 Hi, my name is Tracy Tagahama Espinosa and this is a video on how to analyze research. We'll be doing this today in four different parts. We'll begin by looking at the definition of analysis and comparing analysis to synthesis as part of these different research processes. Then we'll look at analysis in the context of Bloom's taxonomy as well as within the critical thinking frameworks. And we'll end by giving an example, sort of separating out the different sentence structures and depth of analysis between reporting and analysis. So if we start off with this basic definition of analysis, we get this idea that it's a detailed examination of the different elements or structures of something. And if we try to look at some synonyms for that, it means to examine something, to investigate and inspect. And I like this word of scrutinize. It's scrutiny of different elements, really looking at these smaller parts of the idea or the topic that we're considering. Sometimes it's easier to understand what a word means by looking at what it doesn't mean, so it's opposite. So in terms of antonyms, basically consolidating things or integrating things or synthesizing is what we mean by an antonym for analysis. So the opposite would be to sort of pull things together. And if we look at this visually, it's basically this idea that as many of you saw in your literature review, for example, you analyze an article. You begin to look at it. You look at it as sub-elements, or you think about your topic as a whole, but then break it down into many sub-topics, and look at it piece by piece. Well, synthesis comes after that. And it's basically pulling together all of those different analyses that you might have and pulling it together into a more global way of envisioning your topic now that you've had all of these different levels of analysis. So think of this as basically analysis as being breaking down an idea into its smaller parts, whereas synthesis is really putting all those little pieces, those puzzle pieces together, into a new perspective or a new take on that particular topic or idea. And this is very distinct in the process of research. We all know that we begin with maybe an idea, a hypothesis, right? And we might dig into the research then. We see what other people have done or found about the same topic. And with each of those new pieces of information, we sort of pick that one apart, each new piece, to analyze what each of those individual pieces mean. But then we pull all that back together into a synthesis of the greater information, and then we put that out to the world. But that, again, then creates a whole new hypothesis about how we should be doing things, OK? Now, if we look at analysis within the context of Bloom's taxonomy, Bloom has been around for a long time. Originally in 1956 is when he created this taxonomy of educational objectives. It was rewritten by him and his students in 1984. But then it was modified again in 2009. It's been remodified again in 2011. And so there's always these updates here. But the basic idea is that the main changes between 56 and now is that we've added this additional layer of creativity. We've come to figure out that unless you have these bottom layers of being able to just basically remember or recall information and understand what it means, these are these core definitions, right? Then being able to actually use that information in a new context. If you can't do all of those things, it's impossible to have a good analysis of the information. And here's where I would actually add synthesis. Once you can analyze, you can have this greater synthesis. And this greater synthesis permits you to evaluate, to pass a judgment on whether how good or bad that idea was, or how good or bad the new information is, or other kinds of evaluative processes, right? But once you could do all of that and have all that new information, you may just reach this highest level of cognition, which is to create something new out of that information that you've had in the past. So basically it's collectively taking everything that you know, piecing it together in a different way to have like creative output. So in the Bloom sense, analysis is incredibly important piece of the puzzle, but you really can't do it unless you have these bottom level pieces. If we think of analysis in the context of critical thinking frameworks, we get a slightly different idea. If we look at these definitions, Facuani found in 2004 that related to cognitive skills, I have gathered here a list of what experts say is fundamental to critical thinking. And amongst these terms is analysis. You have to interpret information, you have to analyze it, evaluate it. You use inference to fill in those gaps. You have to be able to articulate and explain it. And then you have to self-regulate, to stay on task to be able to fulfill that thinking process. So we know that within many critical thinking frameworks, including Facuani's, it's very important that we have this level of analysis. So one of my favorite definitions is by chance. This is from 1986. It's a bit old, but it's still very relevant, I think. If we have a look at all these really important verbs that jump out in this definition, right? Critical thinking according to chance is the ability to analyze facts, to generate and organize ideas, to defend opinions, to make comparisons, know where that information came from, right? Evaluate arguments and resolve problems. So basically, chance uses a definition that shows that critical thinking has an end point. It's not just for the sake of thinking that we think, but that it actually helps to do something like resolve problems. But you'll notice here that that very first step is to analyze facts. So analysis is a big part of critical thinking. And Paul and Elder brought this all together when they looked at the characteristics of a person who thinks critically. They're intellectually curious. They have intellectual courage. They have intellectual humility. They have intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance. They don't give up. And they have faith and reason, which seems kind of contradictory. We're talking about all these cerebral things, but then they have faith and reason. They figure that if you follow this path and done the process correctly, well, whatever you come up with is likely true, even if it goes against what you might have believed initially, right? And that you act justly. You then decide, okay, now that I have gone through this process, come to some conclusions, I should take the steps to rectify something, or fix it, or be bold and try to change things. I have added a ninth characteristic here, which to me is really important as well, which is to have intellectual generosity. A person who thinks critically does not try to keep all that to themselves. So once they have a good piece of information, then they do share with others. Aside from the definition and maybe the characteristics of an individual, there's also steps in this critical thinking process. The basic idea is that you have to gather all the information, right? Can I unite everything that I might know about the topic, which is why we ask you to do the literature review before you launch into your own projects, right? Then do you understand the concepts that are being used? So there's particular vocabulary that's used in different types of topics, and so do you understand all of those concepts that are being used within that prior research or literature review that you've done? You should also be very, very clear that you ask where the information comes from. Do you have really good sources of information? Because it may seem obvious to say, but it's something we oftentimes forget, is that everybody is writing from their own perspective. So depending on the biases that that individual author might have, you might be getting a specific perspective and you might not be getting other information, right? You should also analyze, and here's the level of analysis, right? Analyze the source of that information and what that is actually trying to tell you. So if you have two different articles about evolution, and one is written by a Darwinian society member and another is written by the Christian right, you have two different perspectives, right? And you have to take that into consideration when you analyze the findings that are presented. After that, even though you've done all these great steps, you should still be, you know, skeptical with the information. Doubt the conclusions. That's a real good critical thinker as somebody who doesn't just take everything at face value, but they keep thinking about it and questioning it. This means by definition, then, you have to really accustom yourself to uncertainty. Things are not black and white. There's a whole lot of gray in the world and that we have to accustom ourselves to the uncertainty of the information. Then we need to step back, right? After we've done this analysis, now we step back. We look at the synthesis of the information. We examine the whole once again. And from there, we'll be able to push ourselves to generate a whole new idea from which we should then start again. Then we need to begin again with that new idea and look at all the new information and understand the concepts and so on, right? So this is an iterative process. It never really ends. It just gets deeper and deeper as we learn to think better and better. And for those of you who are school teachers, you know it's very clear that if you do things like activities like debate or problem-based learning or use case studies or stories or fables or drama or role-play and even crossword puzzles, you can get a lot of good critical thinking going. This last point, questioning is one of the most basic, fundamental pedagogical activities, but one that many, many teachers find a challenge because we think that our job is to answer questions, not get kids to ask questions, but it's actually the opposite if we're looking for good critical thinkers. And this is based on this really beautiful art of questioning, probably founded or expressed best by Socratic Dialogue thousands of years ago. It's the oldest teaching methodology that's still in play right now, is the Socratic method. Basically because it enhances and elevates our level of thinking. So in this one sense, Paul and Eleanor again, have talked about six types of Socratic questioning. There's questions that clarify thinking and understanding. There are types of questions you can ask students that challenge their assumptions by asking them something like, are you assuming or is that always the case? Or we can ask them questions that examine evidence and rationale just by simply asking them, why do you say that? Why do you believe that? What evidence is there for that? Or considering alternative perspectives. For example, asking students, what would be the other side of that argument? A fifth way would be to use questions that consider implications of the information and the consequences that are possible by asking questions like, well, how would this affect something or someone? And finally, there's also Socratic questions that have to do with meta questions, these bigger global questions, by asking questions about questions. You know, well, what's the point of that question? Or what do you think that really means? The basic idea though within this dialogue is that a teacher's job is not to answer any more questions. It's basically to get students to ask better questions than they once had and to narrow down into their own personal area of ignorance. And so the questions that are asked help hone in on what the problem area is for the students so that they're able to resolve their own problems by formulating those better questions. And as we've mentioned before, this type of feedback in a questioning form becomes individuals internal dialogue. That is really the fundamental basis of metacognitive skills in an individual is using the same kind of dialogue that they have in questioning form with mentors, people that will guide their own thinking through this questioning process. So let's move on to reporting versus analysis. And I wanted to highlight this because it's really the biggest problem that we have within student writing is that students will tend to report. They'll say things like 30 children took the exam. The average score was 75 out of 100. Okay, that's reporting the data, all right? Different from analyzing, which is, you know, the average grade of the students was 75 out of 100. There are at least three possible explanations for this, you know, the students were not taught the information, the students were taught, but they didn't learn or the students knew the information, but they weren't prepared for that test. And then you go into why, you know, each of those three things would be possibilities. So there's a huge difference here. And if you can see, if you just sort of have a quick look at this, it's not just in the length, but it's really in the depths of the thinking, right? In the first level, all we're doing is asking what happened? You know, it's gathering data. It's actually asking the what of the data. What do we know about this? What do the numbers say, right? Whereas in the second instance, we're actually asking the bigger question, why did that test score occur? And that's the real key in critical thinking as well as in the role of analysis versus reporting. And this relates back to your research projects in the sense that there's a difference between data gathering, which is vital, right? That just tells us what happened. But that's a different from data analysis and finding out why that happened, okay? So both of these are really key pieces in the research process. So with that, we'll end here. That's the big idea about analysis. Keep that in mind. We're looking for deeper thinking when we get to this stage of your research process. Come to class with lots of questions, looking forward to seeing you. Bye.