do not have PLC’s. 

•  “…smaller achievement gaps between students from diverse backgrounds” (Williams et al., p.32). 

If results such as those noted above are linked to teachers working in PLCs, it is imperative that every school creates a PLC to foster such strong teacher and academic success. It has been argued that that the only legitimate use of teachers' time in the United States is standing in front of the class, working directly with students. However, as Burnette (2002, p. 48) noted:
“… comparing how teachers around the globe spend their time, it is clear that in countries such as Japan, teachers teach fewer classes and use a greater portion of their time to plan, confer with colleagues, work with students individually, visit other classrooms, and engage in other professional development activities… which is why they have such higher academic gains than any other country.”

Expertise has become suspect in our Post-Modern age. We no longer have the level of trust that we once had for expertise.  The presence of the internet, of course, contributes to this.  On the internet, “expertise” can be cheaply manufactured and displayed. As David Weinberger (2011, p. xii) has colorfully noted, “Everyone with any stupid idea has a megaphone as big as that of educated, trained people.” While internet claims of expertise can be often easily dismissed, it is more challenging to do so in the scientific world.  After all, scientists and other formal researchers are the ‘educated, trained people’ Weinberger was referring to. We have a high level of trust in their work—or we used to.  Lapses in research ethics contribute to this erosion.
There are, sadly, many different ways to commit ethical lapses in research, and there are several very famous cases of these ethical lapses.  View the Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.  Then watch the following videos*:
*WARNING: The following videos contain strong or potentially offensive language.

1. Obedience to Authority_Stanley Milgram Experiment (Links to an external site.)

2. Feature Film – The Stanford Prison Experiment (Documentary) (Links to an external site.)

3. Apology to survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment  (Links to an external site.)

These videos contain information about three of the most egregious instances of misuse of ethics. This week you will be diving deep into the reasons why ethics in research are important and why a creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) at each institution of high education is paramount.  Lets take a moment however to think about other ethical lapses that may happen in research: 1. Misuse of statistical data; 2. The rush to publish; and 3. Creating panic.  Each aspect offers a challenge to researchers who want to “get it right.”

When conducting research with sensitive populations, the use of IRB and specific training in working with human research participants is vital to the protection of all those involved in the research process.
The National Institute of Health (2011) offers a training and certificate on Protecting Human Research Participants (Links to an external site.). It is recommended that you complete this free online training module* and save your certificate for your records and curriculum vitae (CV).
Simply register for access (Links to an external site.) to the training:

• Fill in your email, select a password

• Indicate your name

• Select “No” for NIH employee

• For your institutional affiliation, select College/University

• For your role, select Student

• Select your highest degree earned

• For discipline, select Other to indicate Educational or Action Research

• Indicate your State and Country

• Do not select the Participate in CME option, as this is for Continuing Medical Education credits

Once registered, complete the 7 training modules* offered. While some examples* are not directly related to human research participants in educational settings, the research practices and principles of research are very applicable and should be taken into account. In order to access your certificate of completion, you must take the 4 quizzes associated with the modules. This training will take approximately 20-30 minutes of your time. You can leave and come back to where you left off.
*WARNING: Some of the case studies contain strong or potentially sensitive topics.
Protecting human research participants and understanding the IRB process are key components in setting up ethical, reliable, and valid research opportunities to benefit the participants and the field.

Misuse of Statistical Data
Statistics, of course, are widely viewed as highly trustworthy—the folk wisdom that “The numbers don’t lie” is often heard in connection with discussions about numbers and what they mean. While the numbers may not lie, they can certainly be manipulated.  Darryl Huff wrote the humorous, even “pleasantly subversive,” (in the words of the Atlantic Monthly), How to Lie with Statistics (1954, 1993) that is a classic of its kind.
Huff noted that “There is terror in numbers,” (p.62), then set out to demonstrate it.
While many of his examples are aimed at Madison Avenue and Wall Street, Huff does remind us that while statistics may not lie, in the hands of a less-than-ethical practitioner, they are surely subject to manipulation and falsehood.  Sometimes those less-than-ethical practitioners are, sadly professional researchers who clearly should know better (Links to an external site.):  “In June, a survey of 3,427 scientists by the University of Minnesota and the HealthPartners Research Foundation reported that up to a third of the respondents had engaged in ethically questionable practices, from ignoring contradictory facts to falsifying data.”  (New York Times, December 20, 2005, para 11).  
This manipulation and falsehood can occur in many forms—sampling techniques that drive survey research to a particular conclusion, or accepting some statistical analysis while rejecting other, less favorable analysis, or, as in this famous case, even outright fabrication of research data (Links to an external site.)—terror, indeed. These types of ethical lapses erode public confidence.

The Rush to Publish
A second type of ethical lapse is the rush to publish.  The scientific research world is largely supported by grant funding. For example, in the US in 2011 there were over $400 billion in public and private Research and Development funding up for grabs (battelle.org, December, 2011, p. 2)—a powerful incentive for doing research. But this ocean of funding does have limits, and so competition for grant funding is highly competitive.  And this makes results, particularly if they are potentially “game-changing,” highly sought after.  
A famous example can be found in the case of cold fusion.  In essence, cold fusion is a theory of energy generation that would theoretically produce virtually unlimited energy. The advantages of this are obvious, as are the resultant fame and fortune that would occur with the discovery of a viable cold fusion process.  
In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah announced with great fanfare that they had achieved viable cold fusion.  They had done so, however, by ignoring several key science tenets in rushing to publish—they were aware of a rival researcher at a nearby university, and were in a hurry to publish their results in advance of their rival.  Their announcement, naturally enough, led other scientists to attempt to replicate their results. They could not, leading to plenty of scientific controversy. This excellent case study tells the story (Links to an external site.)—What happened, why it happened and how it impacted the worlds of science and research.  

Creating Panic
Turning to our last example of scientific/research misconduct, there are few conditions that have caused more fear in recent years than autism. Autism is a largely mysterious condition, and the numbers of identified cases are growing (Links to an external site.). No one can identify a cause for this, and rumor and speculation abounds.  Therefore, when a widely respected scientific journal reports that there is a connection between childhood vaccinations (specifically for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella—MMR) and autism, people take notice.
This was the case in 1998. The highly respected British medical journal Lancet carried a study that demonstrated this linkage between MMR vaccines and autism.  The problem here was that the science was deeply flawed. The lead scientist Andrew Wakefield, as an example, had served as a paid consultant to a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Moreover, Wakefield (nor any other scientist) could not replicate his results (Miller, February 4, 2010). Lancet later retracted the study in 2010 (Links to an external site.).

Educators assume collective responsibility for student outcomes. At the heart is the belief that a team of teachers working together can achieve more than one teacher working alone. So, rather than expecting a single classroom teacher to know everything that’s necessary to respond to every student’s needs, teachers work together to identify the needs and determine the response.

Research is a human enterprise, and as such is subject to the same flaws as all other human enterprises. As in these human enterprises, most of us act in a responsible manner, and try to do the right thing. However, as is illustrated by both this week’s videos and the examples here, ethical lapses do occur. When these lapses become public, they further erode confidence in science and in research.  
We can do our part in combating this. When we conduct research, we need to make sure that we are conducting the research project ethically and ‘by the book’. This ensures that our work can be viewed with confidence.  

This section includes additional specific assistance for excelling in the discussions and assignment for Week Three beyond what is given with the instructions for the assessments. If you have questions about what is expected on any assessment for Week Three, contact your instructor using the Ask Your Instructor discussion before the due date.

In this discussion, your instructor will assign and post your mock PLC group of approximately two-to-three peers. Once your group has been identified, begin collaborating with the group in this discussion and in the Ethics in Research, Discussion 2.

In this discussion, work with your mock PLC group to come up with a supported argument based on personal experiences and scholarly literature in which you denote the importance of creating an IRB board at a local university. 

For this assignment you will look at the Action Research proposal you selected in Week Two and discuss ethical considerations of the research.  The value of this assignment is two-fold; first, by understanding ethics as it relates to our own Action Research ensures we follow ethical guidelines when conducting research now or in the future.  Moreover, by understanding ethical concerns in research we are able to review others research and determine if ethical considerations were taken into account.

Advantage Business Media. (2011, December). 2012 Global R&D funding forecast (Links to an external site.). Battelle. Retrieved from http://battelle.org/docs/default-document-library/2012_global_forecast.pdf

AnotherBoringWeek. (2013, January 4). Feature film – The Stanford prison experiment (documentary) (Links to an external site.) [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_LKzEqlPto

• Documentary of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the controversy surrounding Zimbardo’s famous study.

Aylesworth, G. (2005, September 30). Postmodernism (Links to an external site.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/postmodernism/

Broad, W. (1983, June 14). Notorious Darsee case shakes assumptions about science (Links to an external site.). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/14/science/notorious-darsee-case-shakes-assumptions-about-science.html

Burnette, B. (2002). How we formed our community. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 51-54.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Clinton Presidential Library [clintonlibrary42].  (2014, May 27). Apology to survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment  (Links to an external site.)[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Kr-0ZE1XY

• Video of President Bill Clinton apologizing to the remaining victims of the Tuskeegee Experiment.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2010). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IA.

Huff, D. and Geis, I. (1993). How to lie with statistics. New York: W.W. Norton

The Lancet. (1998). RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

National Institute of Health Office of Extramural Research. (2011). Protecting human research participants (Links to an external site.). National Institute of Health. Retrieved from  https://phrp.nihtraining.com/index.php
The New York Times. (2005, December 20). Global trend: More science, more fraud (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html?pagewant    ed=1&_r=2&ei=5070&en=99ae85a0f20ed40f&ex=1175572800
Miller, T. (2010, Feb. 4). Journal retracts study backing vaccine - Autism link (Links to an external site.). PBS Newshour. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/europe/jan-june10/lancet_0204.html

Socialontology. (n.d.). Obedience to authority_Stanley Milgram experiment (Links to an external site.) [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb8dmu

• Video footage of Milgram’s study.

SolutionTree (2009, October 9). The power of PLC’s at work [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEgmHHeCl4U 

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 258-261.

Understanding Science Team. (n.d.). Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior (Links to an external site.). Understanding Science. Retrieved from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know. Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.