Here are some example problem statements written by other students.  Some are better than others.  They do, however, illustrate the structure of problems in the context of various studies.

Example 1

It is highly unlikely that educators question either the prominent place of writing in the school curriculum or of the value of students mastering this basic skill. Since writing is a complex skill and mastering a skill requires practice, most educators would agree that students need frequent opportunities to practice writing. In fact, the National Council of Teachers of English has reported that "Daily writing is ideal; once a week is not enough." However, because English teachers have traditionally followed an assign-assess pattern in teaching students to write and because this increases their workload, most teachers are reluctant to allow opportunities for students to write daily. In many classrooms, and perhaps in most, students do not even write once a week. A 1978 Ford Foundation report states, "The problem with writing is no writing." And a 1977 Sloan Foundation report declares "Today students who 'can't write' frequently means a bright student has come to the university who has never, repeat never, written a paper."

The fact that students aren't doing much writing in the classroom appears to be a foregone conclusion at this time. However, instructional programs have been designed to allow students frequent opportunities to write without increasing the teacher workload. One such program was conducted by Vernon H. Smith of Indiana University in elementary classrooms recently. Smith's informal study provides evidence of some success of the program. With the exception of Smith's study, however, it appears that no evaluation of these programs has been conducted -- if indeed such programs are being implemented in the classroom. This means no evaluation of a program similar to Smith's has been conducted in the secondary classroom at this time.

What is needed then is an innovation to help solve this problem which would include four basic components. First, an instructional method that provides students with an opportunity to practice writing without increasing teacher workload is needed. Second, educators would need evidence that this new instructional method helps students improve in writing skill development as well or better than the traditional assign-assess method. This evidence would be particularly effective if it could also provide reasons why certain practices are more valid than others based on what we are learning about the process of writing. Third, a form of teacher evaluation would be needed that takes into account both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of student writing. And fourth, since this would be an innovative method, it would be particularly important to utilize a program evaluation that provides the best fit by taking into account not only students' development in writing but also the concerns and issues of students and teachers as well.

It is possible that a study in this area might provide an important link between practice and theory based on what we are learning about the process of writing. In fact, according to Arthur Daigon in his article "Toward Righting Writing" in the December 1982 issue of the Kappan, "Many long-accepted methods of teaching composition actually prevent or retard growth in writing competence."¹ Certainly if students are not writing frequently in their classrooms, they are being deprived of an essential learning experience. Furthermore, teachers who don't provide frequent opportunities for their pupils to write are being deprived of a rewarding teaching experience. Therefore, it is imperative to seek solutions through research that will address this critical area.

Example 2

Recent research in career development has examined several factors relating to employment for married women. One such factor is the duality of social roles experienced by wives who work outside the home. Several studies indicate that a serious role conflict exists for working wives, which creates tension within their marriages. Reviewing the literature, Osipow (1975) reached the "unfortunate conclusion that where both spouses are working outside the home there is less harmony in the marriage than where only one spouse works." He cites in support a study in which working wives reported less happiness in their marriages than nonworking wives (Bailyn, 1970).

A study by Hall and Gordon (1973), not included in Osipow's review, contradicts Bailyn's findings; working wives reported high satisfaction in both marriage and career activities, while nonworking wives were happy with their marriages but not their outside activities. These results call into the question the generalization that employment for wives creates conflict and disharmony in their marriages. The supposition that the presence of overlapping roles necessarily produces conflict also runs counter to social role theory, which states that multiple roles may be perceived as harmonious unless specific conflict-producing conditions exist (Banton, 1965). Because of the negative impact of misconceptions about employment for married women on families, counselors, and employers, it is important to re-examine the issue of role compatibility, and to determine whether any of those conditions which affect wives' dual roles are conflict-producing.

There are a number of reasons which may explain the discrepancy between Hall and Gordon's findings and the generally accepted position that wives' dual roles create marital conflict. Self-reports of marital satisfaction may not accurately predict the existence of role conflicts, both because ordinal measurements of "happiness" may produce inadequately defined answers and because the need to report happiness may be greater for persons with limited life options, such as nonworking wives. Also, researchers may equate role conflict with the presence of dual roles, without examining the actual impact of those roles on marriage. A variety of other factors which determine the parameters of wives' roles may intervene, such as their own attitudes toward work and family life, support from husbands and families, and financial need to work. A number of these intervening factors have been identified in recent studies and examined as influences on women's career behavior.

Example 3

Music education in the elementary school strives to develop the musical sensitivity of each child. A balanced program includes various activities (singing, listening, playing instruments, moving, creating, reading notation) which focus on the essential concepts of music (rhythm, melody, harmony, form, etc.). Classroom teachers are chiefly responsible for the music education of their students. Music specialists can only be found in a small percentage of schools, and with current funding and budget problems, the music specialists jobs are in danger of being reduced.

Many of the state guides (e.g., Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington) recommend at least 20 minutes daily for basic music activities. Others (e.g., Utah) recommend form 90 minutes per week for kindergarten and first grade to 120 minutes per week in the fifth and sixth grades. (Hartsell, 1963, p. 30)
 

In order to prepare elementary school teachers for teaching music in their classrooms, music methods courses are offered in teacher training programs, and are required for teacher certification in many states.

In a study by Picerno (1970), only six percent of the classroom teachers in a total of 189 schools taught a balanced music program (as opposed to just singing or teaching theory). Classroom teachers are being prepared for and are expected to teach music in their classrooms, but the students are not receiving even a minimum amount of time in music in their weekly learnings.

In addition to the amount of teacher training received, various other factors are probably influencing the individual teacher's decision of how often music will be included in the classroom. Where the teacher places music in a hierarchy of valued subjects probably affects how much time is spent on music. A teacher who values music may make an extra effort to teach music. Many teachers may be uncomfortable teaching music because they worry about their own lack of skills. Teachers might avoid teaching music in order not to have to sing or play instruments with their students. Glasgow found that achieving skill in a few basic areas in music could help to erase longstanding fears and stimulate interest in teaching music.

In addition to the personal problems of each teacher, there are outside forces that probably also influence the amount of time the individual elementary teacher spends teaching music. Principals are known to have an effect on the programs in their buildings. The amount of support a principal gives to music education may influence each teacher. If a music specialist is in the building or even travels among buildings, some extra help may be available to the classroom teacher. With some assistance form a music specialist, classroom teachers may be more inclined to teach music. In a second study by Picerno, 12 percent of the classroom teachers polled indicated that they taught only a follow-up to the work done by the music specialist. The presence of a music teacher in the building may have the unjustifiable effect of causing the classroom teacher to eliminate music from the program. Unless the music specialist meets with each class daily, the classroom teacher should be including music in her teaching.

In some school systems a music supervisor or music consultant is available to assist the classroom teachers in teaching music. The amount of aid given by the music supervisor may affect the time spent on music in the classroom. Savage found that music supervisory services were effective in raising specific musical accomplishments among school children. Inservice training for classroom teachers on how to teach music to their students is provided by some districts; this could also influence each teacher's program. Landon found that music supervisors ranked inservice education activities third in importance among the activities they performed.

It is speculated that the amount of time a classroom teacher spends teaching music may be related to various factors and their interactions. Teacher preparation, the teacher's value hierarchy, teacher comfort, the influence of the principal, music specialist, music supervisor, inservice programs and a prescribed curriculum may all affect the individual teacher's decision of how much time is spent teaching music in the classroom.

Example 4

Research shows that the idea of the university faculty member's role, including both teaching and research, has its roots in the sixteenth century German university model (Merriam, 1989). Since that time, both teaching and research have had important roles in the history of academia. Although teaching has historically remained at the forefront of American higher education, by the late nineteenth century, research had begun to emerge as an integral part of the American university's mission (Geiger, 1989). The role of research has continued to become increasingly important during the second half of the twentieth century, to the extent "that [today's] universities judge themselves, and are judged by others, on the basis of their research productivity" (Fulton & Trow, 1990).

The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1980) predicted that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, higher education would experience a "new academic revolution" characterized by a decrease in funding coupled with an increase in student enrollment. Bowen and Schuster (1989) predicted that during that same time academia would fail to attract new young research-oriented faculty and would, in fact, experience a loss of four percent of its faculty per year. Consequently, the role of funded research in American universities is projected to become increasingly important, even though there will be fewer faculty members qualified to do such research.

Many faculty members are finding themselves in an environment where they are expected to conduct research and to actively pursue external funding for their research activities (Fulton & Trow, 1990). Unfortunately many faculty members have received little or no training in grantsmanship. Also, many feel strong tensions between their obligations as teachers and as researchers (Burgoon, 1992). Others refrain from pursuing grants because the process is too labor intensive and results in too few, if any, financial or intrinsic rewards in relation to level of effort. Consequently, some institutional administrators have begun to realize that they have failed to keep pace with needed support mechanisms for grants procurement and have recognized the need to revise faculty reward structures to reflect these new professional demands. Some institutions, one being the University of Missouri-Kansas City, are initiating strategies to enhance research capabilities and to increase faculty involvement in pursuing sponsored funding (Mishler, 1991).

There are a number of commonly-recognized barriers related to faculty involvement in grantsmanship that have been identified: (a) the lack of time necessary for engaging in the grant process (Boice, 1991), (b) heavy teaching loads (Churchman & Hellweg, 1990), (c) an insufficient knowledge of funding sources and proposal writing techniques (Borgoon, 1992), (d) the likelihood of rejection after investing valuable hours in the project (Harris, 1991), (e) the lack of contact with colleagues in other disciplinary areas who may be instrumental in grant procurement (Knodt, 1990), (f) a concern that funding-driven research may result in "watered down" scholarship (Burgoon, 1992), and (g) the lack of adequate institutional library resources (Knodt, 1990).

A number of higher education administrators have recognized that these are serious roadblocks in the way of improved faculty productivity and have begun to experiment with various strategies for barrier removal and increasing faculty grant seeking activity through special incentives. Some of those strategies include: (1) developing faculty research skills so that faculty may participate more fully in sponsored funding activities, (2) implementing a merit system to enhance the salaries of faculty who secure sponsored funds, (3) creating and implementing research-oriented faculty development programs, (4) reducing teaching workloads of research-oriented faculty, and (5) temporary reassignment or hiatus from teaching or research, all in the context of -- or operating alongside -- an existing reward structure. However, these strategies are neither well documented in the literature nor is the efficacy of these approaches well understood in terms of their utility for removing barriers to faculty Research and Development (R&D) involvement, enhancing faculty motivation, ability and opportunity for pursuing extramural funding for research, or coordinating such strategies with the existing reward structure.

Example 6

The need for evaluation of student affairs personnel is supported by a wealth of documentation:

During the past five years Kuh (1979), Burck and Peterson (1975), Dressel (1983), Harpel (1976) and Oetting and Hawkes (1974) have reminded student affairs staff that systematic evaluation of personnel is necessary to insure that students are provided satisfactory services (Kuh, 1979).

The leadership of student affairs suggests that evaluation is a primary element in the process of student affairs becoming an accepted profession (Foxley, 1980). The various publics served by student affairs including faculty, students, trustees and even the general public are increasingly demanding fiscal accountability, thereby necessitating evaluation (Nordvall, 1977). The call is loud and clear and the support is universal that evaluation of student affairs is a necessity.

Evaluation is not, however, universally applied to personnel in student affairs. While the knowledge base of the profession places great emphasis on all types of evaluation, the actions of student affairs administrators are not supportive of evaluation. Management and organization principles that have been applied in business for years received much current attention in education (Nordvall, 1977). Yet in a recent study by Meabon, Suddick, Owens and Kline, it was shocking to discover that on the average only 50% of the respondents performed evaluation, which was broken down into two categories: periodic and annual. It is clear that the actions of student affairs administrators are contrary to the knowledge base of their profession.

There are a series of possible reasons for this conflict. Perhaps the objectives of student affairs staff are too nebulous to pin down. Organizations in higher education tend to be disorganized. The constraints of too little time and not enough money may reduce the likelihood of performance appraisal. The failure of our institutions to train professional student affairs administrators in evaluation may be a factor. Performance appraisal may be ignored to avoid potential morale problems. No one likes to be evaluated and many student affairs people like to avoid conflict. What is clear is that we must move toward more consistent use of evaluation of performance.