M y subject is data analysis at three levels. Primary analysis is the original analysis of data in a research study. It is what one typically imagines as the application of statistical methods. Secondary analysis is the re-analysis of data for the purpose of answering the original research question with better statistical techniques, or answering new questions with old data. Secondary analysis is an important feature of the research and evaluation enterprise. Tom Cook (1974) at Northwestern University has written about its purposes and methods. Some of our best methodologists have pursued secondary analyses in such grand style that its importance has eclipsed that of the primary analysis. We can cite with pride some state of the art documents: the MostellerMoynihan secondary analysis of the Coleman study; the Campbell-Erlebacher analysis of the Ohio-Westinghouse Headstart evaluation; and the Elashoff-Snow secondary analysis of Pygmalion in the Classroom, to name three. About all that can effectively be done to insure that secondary analyses of important studies are carried out is to see that the data from the original studies are preserved and that secondary analyses are funded. The preservation of original data could improve. Last month, one of our graduate students, Karl White, spent 15 hours and made 30 phone calls attempting to obtain from the government a copy of the data tapes for the Coleman study only to learn in the end that they had been irretrievably filed in unmarked tape cannisters with some 2,000 other unmarked data tapes. Tom Cook remarked in an Annual Meeting symposium on secondary analysis that you can get the data if you have chutzpah or if you're socio metrically well-connected. The whole business is too important to be treated so casually. On the other extreme, one can point with satisfaction to the ready availability to any researcher of the data tapes from Project TALENT or the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Others are advancing the practice of secondary analysis. My major interest currently is in what we have come to call—not for want of a less pretentious name—the meta-analysis of research. The term is a bit grand, but it is precise, and apt, and in the spirit of "metamathematics," "meta-psychology," and "meta-evaluation." Meta-analysis refers to the analysis of analyses. I use it to refer to the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. It connotes a rigorous alternative to the casual, narrative discussions of research studies which typify our attempts to make sense of the rapidly expanding research literature. The need for the meta-analysis of research is clear. The literature on dozens of topics in education is growing at an astounding rate. In five years time, researchers can produce literally hundreds of studies on IQ and creativity, or impulsive vs. reflective cognitive styles, or any other topic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1174772.pdf

Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research

Summary During the past 15 years or so, teacher education research has made significant strides in studying the complex relationships between teacher beliefs and practices. This new line of research has generated important findings that are of practical implications for teacher education. This article reviews this small body of research and, in so doing, elucidates the two competing theses (i.e. ‘consistency’ vs ‘inconsistency') that are recurring in the literature on the relationships between teacher beliefs and practices. It begins with an overview of traditional research on teaching in general, followed by a discussion of teacher cognition under which teacher beliefs/theories are subsumed. After introducing the notion of ‘the Missing Paradigm’ in the mainstream teacher education research, the article examines the theoretical frameworks underlying teacher beliefs and practices research. Next it provides a synthesis of recent research on teacher beliefs and practices, addressing critical issues germane t...

A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices

We examined the structure and meaning of efficacy for a sample of 182 prospective teachers and related efficacy to beliefs about control and motivation. The two independent dimensions of teaching efficacy (TE) and personal efficacy (PE) usually identified in studies of experienced teachers were also found for these prospective teachers. Both TE and PE were significantly correlated with bureaucratic orientation, but in opposite directions. Neither TE nor PE was related to motivational style; only TE was related to pupil control ideology. Canonical correlations, however, revealed more complex relationships. Personal efficacy was positively related to a control orientation that rejects teacher control of students but accepts the schools' control of teachers. The interaction of TE and PE made unique contributions to the prediction of pupil control ideology and bureaucratic orientation.

Prospective Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Beliefs About Control

The fields of learning theory and instructional design are in the midst of a scientific revolution in which their objectivist philosophical foundations are being replaced by a constructivist epistemology. This article describes the assumptions of a constructivist epistemology, contrasts them with objectivist assumptions, and then describes instructional systems that can support constructive learning at a distance.

/pdf/constructivism-and-computer-mediated-communication-in-57ehvy97l7.pdf

Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education

Background and review context: Evidence to support the proposition that learning together will help practitioners and agencies work better together remains limited and thinly spread. This review id...

Michael J. Dunkin

Papers

The study of teaching