xample of Group Activities

Quoted and summarized below, and supplemented with input from additional sources cited below, are
seven forms of in-class structured group activities commonly assigned by instructors based on a
workshop given by the USC Center for Excellence in Teaching. Each is organized differently and, as such,
should be approached in a particular way in order to maximize your opportunity to participate, to
engage in learning about the topic, and to improve your understanding of a research problem by gaining
perspective and knowledge from others. However, each activity can pose particular challenges. Below
are descriptions of each group activity, along with suggestions intended to maximize the benefits of
participating.

The Double-Entry Journal

What You Do: This strategy enables students to record their responses to text as they read. The page of
a journal is divided into two columns. On the left, students summarize what they have read; in the right-
hand column, they record their reactions in the form of questions, objections, sources of confusion, or
concerns. In class, you are paired with another student to give feedback on each other's double-entry
journals, either in writing or orally [a third column may be added for the partner to write comments]. In
some cases, your professor may collect the journals and offer their own feedback as well.

Benefits: Creating a double-entry journal encourages collaborative learning and introspective thinking
about one's own learning based on the text being reviewed. Sharing journals provides an opportunity to
practice giving and receiving feedback from your peers, similar to what can happen in professional
workplace settings. The repetition of completing the journal on your own, receiving feedback, and
potentially receiving analysis from your instructor encourages in-depth learning about the research
problem.

Learning Opportunities: For this activity to be successful, it is important to be thorough and sincere in
your analysis of the text and to critically consider the opinions and insights given by your peers.
Concomitantly, when providing feedback, focus on assessing the effectiveness of the other person's
argument, the evidence presented to support any recommendations or conclusions, and the general
organization and clarity of the writing [e.g., its effectiveness in describing and analyzing the text]. The
most effective feedback strikes a balance between constructive criticism and positive encouragement.

The Jigsaw

What You Do: Each member of a group is assigned unique material to learn and teach to the group's
other members. The subject of investigation is usually fairly broad, with each group examining a
particular aspect of the issue. Students from different groups working on the same material get together
during class to decide what is most important and how best to teach it. After practicing in the "expert"
groups, the original groups reconvene and the students teach each other what they learned. The
outcome from this exercise is often to write a reflective paper about the way the student's expert
knowledge was changed or enhanced based upon input from others.
Benefits: The process of creating diverse groups of students that divide into expert groups to examine
the research problem, then get back together to teach their original groups what they have learned,
facilitates positive, interdependent learning in the classroom by forcing you to teach the research topic
to others. This cooperative learning process encourages productive interaction and cooperation among
group members. Instructors may also assign this activity because it can be an effective way to learn the
material that will be covered in a mid-term or final exam.

Learning Opportunities: This group activity works best if your professor has provided everyone with a
specific learning goal or guiding questions because this sets the parameters for how the expert groups
and the home groups examine the research problem. If this has not been provided, be sure to ask your
professor for guidance. For this activity to be successful, everyone must participate in learning the
material and listening to those who are teaching it. It can also help refine your presentation skills in a
small group setting.

Pro-Con-Caveat

What You Do: Prior to class, your professor distributes a "Pro-Con-Caveat" grid to fill out that relates to a
specific research problem, usually in the form of a question. The grid consists of three columns: a list of
the arguments in favor of a certain decision, a column for arguments against that position, and a third
column that identifies caveats that must be considered [i.e., issues that may impact or influence the
decision]. Students bring a copy of their grid to class and then work in groups to create a grid that the
group determines to be the best synopsis of ideas from each group member's pro, con, and caveat
column. Each group then reports these best ideas to the class.

Benefits: This activity is usually assigned if your professor wants you to prepare ahead of time to analyze
a research problem and to be aware of the topic from more than one perspective. Doing so encourages
individual reflection on issues before class. Additionally, this activity promotes higher-order thinking
when students make judgments about which pros, cons, and caveats are most important. Reporting the
results of your group's work also supports cooperation in designing a presentation about the topic.

Learning Opportunities: For this activity to be successful, the underlying decision, dilemma, or judgment
to be made should be approached objectively. You should think about the activity introspectively by
putting yourself in the shoes of others in order to thoroughly consider all pros and cons related to the
question. In formulating caveats, think about external factors and conditions that could influence
outcomes, either positively or negatively, or, the role of possible stakeholder groups that could support
or oppose a specific decision, policy, or recommended course of action.

Definition

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to
challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The
theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The
theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem
under study exists.
Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Swanson,
Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013.

Importance of Theory

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to
relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study. The theoretical
framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic
of your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature. You must
review course readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant
to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its
appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways:

An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.

The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory,
you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.

Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and
how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed
to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.

Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies
which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those
key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it
fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with a
phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that
knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways.

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Corvellec, Hervé, ed. What
is Theory?: Answers from the Social and Cultural Sciences. Stockholm: Copenhagen Business School
Press, 2013; Asher, Herbert B. Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Press, 1984; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University;
Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide
Research. Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research.
Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Jarvis, Peter. The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory
from Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I. Developing the Framework

Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

Examine your thesis title and research problem. The research problem anchors your entire study and
forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.

Brainstorm about what you consider to be the key variables in your research. Answer the question,
"What factors contribute to the presumed effect?"

Review related literature to find how scholars have addressed your research problem. Identify the
assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the problem.

List the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into
independent and dependent categories.

Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the
theory that can best explain the relationships between the key variables in your study [note the Writing
Tip on this page].

Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables
and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will take in analyzing and
interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables
according to given definitions and builds new knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical
assumptions.

II. Purpose

Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to investigate
relationships within social systems. To that end, the following roles served by a theory can help guide
the development of your framework.

Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,

Means for identifying and defining research problems,

Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,

Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that are important and which facts
are not,

Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,

Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical research questions that
need to be answered to maximize understanding of the issue,

Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common language and a frame of
reference for defining the boundaries of their profession, and

Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts and improve
professional practice.

Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III ,
editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice. (San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-
Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and
Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory, in which case, your work is expected to
test the validity of that existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or phenomena. Many social
science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism Theory, which categorizes
perceived differences among nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey, and those that
rebel, could be used as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among countries in Africa. A
test of this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism Theory help explain intra-state
actions, such as, the disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led to the creation of two
nations?

However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in your paper, but to
develop your own framework from which your analysis of the research problem is derived. Based upon
the above example, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical
framework if it is viewed as an answer to two basic questions:
What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during
periods of conflict?"]

Why is your approach a feasible solution? [i.e., justify the application of your choice of a particular
theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected. I could choose instead to test
Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among ethnic conflict theorists that rely upon
socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model
to periods of war between nations].

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your course readings
[summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps in the research that emerge
from the review process. With this in mind, a complete theoretical framework will likely not emerge
until after you have completed a thorough review of the literature.

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background information, a
theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic being investigated. When
writing and revising this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that underpin your study. This
includes noting who the key theorists are in the field who have conducted research on the problem you
are investigating and, when necessary, the historical context that supports the formulation of that
theory. This latter element is particularly important if the theory is relatively unknown or it is borrowed
from another discipline.

Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related frameworks, concepts, models,
or theories. As noted in the example above, there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models
that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note
why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.

The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense can be used to describe
the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the construction of your theoretical framework is
happening now.

You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible. Later, your discussion of
methodology should be linked back to this theoretical framework.

Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately represented in such a
simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you fundamentally distort a reader's ability to understand the
findings that emerge. Given this, always note the limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen
[i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory inadequately
explains a certain phenomena].

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework:
What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument.
Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building
Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241;
Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. "A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative
Research." Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew
Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE, 2017; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education; Trochim,
William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Weick, Karl E. “The
Work of Theorizing.” In Theorizing in Social Science: The Context of Discovery. Richard Swedberg, editor.
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 177-194.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

An increasingly important trend in the social and behavioral sciences is to think about and attempt to
understand research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely
exclusively on the theories developed within your particular discipline, but to think about how an issue
might be informed by theories developed in other disciplines. For example, if you are a political science
student studying the rhetorical strategies used by female incumbents in state legislature campaigns,
theories about the use of language could be derived, not only from political science, but linguistics,
communication studies, philosophy, psychology, and, in this particular case, feminist studies. Building
theoretical frameworks based on the postulates and hypotheses developed in other disciplinary
contexts can be both enlightening and an effective way to be more engaged in the research topic.

CohenMiller, A. S. and P. Elizabeth Pate. "A Model for Developing Interdisciplinary Research Theoretical
Frameworks." The Qualitative Researcher 24 (2019): 1211-1226; Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford
Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

Do not leave the theory hanging out there in the introduction never to be mentioned again.
Undertheorizing weakens your paper. The theoretical framework you describe should guide your study
throughout the paper. Be sure to always connect theory to the review of pertinent literature and to
explain in the discussion part of your paper how the theoretical framework you chose supports analysis
of the research problem or, if appropriate, how the theoretical framework was found to be inadequate
in explaining the phenomenon you were investigating. In that case, don't be afraid to propose your own
theory based on your findings.
Fleetwood, Steve and Anthony Hesketh. "HRM-Performance Research: Under-theorized and Lacking
Explanatory Power." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (2006): 1977-1993.

Yet Another Writing Tip

What's a Theory? What's a Hypothesis?

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in newspapers and popular magazines
and in non-academic settings. However, the difference between theory and hypothesis in scholarly
research is important, particularly when using an experimental design. A theory is a well-established
principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories arise from
repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested assumptions that
are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory; critical race theory].

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For
example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety
might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less
test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what
you expect to happen during the course of your research.

The key distinctions are:

A theory predicts events in a broad, general context; a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a
specified set of circumstances.

A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted among scholars; a hypothesis is a
speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

Cherry, Kendra. Introduction to Research Methods: Theory and Hypothesis. About.com Psychology;
Gezae, Michael et al. Welcome Presentation on Hypothesis. Slideshare presentation.

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

Theories are meant to be tested and their underlying assumptions challenged; they are not rigid or
intransigent, but are meant to set forth general principles for explaining phenomena or predicting
outcomes. Given this, testing theoretical assumptions is an important way that knowledge in any
discipline develops and grows. If you're asked to apply an existing theory to a research problem, the
analysis may include the expectation by your professor that you should offer modifications to the theory
based on your research findings. Indications that theoretical assumptions may need to be modified can
include the following:

Your findings suggest that the theory does not explain or account for current conditions or
circumstances,

The study reveals a finding that is significantly incongruent with what the theory attempts to explain or
predict, or

Your analysis reveals that the theory overly generalizes behaviors or actions without taking into
consideration specific factors [e.g., factors related to culture, nationality, history, gender, ethnicity, age,
geographic location, legal norms or customs, religion, social class, socioeconomic status, etc.].