Here’s the initial version, before edits by the committee. A real signal that I am almost done!

Problem finding is a creative process whereby individuals develop original ideas for study. Secondary science students who successfully participate in authentic, novel, open inquiry studies must engage in problem finding to determine a viable and suitable topic. This study examined problem finding strategies employed by students who successfully completed and presented the results of their open inquiry research at the 2007 Connecticut Science Fair and the 2007 International Science and Engineering Fair. A multicase qualitative study was framed through the lenses of creativity, inquiry strategies, and situated cognition learning theory. Data was triangulated by methods (interviews, document analysis, surveys) and sources (students, teachers, mentors, fair directors, documents). The data demonstrated that the quality of student projects was directly impacted by the quality of their problem finding. The students participating in the study found their problems using resources from previous, specialized experiences. They had a positive self-concept and a temperament towards the both the creative and logical perspectives of science research. Successful problem finding was derived from an idiosyncratic, nonlinear, flexible use and understanding of inquiry. Finally, problem finding was influenced and assisted by the community of practicing scientists, to whom the students have an exceptional ability to communicate with effectively. Therefore, there appears to be a juxtaposition of creative and logical/analytical thought for open inquiry that may not be present in other forms of inquiry. Instructional strategies are suggested for teachers of science research students to improve the quality of problem finding for their students and their subsequent research projects.

It seems that when I am in the throws of writing chapters, I neglect taking the important time to stop, think, and post some meaningful thoughts.

Over a month ago, I had the opportunity to present at McGill University at an inquiry conference. It was an exciting experience to be at a D-I research institution again. I fondly remember my experiences working in a bacterial genetics lab at UConn and the culture associated with that environment. I haven’t seen that in about 12 years. However, it came flooding back when I was at McGill – the physical rooms, the discussion with professors and other students – being part of an intellectual culture was a great experience. My WestConn experience is just as important, but for different reasons – primarily that of being surrounded by actual experienced big-time practitioners. That’s where I belong – and those conversations are so different. I guess I am being nostalgic about my former life in research.

Now a bit about the experience. . . .

When I presented Dr. Mark Aulls questioned one of my significant findings: the differences between novel and technical projects. I had classified them based on a schema, but his very valid question was “But how do you really know this to be true.” I gave a situated cognition – community of practice answer – which I think really fits well, but his point is important. I don’t know if we would have picked up on this if I hadn’t had this experience.

So what to do?? I called Bob and got some CSF data regarding scoring forwarded to me. ISEF has no such data set. Too bad. Anyway a nice set of 2-way ANOVAs demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the TOTAL scoring between technical and novel top project or biological or physical categories. OK.

Now for the interesting part. There is a creativity subscore. There is a significant difference between novel and technical projects (novel higher) but not via category. The creativity is recognized in the novel project scores. So this answers Mark’s question – how do I know – well there’s a significant difference in score.

But the dilemma . . . this is a qualitative study, and it’s very true to the paradigm. Do I bastardize what I’ve done with a section of quantitative stats or is there another option? In comes option #2. The panel of experts. I assemble a panel of experts, have them determine the novel versus creative – do they agree with me? I have a group of natural scientists and Marcy suggests using my 092 supervisor – a former science educator. Doesn’t it always work this way? – her responses are totally off compared to the rest of the panel. I do have good cause to eliminate her data set: she’s not an expert in the natural sciences. With my experts we have 90% agreement. I can certainly live with that. All discussions about disagreements don’t convince me to change anything.

That’s how I know . . ..

I had the unbelievable opportunity to attend opening night of the new Mel Brooks musical on Broadway: Young Frankenstein. My brother has his first Broadway role, in the ensemble, and he is the understudy for Dr. Frankenstein. He had the dubious experience of performing the role nine times during previews, when the principal, Roger Bart, threw out his back.

Amidst the flurry of activity on the red carpet, and movement about the orchestra, we had the chance to hob-nob with some stars. I got the chance to meet a personal favorite: Ina Garten. She and I spoke for a short bit.

What I’ve always admired about Ina is the unique twist her Food Network show takes. She tells a story, and the basic premise is that she is preparing for some event with friends or family and you are watching. She never throws to commercial – she never references TV, it’s just an evolving story that we are given eyes to watch.

Since each show is a story, she often talks about the evolution of her recipes or how to effectively produce her product: i.e. the recipe or the party. This leads me to think about exertise and the role it plays as a person completes a project.

I am duly impressed by her production staff’s and her creativity. What most interests me is that they have taken a novel approach to programming an instructional cooking show. What’s interesting is that I think this is the most important finding of my study. The novel approach to a problem. Problem finding seems to be so important to novel thought. The best do it well.

Student data is coded!!

The stats:
19 interviews
50 axial codes
184 printed pages
10671 lines of text

Adults and Documents next!

Coding moves on. I have just finished coding the CSF student interviews. What a relief.

Here are the stats:
12 interviews
45 axial codes
104 printed pages
5983 lines of text

The joys of coding data. As I’ve begun to use The Ethnograph, I want to record a few important “tricks” I’ve learned which makes the program easier to use.

1. I’m coding all questions. I initally started coding them with the letter Q. (e.g Q1, Q2). However, when I printed my codebook, I found that the “Q” codes were right in the middle of the book, thus dividing the codes that I was using and referencing. My solution: I’ve changed the “Q” codes to “Z” codes.

2. Initially when I was using codewords, I would retype them, but I was getting concerned that I might spell something wrong or different. Solution: There is a button at the bottom of the quick code box that opens the list of codewords currently being used. I click on the codeword and then I click OK on the codebook. I have to make sure that I click both times, or the highlighted text selection does not get highlighted. I’ve set my windows up to make the codebook easy to view. See the graphic above.

3. Intial file imports. I saved all of my files as text files so file sizes were small, thus making it easier to email. BIG MISTAKE. When the text files are imported into The Ethnograph’s text editor, all of the page breaks are deleted. What a waste of time to go back and put them in – I can’t tell you how many I missed. I’m back to having Word files, , and then . Works far better.

4. Don’t click too fast. The Ethnograph is still running on a Windows 95 design platform. If I click icons or menus too fast, I freeze up the program. The only solution is to actually log off or shut down. The task manager’s function will close the program, but it then restarts with bugs.

5. One computer only. I haven’t found a way around this yet, but once you establish a job, it does not appear to be transferable from one computer to another. I was in the WS lab a couple of nights ago, started the other computer that had the software and couldn’t get my work to load up. I will probably not waste time trying to figure this out.

6. Saving files. The Ethnograph does a good job of saving-as-you-go. I am saving on a flash drive, and then redundantly saving on the network drive. When I start The Ethnograph, it immediately goes to the flash drive to find the files. See comments on #5.

If I have more, I will update this post.

7. OK, there’s more. This one is really important and a definate ideosyncracy of the program. Sometimes if you swich to a different program. e.g. copying a word file over, or posting a blog, or whatever – when you return to the program, it appears as if it is frozen. Usually there is a secondary window opened within The Ethnograph, but for some reason it doesn’t reopen. The trick: Click on the [EthServer] on the bottom toolbar, and then click the [-] to minimize it. The program is right back where it belongs.

I’ve been listening and transcribing my interviews and have heard many students talk about their success and relating it to speaking well and speaking passionately to judges. I’ve repeatedly dismissed this idea in my mind, thinking that the high quality research was really what lead to their success, not good speaking skills.

However, the interview I typed tonight gave me a different impression – one that I think I’ve glossed over too easily. The student said that the research experience has taught her to communicate well. Although this is a by-product of conducting research, and not necessarily part of the problem finding process, I think it is important to consider. Bob W. repeatedly speaks about CSF students as great communicators.

When is it part of the problem finding process? When students professionally speak to those with expertise when trying to gain information. Maybe Pavlica had something more than he realized with his specialized ’email to the scientist’ form. Participating in the process builds these communication skills, and thus may translate into future opportunities for students when developing more sophisticated projects down the line.

I’ve had the pleasure of watching some of the recent YouTube videos featuring student George Hotz. George recently unlocked the iPHONE, making it accessible on mobile networks other than AT&T.

Here’s his reveal of unlock.

What I found most interesting in the discussion, as it relates to my research, is that George came up with the problem himself. He identified a need, knew he had most of the expertise, resources, time, etc to complete the task. But George says that he didn’t work in a vaccuum. He utilized help from other people. He was the project manager – it was his idea – it was his discovery – it was his work. However George knew how to utilize the expertise of other people to help him make his breakthrough.

I am finding that many of my ISEF subjects also match this paradigm. They are extremely knowledgeable in their content area, have come up with a fabulous idea on their own, but utitlize expertise that they might not have. They know how and where to find it.

So the work they do themselves is supported with skills and talents of others who help them.

Caveman summary:

idea – MINE; I get help when I know I need it