Analysis: During the first part of today's class you worked on solving a logic problem. You were asked to figure out what symbol would occur in a blanks space within a grid of symbols. You worked in groups and you did an amazing job. I was impressed by how well you worked together, by the wide range of analytic moves that you already know, and by the number of "theories" you came up with. As I said in class - this exercise was not so much about solving the problem - as about becoming conscious of HOW you (already) do analysis - and learning to do it more intentionally and with more focused direction.
What we learned from the class exercise.
This is a list of some of the many "moves" (ways of thinking about, classifying, or explaining) you made as you worked on the problem.
During the second part of the class you worked on your blogs. I will be looking over Blog 1 over the weekend and should have some feedback for you by Sunday night.
For next class:
Keep working on the NIH training. It is due 9/18
Blog 2: In your own words=> define analysis. What is it? How does it work (describe the process for doing it)? Then - describe how you would use analyhsis to study one fo the areas of interest you mentioned in your first blog. What codes might you find? What categories for your codes might be important? What theories might be relevant?
BRING YOUR LAPTOP to class if you have one. I will introduce oral history as a research method, and we will be thinking some more about analysis.
What we learned from the class exercise.
This is a list of some of the many "moves" (ways of thinking about, classifying, or explaining) you made as you worked on the problem.
- named the symbols (square, diamond, club, heart. . .)
- noticed the layout of the drawing (6x6 grid)
- noticed/named the colors
- noticed the orientation (some hearts & clubs were both upside down & right side up; you also decided on the orientation of the grid as a whole - with the directions at the bottom)
- counted how many of each symbols were on the grid
- tried out different groupings for the symbols ( columns, rows, as a "design" made by the colors or repititions . . .)
- looked for doubles by symbol
- looked for patterns by color, by shape, and by orientation
As we thought about the different kinds of moves you made - we came up with the following sequence for the different kinds of moves you made.
1. Identified and named the elements of what you are analyzing- where "elements" are the features that define or present what you are analyzing. For this logic problem you identified named the different symbols, the layout of the grid (columns, rows, etc), color. You identified and named elements by looking at what was there - and attaching labels or names to what you saw. In writing studies analysis - this move is often called "coding" = where you develop names or "codes" for what you see in a particular situation.
2. Categorized or grouped together elements on the basis of similar features. For this move you noticed what all the hearts, or all the diamonds were doing, and you described those features with a name or category. Counting and classifying the kinds of locations and orientations for each symbol is categorizing. It makes larger groupings and descriptions for what happens to individual named elements - or what those elements do. This is the beginning of posing a "pattern" = your next step.
3. Look for patterns. At the looking for patterns stage, you looked hard at the data and noticed repetitions, sequences, symmetry, etc. Looking for patterns requires you to make a connection between a structure you know and recognize - and some structure within the problem you are looking at. So in some sense you are looking for something you already know - but within a new situation or context.
4. Pose a hypothesis. After you found a small or large pattern, you pose a larger, more general explanation for how that pattern can explain the whole problem or situation. This step is about figuring out how the little pattern you saw in one part of the problem would look if it were applied to the whole problem in a general way - and making a statement to describe what that large patter would look like.
5. Testing the hypothesis. After making a general statement of the "story" or "explanation" suggested by the small pattern that you noticed - you then checked to see if this story or explanation "fit" or "worked" within the whole problem (all of your data, where data is the information you have about the problem). A strong hypotheses, or the "answer" to your problem, will fit and work with ALL of the data.
6. Cycling through the process. Most of the time, our first hypothesis only explain parts of the data or small pieces of the problem. This means we need to go back to the beginning and make sure we have noticed/named the central elements of the problem, and that we have put them in useful - rather than irrelevant or misleading - categories. We also have to decide whether the patterns we connected to are "working". If they aren't we need to come up with additional patterns - new patterns we haven't tried before - and organize them into another hypothesis (each group did this several times).
Where researchers get stuck: Your experience with this problem was similar to researchers in that you got stuck in the same places that most thinkers/researchers get stuck. Identifying and applying MANY possible patters (and letting go of the first couple that you found) is often the hardest part. 1. Identified and named the elements of what you are analyzing- where "elements" are the features that define or present what you are analyzing. For this logic problem you identified named the different symbols, the layout of the grid (columns, rows, etc), color. You identified and named elements by looking at what was there - and attaching labels or names to what you saw. In writing studies analysis - this move is often called "coding" = where you develop names or "codes" for what you see in a particular situation.
2. Categorized or grouped together elements on the basis of similar features. For this move you noticed what all the hearts, or all the diamonds were doing, and you described those features with a name or category. Counting and classifying the kinds of locations and orientations for each symbol is categorizing. It makes larger groupings and descriptions for what happens to individual named elements - or what those elements do. This is the beginning of posing a "pattern" = your next step.
3. Look for patterns. At the looking for patterns stage, you looked hard at the data and noticed repetitions, sequences, symmetry, etc. Looking for patterns requires you to make a connection between a structure you know and recognize - and some structure within the problem you are looking at. So in some sense you are looking for something you already know - but within a new situation or context.
4. Pose a hypothesis. After you found a small or large pattern, you pose a larger, more general explanation for how that pattern can explain the whole problem or situation. This step is about figuring out how the little pattern you saw in one part of the problem would look if it were applied to the whole problem in a general way - and making a statement to describe what that large patter would look like.
5. Testing the hypothesis. After making a general statement of the "story" or "explanation" suggested by the small pattern that you noticed - you then checked to see if this story or explanation "fit" or "worked" within the whole problem (all of your data, where data is the information you have about the problem). A strong hypotheses, or the "answer" to your problem, will fit and work with ALL of the data.
6. Cycling through the process. Most of the time, our first hypothesis only explain parts of the data or small pieces of the problem. This means we need to go back to the beginning and make sure we have noticed/named the central elements of the problem, and that we have put them in useful - rather than irrelevant or misleading - categories. We also have to decide whether the patterns we connected to are "working". If they aren't we need to come up with additional patterns - new patterns we haven't tried before - and organize them into another hypothesis (each group did this several times).
During the second part of the class you worked on your blogs. I will be looking over Blog 1 over the weekend and should have some feedback for you by Sunday night.
For next class:
Keep working on the NIH training. It is due 9/18
Blog 2: In your own words=> define analysis. What is it? How does it work (describe the process for doing it)? Then - describe how you would use analyhsis to study one fo the areas of interest you mentioned in your first blog. What codes might you find? What categories for your codes might be important? What theories might be relevant?
BRING YOUR LAPTOP to class if you have one. I will introduce oral history as a research method, and we will be thinking some more about analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment