Category: Uncategorized

  • Factor 2: A Focus on Learning from the Experts

    Factor 2 can be characterized as having a Monticello-Learning from Experts focus. This is the smallest and most stable grouping, comprised of three teachers at the beginning of the Institute, and three afterwards, with two teachers remaining on the factor throughout. These teachers were characterized by statements that emphasized the value of working with the […]

  • Initial Findings: Factor 1

    Once the Q-Sorts were completed, the sorts were correlated and factors were identified. A factor is a grouping of participants who rank the Q-sort item statements in a similar way. Each factor represents a different viewpoint, and when people load on, or fall into, a factor this indicates that they have a shared viewpoint. Some […]

  • What’s Up Next? Initial Findings

    After data collection and analysis this fall, we are thrilled to start sharing our initial findings next week. Unlike surveys, where the information you get is roughly how many people liked or did something, the results in Q are presented as profiles, called “factors.” These profiles illuminate how people clustered their answers in similar ways. […]

  • A New Perspective on the Research

    This week’s blog post comes to us from Hanadi Sharata, a former classroom teacher and current research assistant and doctoral candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University. After assisting with the administration of the Q-Sorts at the Monticello Teacher Institute, she reflects on her experience and explains the research from her perspective:       Every spring, my fellow […]

  • Participating Teachers Reflect on the Q-Sort

    Now that we’ve shared with you about how we developed the Q-sort concourse and the program (the Monticello Teacher Institute) with which we tested the evaluation, the next question to ask is “what did the teachers think of interacting with the Q-sort?” Here are a few of their thoughts and reactions after the onsite pre- […]

  • Administering the Q-Sort

    We administered the Q-Sort a total of four times during summer 2016, once at the outset and once at the conclusion of each session of the Monticello Teacher Institute (two identical sessions were offered). This pre-post administration was designed to capture teachers’ initial thinking about their professional development program and how, if at all, that […]

  • The 2016 Concourse

    After several rounds of review and revision, the following statements are the concourse that was used during the summer 2016 pilot study phase at the Monticello Teacher Institute. Each of these statements was prefaced with the phrase “Professional Development at historic sites affects my development as a teacher by.” We chose this phrase to begin […]

  • Capturing Specificity and Breadth: Validation of the Concourse

    We used a two-phase validation process to refine the concourse. For the first round of reviews, we enlisted four experts in museum, history, and teacher education. These experts hold staff and faculty positions at museums and universities across the country. They were given a briefing on Q methodology, and then asked to examine the draft […]

  • Pairing our Research Question with Our Methodology: What are we asking and how is the Q-Sort suited to that?

    The primary research question that we are posing is with this project is: What are history teachers learning in historic site-based professional development programs and how does that inform classroom practice? This research question is intentionally broad, because it is reflective of the broad-based, foundational understandings that need to be addressed in the museum education […]

  • Developing of the Concourse Statements

    Take a look at the PDF we’ve linked below to zoom in on this colorful graphic that shows you how we got from a pile of research about professional development at historic sites and Q methodology to a clear set of statements (or ‘concourse’) that teachers could interact with in order to tell us their […]

Discover