Each group is to develop a questionnaire for the topic assigned. As
noted in the Research Project
instructions, each group will conduct a literature review, develop methods for
collecting relevant data, construct an instrument and field test it, collect and
analyze data.
When developing the questionnaire, note that it should have items that are
original or somewhat original (you cannot simply use existing wording or
instruments). To help each group get started, I have provided citations below.
At this point you should read the articles listed and try to find others on the
variables I have provided. Use these citations, and others you find, as
guiding work to help develop your instrument. Each citation provided can be
obtained from http://www.galileo.usg.edu/
(check GSU library to get this semester's password).
Since the sample for these projects will consist only of students enrolled in this course, keep
in mind the diverse background of each student when developing items for your
questionnaire. More general items will be best; specific items, such as those
that reference a particular type of employment, for example high school
administrator, may not work for all students enrolled in this course.
Group 1: Natalie Higley, Katina Hardy, and
Stascia Hardy
DV = Course Satisfaction (or Instructional Evaluation) --
course satisfaction is the degree
to which students view instruction and/or course positively. If focus instead is
on instructional evaluation, questionnaire items should seek participants'
evaluation, or rating, on various instructional dimensions such as course
organization, instructor feedback, clarity of presentation, etc. (To help focus all participants,
instructions should make clear which course should be evaluated -- this course, EDUR 9131, is a possible target, or another course recently completed by
everyone in this class.)
To measure how students rate a course, consider this web page and the
references found therein:
http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/ratingforms.html. There are many
sources to course evaluation questionnaires on-line and in print, so perform
an on-line search.
IV = Student Perceived Competence on Course Content -- degree to which
students judge themselves to be competent in a given area, such as with the
content of this course.
IV = Perceived Autonomy Support -- degree to which students perceive that the
instructor offers some choice, some decision making capacity, to students, or
degree to which instructor responds to students thoughts/concerns.
DV = Job Satisfaction -- degree to which an employee is satisfied with
their job.
Any research on measuring job satisfaction, or
satisfaction in general, will provide insight into development of an
instrument to measure job satisfaction. One idea might be to have
respondents rate, individually, their satisfaction with various common
aspects of any occupation. Other measurement ideas are possible too. Below
are two articles focusing upon job satisfaction. Others can be found in
GALILEO.
James Fredericks Volkwein and Ying Zhou (2003) Testing a model of
administrative job satisfaction, Vol. 44, No. 2
Valle, M., & Witt, L.A. (2001). The moderating effect
of teamwork perceptions on the organizational politics-job satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 379-388.
IV = Occupational Stress --- level of stress one encounters from daily
job-related activities.
Some examples of research with job-related stress:
IV = Perceived Work-related Autonomy -- discretion an individual has
in organizing and scheduling work (to what extent does the individual have
choice in making decisions, etc.)
One example of job autonomy measurement can be found here (search GALILEO
for full text copy):
Lonergan, J.M., & Maher, K.J. (2000). The relationship
between job characteristics and workplace procrastination as moderated by locus
of control. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 213-224.
IV = Workplace Climate -- degree to which employee judges
the workplace to be friendly, helpful, or, for example, hostile.
Search for "workplace climate" in the full-text search
of GALILEO. Let me know if you cannot find anything useful. One lead:
James Fredericks Volkwein and Ying Zhou (2003) Testing
a model of administrative job satisfaction, Vol. 44, No. 2
Group 4: Brenda Edenfield and Jim Pulos
DV = EdD Program Satisfaction -- degree to which doctoral students are
satisfied with the EdD program here at GSU.
See comments provided above for Group 2.
IV = Autonomy Supportiveness of Program Faculty -- degree to which students
judge program faculty to provide support; opposite of faculty controlling
behavior.
Examples of autonomy support in research can be found here (note
references to self-determination theory):
Williams, G., Freedman, Z., & Deci, E. (1998). Supporting autonomy to
motivate partients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care, 21,
1644 - 1651. Linked article here:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/10/1644
IV = Level of preparation for successful dissertation completion -- to
what extent do you believe this EdD program is preparing you for successful
completion?
Several possibilities exist for constructing this set of items. Items
could focus on aspects of program preparation with a rating scale, for
example, of poor to well done or perhaps rating of frequency of activity
(very infrequent to very frequent); or items could focus on students'
self-assessments of their level of preparation, as a result of the EdD
program, for successful dissertation completion. Other possibilities also
exist, for example, could focus this variable instead on overall rating of
teacher/faculty effectiveness in teaching course material, or perhaps rating
whether courses as a whole appear to prepare students for dissertation work.
Group 5: Ella Green, Oatanisha Dawson, and Lisa Blyler-Linton
DV = General Happiness with Life -- general, overall feelings or
thoughts regarding one's level of happiness with life as a whole. Some examples
of possible measures/studies:
Michael W. Fordyce; A review of research on the happiness measures: A
sixty second index of happiness and mental health; Social Indicators
Research; Volume 20, Number 4 / August, 1988; 355-381
Sonja Lyubomirsky and Heidi S. Lepper; A Measure of Subjective Happiness:
Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation; Social Indicators
Research; Volume 46, Number 2 / February, 1999; 137-155
Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further
validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the
cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57, 149-161.
IV = Religiosity -- to what extent does an individual consider themselves
religious? Create an overall measure of one's religiosity--this measure should
not focus on any one religion in general, but should highlight
spiritual-religious expression. Some examples of
studies that include religiosity are:
"The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical
Test" Marie Cornwall, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham and Brian L.
Pitcher; Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, No. 3
(Mar., 1986), pp. 226-244
"Religiosity and its association with happiness, purpose in life, and
self-actualisation." Sarah French; Stephen Joseph; Mental Health,
Religion & Culture, Volume 2, Issue 2 November 1999 , pages 117 - 120
Jose Orathinkal and Alfons Vansteenwegen. Religiosity and Marital
Satisfaction; Contemporary Family Therapy, Volume 28, Number 4 /
December, 2006; Pages 497
IV = General Physical Health -- an individual's assessment of their
general physical health. Some possible leads to creating this measure include:
BMC Public Health. 2006; 6: 101; Published online 2006 April 21; Do
teachers have more health problems? Results from a French cross-sectional
survey; Viviane Kovess-Masf?y,1
Christine Sevilla-Dedieu,1 Carmen Rios-Seidel,1 El?a Nerri?e,1 and Christine
Chan Chee1, link below:
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4: 10; Published online 2006
February 21. Using individual growth model to analyze the change in quality
of life from adolescence to adulthood; Henian Chen and Patricia Cohen; link
here:
BMC Public Health. 2008; 8: 48; Published online 2008 February 6.;
Working conditions, self-perceived stress, anxiety, depression and quality
of life: A structural equation modelling approach; Bin Nordin Rusli, Bin
Abdin Edimansyah, and Lin Naing; link here:
1
Christine Sevilla-Dedieu,1 Carmen Rios-Seidel,1 El?a Nerri?e,1 and Christine
Chan Chee1, link below: