For Publishing Research: KNOW THY AUDIENCE(S)

I really found resonance in David Silverman’s discussions on the “audience”. My question has always been one of “who is my audience for this submission and beyond?” Research is new to me. It is interesting that the post-graduate level in architecture, one often has his or her first formal introduction into research methods. Architecture is such a practice-oriented field that one of my colleagues in my department at the university and none of my department administration have doctoral degrees. So, rather than just my peers, I assumed a larger population of interest for my work. I joked to one of my cohorts here that I want my work assessable to the ‘masses’ even if that means being reprinted in the American Airlines in-flight magazine.  In the meeting with my interviewee for this class, she proudly pointed to her hardbound dissertation (it was very thick). I wondered if that was one of two printed, the other one shelved in the bowels of the Lesley University library. However, as Eric Clapton sings, “I don’t want to fade away.”

Therefore, I really enjoyed and look forward to my first “bases loaded home-run leverage” as Silverman states on page 360. I did take a class research project that I co-wrote at Harvard last year and we re-worked it and submitted it to a peer-reviewed symposium. It was accepted and printed in the proceedings and I presented it in Innsbruck a few months ago (seehttp://ambient.media.mit.edu/transitive/papers/tsigaridi.pdf). It was enormously fun sitting around a table of fellow researchers in Austria chatting about great futuristic possibilities! Unfortunately, to keep up the fun, you have to keep producing. Maybe that is why it was so difficult for me to settle on a Research question for this class – it is such a burden to consider each thing I do as a potential “time up to bat”.

            But, Silverman’s sports analogy really refers to crossing into several genres. He gives great comments on page 395 about how you have to treat qualitative research different from journalism, and gives four GREAT suggestions as to what to know and avoid. His comments to lead you away from the ‘sensationalistic’ tendency are supported by a study of medical research included in the newspapers that found that “Headlines in both the London Times and the Sun newspapers tended towards an emphasis on entertainment value rather than on importance to public health” (Seehttp://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7355/81 ). Therefore, with this in mind, I do look forward to producing relevant work, also assessable and interesting to ordinary people. I hope that I have the creativity ofDean A. Anderson, who in excerpt from his article, The Art of Repackaging says

“For instance, let's say you put in hour upon hour of research on bunions for a medical journal article. Even if the article is purchased, it probably won't pay the mortgage. But what if you could repackage it?

It just takes a little imagination to take that research and put it to other uses:

For Reader's Digest: "I Am Joe's Bunion"
 

For Cosmopolitan: "Ten Sexy Truths About Bunions"
 

For Sports Illustrated: "Accounting for Bunions in Your Fantasy Football Picks"
 

For Humpty Dumpty: "Barney Bunny and the Big Blue Bunion"
 

For Christianity Today: "Bunions as a Metaphor for Sin"
 

For Entertainment Weekly: "The Top Ten Bunion Movies" 
For Motor Trend: "Gas Pedals Designs"
 

For Cat Fancy: "Feline Bunions: Worse Than Worms?"
 

For Arizona Highways: "Amazing Rock Formations That Look Like Bunions"
 

For Penthouse Letters: "Dear Editor, Who would have thought my bunion would get me action with a Swedish stewardess?"
 

For The Weekly World News: "Alien Bunions: Medical Miracles or Threat to World Peace?"

 So remember, that long labor at the library and on the Internet for one article doesn't need to go to waste”.

So the core point that I found so compelling is to truly consider the audience for your work at hand, discerning your position to them and what they need to get from you, framed by the nature of the genre.

-Mikael 

Study Design-Student Perceptions of Classroom Environments

Synthesis Paper-Part 2

Written by Mikael Powell

Sunday, August 24, 2008

 

Articulation of the Research Question

My research concerns the physical classroom environment and how well it is congruous to the method of teaching. I consider the impact of the adequacy or inadequacy of the space and how the classroom selection affects the college student.  I go further to explore how human adaptability alters that perception. I come to this research not only as an architect with specialty in designing educational facilities, but also as a former executive board member and a current full-time college professor. This topic is pertinent to me because, while serving in an administrative capacity during a financial crisis, I authorized classroom assignments that were sufficient but not wholly appropriate and there was no basis to ascertain if the students truly perceived that intention. This research explores two questions - How do college students feel the physical classroom environment relates to the method of teaching and how does the relationship between the physical classroom environment and method of teaching affect college students in regards to how they feel valued?

To address this inquiry, I have assembled a team of researchers and associates and enlisted support from the Office of Teaching and Learning at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boson, Massachusetts. My research is under the supervision of Dr. Gene Diaz, my Lesley University faculty advisor. I have enlisted the services of three professionals from a research agency to conduct the focus group sessions and analyze the data, under my direction. In addition, three researchers will assist me and between three to five work study students will be at my disposal throughout the duration of the study.

Plan for Triangulation

This research explores students’ perception of their classroom environment defined within categories of the teaching method. Therefore, when triangulating the study, students will be involved in all three areas of the research. Initially, subjects will participate in focus groups to give students a vocabulary to frame their responses and to explore value issues. We will distribute documentation of the sessions to participants for commentary and review the findings for emergent themes. The second method of research will employ open-ended surveys targeted to students identified in the focus group analysis. Lastly, we will solicit historical experiential information from effected students via the Internet to create phenomenon narratives.

Validity, Credibility and Trustworthiness

The triangulation method is one of the elements we included to highlight the integrity of the research. We will also examine deviate cases that arise and indicate how we incorporate those findings into our understanding. In addition, we utilize respondent validation for the focus group data and we will videotape the sessions and transcribe key exchanges for documentation. Likewise, we will publish our focus group objectives list, survey form, important responses, solicitations, and pertinent raw data (masked to preserve privacy). For archival purposes, this study will maintain a depository for all raw data, notes, forms, and reductionist data and employ a systematic method for producing the items.
            Confidence in this study is also based on the integrity of the researchers. Although I came from a professional architectural background and have an advanced degree from Harvard University, I also have a perspective as a professor and board member.  My experience informs, but does not overly bias these research questions, which inquire about the layman’s perceptions of the classroom environment in relation to architectural concepts of design fit and the resulting affect on the student.  My theoretical stance, largely, is that I am separate from the data and that universal truths exist that is not entirely subjective. However, the third method of this triangulated study involves creating phenomenological narratives that are wholly my interpretation through information provided by the participant. Within my group of associates, we will use standard methods to provide inter-rater reliability in the coding of responses. My consulting researcher will lead, document and analyze data from the focus group effort, under my direction. Outside of my study, I will have a peer de-briefer to review and comment.

How each part of the triangle interacts in this multi-faceted design

            The first groups of randomly chosen students will participate in focus groups that are specific to a teaching method.  We will present the concepts and vocabulary so they can describe their perception of the classroom environment in regards to teaching method.  We will also inquire about their sense of value. We will send interpretations from the focus group to participants and the resulting findings will directly inform the survey method. We will provide the open-ended survey to a much larger population of targeted students. Although the previous course is undoubtedly a grounded theory approach, phenomenon reporting is decidedly phenomenological. In this method, we will review individual experiences, analyze important themes and give a rich narrative of the occasions. We will study divergent phenomena and discern how it supports our findings. The combination of these methods and approaches make this study quite credible.
Participants              

College students are the population who will know if they perceive a relationship between the classroom environment and the teaching method. They will know, after consideration, if that relationship is beneficial or if other variables like human adaptability is more imposing. Furthermore, college students are the source to elicit their sense of value.  College students from Wentworth Institute of Technology, exclusively, will be solicited for the focus groups and open survey sessions. Eighty students will be used in the focus group study (with forty students as alternates) and about 250 students will be encouraged to participate in the survey. The Institute has a student population of about 3200. The phenomenon reporting method will advertise to students at Lesley University and the Colleges of the Fenway (Wentworth Institute of Technology, Simmons College, Wheelock College, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, and Emmanuel College) which comprises a student population of over 20,000 students, in hopes of corresponding with three to five subjects.

The Lesley University Internal Review Board for Human Subjects Research will provide consultation and resource in the interpretation of the procedures and policy. Special care will be taken with freshmen that are not yet 18 years of age. My efforts as a researcher include preparing a proposal, application to the IRB and providing letters of Informed Consent.
Research Study Set-up

Our research efforts will work in conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning in Beatty Hall on the campus of Wentworth Institute of Technology. A faculty/room survey will be sent to all faculty members at Wentworth Institute of Technology prior to the start of the semester to ascertain the pedagogy in regard to the teaching method types: a. Lecture, b. Examination, c. Collaboration, d. Demonstration, and e. Studio Guidance. The teachers will also be asked to rate the adequacy of the classroom. For their efforts, they will be accredited as a supporter in our WIT publication. We will choose one class from each type that highly exemplifies the teaching method while having high room adequacy and one class from each type that highly exemplifies the teaching method and has low room adequacy. I will reserve their classrooms for the focus group sessions through the registrar’s office and arrange to have the classroom photographically documented and site measured to create a digital floor plan. In the event that we cannot solicit one class from each variance in adequacy, we will use one class total from each teaching method with a median adequacy rating and reduce our study population accordingly.

The Focus Group Method

Based on information from the Faculty/room survey, 10 (ten) Focus Group sessions will take place in the actual classroom on the campus of Wentworth Institute of Technology over the course of 3 weeks at the end of the Fall Semester. Twelve (12) students will be selected at random (eight actual participants and four alternates) from the class roster of the selected course for each session so that we can have a representative subset of the student population in that class. Allowing for 50% attrition should ensure that we have the desired number of research subjects. All students in the classes will initially receive an email correspondence about the study while the random selection will ask for their participation.  If they choose to participate, they will attend a general meeting at the center for Teaching and Learning to receive permission forms for them to sign (and their guardian, if they are under 18 years of age). I will announce the date of the sessions and let them know that all announcements and correspondence can come through a particular email address.  There will be 80 participants total, divided into 5 pairs of focus sessions. Each participant will be given $15.00 at the end of his or her session.

The Survey Method

Based on the ethnographical and focus group findings, we will email 300 students participation in the survey method with hopes of attracting at least 250 students to the research. Short meetings will be set up at the Center for Teaching and Learning in groups of 25 to explain the research, distribute permission forms (and if returned) immediately begin the monitored session in an adjacent classroom to complete the survey.

Phenomenon Reporting

 The purpose of this method is to research the elements of concern in a highly phenomenological way. The Internet will be used to solicit email correspondences from college students at Lesley University and the Colleges of the Fenway through an announcement on their home pages. It will direct students with profound concerns to a website where they can view and print a consent form and upload the signed file.

Data Collection

The Focus Group Method

The sessions will last about an hour and thirty minutes and will have two monitors – a professional focus group moderator and professional observer. In addition, there will be an individual who takes notes during the proceedings ,and monitors a tape recorder and a fixed video camera.  This moderator also takes digital photographs after the meeting if parts of the classroom are referenced in the session. The moderator will distribute a document to collect some brief ethnographical information and then proceed to follow a Question and Objective Outline (Please see Appendix A). 

             The proceedings will be transcribed and emergent themes will be categorized. Participants will have a badge referenced to their ethnographical information.   Photographical exhibits will be cross-referenced to the transcript. This process of documentation should take three months. In the following semester, participants will be emailed findings from the proceedings for their comments if they wish. The focus group method is well suited for our purposes because it allows for open-ended discussions and the solicitation of shared ideas.

The Survey Method

The survey will be administered through Vista 4/Blackboard, an electronic platform, so students will have the opportunity to ‘mark’ a response and then go back at the end of the session to fully complete it. The survey should take about 45 minutes to complete. Each student will be given $6 (three 2 - dollar bills) upon completion. Rather than referencing one classroom, this survey asks each student to recall all their courses this semester and answer accordingly. These questions are mostly open-ended and vary from soliciting ‘value’ responses to, “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least the equal of others” to questions of “Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?”

This is a good method because it offers the opportunity to validate the focus group findings and extend the results beyond the experience of the classroom in extremes. The electronic platform allows us to capture the responses digitally to aid in categorizing and coding. It also provides the ability to sample a larger group of students and it can provide some supportive quantitative information. This process should take two months to administer and 6 months to document and analyze.

Phenomenon Reporting

            The questions in the Internet advertisement (See Appendix C) will initiate a series of correspondences that explore  “What it is to experience a classroom inadequately equipped for the method of teaching” or “How my sense of value is affected by the physical classroom environment I have endured” or “ How my classroom supports the pedagogy”. The goal is to flesh out the essence of the lived experience so the researcher can analyze and developed a narrative to support the research study findings or analyze as divergent information. The initial submissions from the participants will be reviewed for relevancy and probably only three to five will be fully pursued. Special care will be taken to make the participants responses anonymous and they will be sent a copy of the final relative for their comments. This process should take 3 months to complete information gathering and 2 months to develop narratives.

Next Steps in Formulating a Study plan

            Working holistically is a key to a cohesive study plan, so as I move forward, it is important to review and revise the research questions and key elements, if need be.  First, I need to continue adding to my literature review by exploring more research. I also need to develop a more thorough analysis procedure and work on implications drawn from the final research paper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

Focus Group

Question and Objective Outline

I.            Physical classroom environment

 

a. Maximizing physical comfort and well-being

 

1.  Furnishings

2.  Light

3.  Sound

4.  Acoustics

5.  Environmental (HVAC) Comfort

 

b.  Supporting Method of Instruction

1.  Size

2.  Room Layout

3.  Audio/Visual Equipment

4.  Power services

5.  Internet Services

6.  Printing services

7.  Accessories

8.  Adequate spatial accommodations for required tasks

 

A. How do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the method of teaching?

 

 

II.            Teaching Method (discuss only the method appropriate to the session)

1. Lecture, Examination, Collaboration, Demonstration, and Studio Guidance.

 

 B. How does the relationship between the physical classroom environment and method of teaching affect you in regards to how they feel valued?

 

 

III.            Other comments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

Note: Final survey will be revised in accordance with the findings of the focus groups

Survey data (actual survey is in an electronic format)

(You can use as much space as you like to fully respond)

[You may answer the following questions when prompted by the proctor]

What is your age?

What is your course of study?

What is your ethnicity?

What is your academic year?

[You may answer the following when prompted by the proctor.  Then, please respond to express your degree of agreement or disagreement to the following]

On the whole I am satisfied with myself.
At times I think that I am no good at all.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
I certainly feel useless at times.
I feel that I am a person of worth, at least the equal of others.
I wish I could have more respect for myself.
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.

 [You may answer the following when prompted by the proctor.  Please consider your overall experience within the methods of teaching described for this semester. Then, please use as much space as you like to fully respond]

Course 1

How would you generally describe the method of teaching?

Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?

Course 2

How would you generally describe the method of teaching?

Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?

Course 3

How would you generally describe the method of teaching?

Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?

Course 4

How would you generally describe the method of teaching?

Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?
Course 5

How would you generally describe the method of teaching?

Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?

 

Overall, taking into consideration all your courses this semester, how does the relationship between the physical classroom environment and method of teaching affect you in regards to how they feel valued?

 

Do you have any additional comments?

 

Appendix C

Phenomenon Reporting

 

Lesley University Research Study

Conducted by Mikael Powell

Topic: educational spaces

 

 

We are soliciting subjects to participate in a voluntary study about classroom environments. The length of participation varies, but it usually takes no more than 8 hours over the course of 30 days and we will correspond via the Internet. The participant will be confidential. We are looking for college students who have strong personal experiences around one or all of the following topics:

 

“My experience in a classroom inadequately equipped for the way the class was taught”

“How my sense of value is affected by the physical classroom environment I was in” 
“How my classroom supported the way the class was taught”

 

Please contact the following website for further information

www. lesley.edu/Powellresearch 
.(COPYRIGHT © 2008 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)

[I-5] Dilemma’s in Qualitative Research Interviewing

In the article “Researcher v Counselor”(Konza 1986) I think that the researcher should have concurred with the spirit of Silverman’s advice in his earlier book (2004) and ended the interview sessions after repeated episodes of distressed behavior in the principal’s office. I wonder about the incidences that we didn’t read about in this article – those when professional boundaries were tentatively breeched or when the mother’s divergent behavior was encouraged (or at least unchallenged) instead of rebuked during the course of personal interviews. I wonder if the researcher imparted an “irresistible” value as discussed in our readings. Perhaps the researcher presented a non-judgmental empathy within the mother’s environment where that did not reside. So many things seem to be the responsibility of the researcher. I absolutely think that the researcher lost her focus. Maybe the researchers’ passion is another factor that blinded these observations, but as is said “The burden rests with the researcher”.
After reading the article, ‘”Differing Realities (Konza 1986) it seemed as if the ethnographer developed a second agenda during the interview. Rather than conducting a fact-finding mission to reflect the couple’s beliefs, it became one of surreptitiously steering the couple to reach an alternate conclusion about their supposition, within the course of a planned interview. I cannot see this as very laudable. I am reminded about the Regulations and Ethical Guidelines of the Belmont report from NIH office of human subjects research http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc2 linked to our resources for this week. In it they describe ‘beneficence’, which is based on and extends the central tenet of the Hippocratic oath -“Do no harm”. It should be noted that although the interviewees have an erroneous opinion that may be harmful to their wellbeing- it is not a supposition brought by the researcher and there should be no direct responsibility to contest that within the course of the research. As Silverman states, they can be directed to counseling resources if they appear to be overwhelmed as a result of the interviews. I certainly don’t want to appear cold-hearted and I can relate to how painful it is to come to the realization of a child’s diagnosis as you witness in your profession. I once wrote about the time of my revelation: “as a loving father, it was hard to fight back the tears- partially to mourn the death of my son, the scholar; partially to dispel the dream of reliving my scholastic life vicariously; partially in guilt for nightly threatening matches over homework; but mainly because my child’s opportunities in life were officially reduced.” As is said, researchers should not normally inject themselves into the emotional processes of the interviewee- albeit difficult.

[I-5]Qualitative Researcher Vs Counselor

The article, Researcher vs. Counselor (Konza 1986) highlights a cogent example of a researcher with real questions about whether she complied with the admonition to “to do no harm” as Clarke and Sharf (2007) articulate. The study entailed several interviews with a mother about her ADHD child in school as her actions became progressively erratic to the culmination of the research. There were several ethical core points in the case.

First, it is important to question the rapport strategy observed by Konza. During the course of the study, the interviewee became more dependent on the researcher. Clarke (2006) informs us that a researcher needs to “consider carefully the potential risks of the interview” and its “potential to be therapeutic”. While it is not uncommon to put an interviewee at ease during a session, and sometimes empathy can soothe the exchange or give needed support to continue, one cannot be so caring as to become therapy. Although Konza suggested that Michael's mother might have been promised a source of support that wasn’t delivered, I contest that the sessions had met a need in the interviewee’s life. She was obviously getting something from the visits, even if it was not from the content of the session, but rather as an exploitive vehicle to dramatize her desperation.

I would also propose that, although the researcher did repeatedly emphasize to the mother the need to seek counseling, she alternately offered ( even if was is tacitly) a venue for counseling without the hassle of seeking an agency and paying a therapist. Lastly, Clarke and Sharf (2007) warned that you must be careful when unmasking emotions. One might have perceived the intensity at each session or the accumulative quality of sharing over the course of the interviews as being potentially problematic.

If I were confronted with the situation, I would hopefully have been more perceptive from the outset. However, after realizing the issue, I would make sure that my demeanor was that of a researcher (more businesslike and less empathetic). I would reiterate the stated benefits of the research and reinforce what it is not. If the research study framework allowed, I would assign an associate come in during sessions or switch interviews to a fellow researcher. I would examine my context and impetus for doing the research to study whether I have an agenda, or am too emotionally attached to the research topic. Lastly, I would encourage the principal to follow through with the procedure when a parent is barred from the school, in the hopes that it may contain direct social service intervention.

This article brings up a lot of questions to me about doing my research. It is very likely that my research will be done at my university because we are planning a massive building campaign so I should have the opportunity to directly design and assess the new teaching spaces over the next 5 years. I will need to reflexively review my research and take particular precautions to manage feeling of reciprocity ( and informed consent issues) from my students as I will likely be one of their future professors. Politically I will have to scrutinize my agenda and make sure that my research is not a referendum on teaching methods or traditional teachers verses new technology etc… And I need to consider the length of the commitment of my interviewees so I don’t end up in the “You tube dilemma” of Jordan Crittendon.

[I-5] Considering Different Qualitative Methodologies for my Research...

I take away from research review the thought that Text and Visual Documents Methods may not be a methodology that easily suits my research area. Although I know it is a method that can allow for, not only direct documentation of ones work, but a media that provides for intense scrutiny of your subjects, I don’t know that, for instance, videotaping people-environment interactions in a room would be as effective as an observer (because of the monocular view of a fixed camera). It does seem, however, like photography or videography would be helpful in creating a behavioral map that can be superimposed onto architectural floor plans for analysis. Also, excerpts of those methods would be helpful to illustrate the findings of the research. 

My interest is in exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course. My questions about this method as it might relate to my work might be the following: Would videotaped classroom experiences provide a more valid, or accurate basis of evaluation than person to class observations? Can discordant actions be quantified easier on tape and is the coding more accurate and verifiable? Are there classroom environments that work better, not because of their physical attributes, but because of a social acceptance of a traditional layout and can that preference be tested through a text and visual document method?

As it stands now, I see limited possibilities to employ this method, but the next steps to take would be to review what other researchers in my are of study have done and to continue to work on refining my research question.

The work I reviewed on the observation method was very helpful to me in conceiving my own research. The work of (Fresch 2005) concerning learning to read and write in first grade was important in that it highlighted for me a situation where longitudinal observations inform more that strictly quantitative testing over time. Indeed, in architectural journal literature, many studies of the relationship between humans and the environment are qualitative in nature and, more specifically, they involve observation methods.

In architectural practice, however, I found that when qualitative research was offered as a deliverable, we tend to use methods other than observation. For instance, we have produced POE’s (post-occupancy evaluations) as a design service for our clients. These documents usually consist of unmediated interviews and surveys of the actual building users to illuminate how the completed building is actually functioning in relation to its intended operation. They conclude with a list of recommendations for future buildings. My professional genre at the time was federal buildings (judicial centers, prisons and post offices). The US government reviewed the information in the attempt to fine-tune a building type, learn ways to design better and more cost effectively. Simple observations of the environment (and our subsequent evaluation of the observations) would not provide the direct accountability and first-hand ‘on-air’ experience evidenced in our interview and survey method (we produced our POE’s with a camera crew and voiceover talent so that our client received a video with paper documentation). This really speaks to the comment in our readings of suitability of methods – observation methods are often required to evaluate behavior; surveys look to clarify intention. So, I take away the notion of suitability of methods to support my own research interests. In addition, I now have examples of research where observations work well and studies where it is not an appropriate method. 

             Because of the connection of observation to architectural research, it seems likely to be important in my study. I’ve read that there are two common ways that observations are employed  - “as a method to help define what was real for the participants in the study” and as a vehicle to help refine their research question. Therefore, from my Researcher's Notebook many questions emerge like, what is the existing classroom reality for college students? How is pedagogy or knowledge-based learning affected by the built environment and vice versa? What type of experience is most needed for the person(s) appropriate for conducting the observations – architectural, professorial, administrative or behavioristic? How does that inform the coding?

As it stands right now, there are many more possibilities than drawbacks for use of the observation method in my research because of its ability to illuminate experiential interactions and focus research, despite the opinion that it can be highly subjective.

            The next step for me to check out the methodological possibilities of using observation is to put great effort in framing the research question.  Also, more research review is needed to discover studies that try it explain or illuminate how a college student navigates the general  lecture / private self-learning /availability of scaffolding resources/subgroup work/exterior resource functions within an open innovative classroom. 

In my area of research, which is exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course, at first thought, I assumed that a strict quantitative measure (say test achievement) would demonstrate how physical elements enhance learning. However, after further research, I can see that focus group methods could illuminate much more of the findings than simple proficiency scoring. Also, the idea of using interview and focus groups would be beneficial to support classroom observation through triangulation. 

There needs to be great attention paid to the makeup of the focus groups. Questions about this method might be: As a professor, I have had to deal with course (teacher) evaluations, so how can I ensure that focus groups consisting of students are useful and not petty, biased, apathetic, hateful, agenda-driven or spiteful?  How can a research study on an effective classroom environment in New England be conducted using this method, so that the findings are universal?

Because of the benefits of a mixed-design methodology, stated previously, there are great possibilities of this method in my research. A challenge would be that the researcher would have to carefully consider the role and training of the facilitator in a focus group and how group dynamics can affect student responses in the groups. The next step that I need to take to consider this method is to perform due diligence in terms of exploring existing research in my area of study and developing and refining my research question.