Purchase college research papers
Methods of Analysis The first phase of the analysis, which was supposed to lead to the results searched for, was a kind of selection procedure based on criteria of relevance. Comments which seemed in any way relevant to our enquiry were identified and marked. The meaning of a comment could occasionally lie in the words themselves but, in general, the interpretation had to be made in relation to the context within which that comment had been made. Svensson and Theman (1983) offer an illuminating example of the way in which the same utterance may take on different meanings in different contexts. In this way, each quote had two contexts in relation to which it had to be interpreted.
The interpretation was thus an iterative procedure which went purchase college research papers back and forth between the two contexts for each unit of analysis. The first phase of the analysis was thus a selection procedure carried out within each interview (though taking the other interviews into consideration as a background). Then came a third phase which involved a decision about the specific level at which the quotes should be seen in relation to each other. There was a good deal of overlap as the iterative procedure progressed. There are obviously differences at different levels. There are differences in the way people express themselves and there may be differences in their general orientation, but our interest did not focus on either of these two levels. Differences in outcome had been described in terms of the different ways in which the message of the text read had been understood. We were now purchase college research papers searching for differences in the process of learning leading to these differences in outcome. We thus had to look for the different ways in which the process leading to these outcomes had been experienced. It is a discovery procedure which can be justified in terms of results, but not in terms of method. Levels of Processing In the specific case we are dealing with here, all our efforts, all our readings and rereadings, our iterations and reiterations, our comparisons and groupings finally turned into an astonishingly simple picture. We had been looking for an answer to the question of why the students had arrived at those qualitatively different ways of understanding the text as a whole. Their focal point of attention was on the pages in the first case and beyond them in the second. In the second purchase college research papers case, the students tried to understand the message by looking for relations within the text or by looking for relations between the text and phenomena of the real world, or by looking for relations between the text and its underlying structure. These learners seemed to have seen themselves as creators of knowledge who law school essay review service have to use their capabilities to make critical judgements, logical conclusions and come up with their own ideas.
Some quotes will serve to illustrate the first way of experiencing the learning situation:.
Their only aim was to be in a position to remember it later when they would be asked questions about it. It should be remembered that the Instructions approaches to learning 41 put no time constraints on the students and yet the quotations show experiences of heavy time pressure.
The intention to memorize the text, however, contains a paradox.
The students often have the feeling that they will not remember, just because they are trying so hard to remember. So we found that many students were not even trying to understand the message and, so, in consequence, they did not understand it. On the other hand, they tried hard to remember the text, yet failed to do so. Some students were trying to understand the message. They were not trying to memorize the text and yet they remembered it very well. The quotes below, when compared to those above, illustrate the fact that the two groups of students seem to have been engaged in fundamentally different activities in a situation which, from the point of view of an external observer, appeared to be the same for both groups. Well, it was sort of the whole aim of (the article) — if that is what is meant. The whole aim of the article was what I was thinking of, sort of. I was looking for the argument and whatever points were used to illustrate it. My feelings about the issues raised made me hope he would present a more convincing argument than he did, so that I could formulate and adapt my ideas more closely, according to the reaction I felt to his argument. The qualitative differences in the outcome of learning were referred to as levels of outcome and the purchase college research papers qualitative differences in the process of learning were accordingly called levels of processing. In spite of these limitations, we were still able to conclude that there was a very close relationship indeed between process and outcome. Svensson (1976, 1977, and also in Chapter 4) has convincingly argued that the main dividing line, as far as levels of outcome are concerned, lies between categories A and B on the one hand and categories C and D, on the other. This is so, Svensson says, because the fact-conclusion structure, on which the whole article is based, is understood in the first case, but not in the second. So far we have identified two levels of processing on the basis of what the students said about their experience of the learning process. Then, subsequently, process was related to outcome.
Svensson (1976) combined these two sources of information in making an independent and simultaneous analysis of the same set of data with the same intention — to explain the differences in outcome.