Here is some more advice/suggestions Jenna posted today (4/4): * Update your purpose statement - put it in the past

tense * Describe your participants - did they change from your initial plans? Can you provide demographics? How many participated? Did they answer all of the questions? Who did 'not' respond/participate? How does this affect your results? * Describe the methods you used to analyze your data. This should be such a good description that an outsider could read your study and have enough information to replicate it at a different location. * Maintain confidentiality/anonymity as promised. Did you change names of participants and work locations? If you are sharing this with ANYONE in your organization, please be sure that all information that could be connected back to someone is removed. * Pick and report on the most provocative findings that match with your research questions. This means I do not need to see every chart and all excel sheets. Those probably belong in the appendices. However, I do want to see the most interesting findings that respond to your research questions. * If you have a chart or a table, then you need a title and an explanation for it. Don't assume someone will interpret it the same way that you do. * As you are reporting findings and making conclusions, be sure you support every claim with evidence. If you tell me that technology is useful, I want to see a statistic or a quote from your data to support that. * What are the limitations of your study? How could it have been improved? After you discuss your limitations, don't forget to tell the reader why your research is still valuable. * Discuss the reliability and validity of your study. Please refer to the books for more information and guidance here. Submit the data collection and analysis you have conducted for your action research report. If youre using a qualitative analysis, use the themes as headings and place direct quotes from participants in the narrative. If youre using a quantitative analysis, use key findings from the data as headings. Include key findings in the narrative, but put your charts in the appendix. Chapter 6 in Koshy and Chapter 5 in Stringer should help you consider how you will analyze your data. This paper should be around 3 to 5 pages and include:

Background (research questions and data collection methods)The Tech Chefs team, consisting of Sara Lohndorf, Dawn Turek and Aimee Willis, had the unique opportunity to engage as action researchers within our own individual family environments, as well as within the context of the support group of our team. Our research

practice addressed how we, as individuals, could implement technology to enhance shopping and preparation procedures for family meals. As a team, our research revealed how we could function as a support unit and disseminate the data from our research with one another, while also sharing our findings with a larger community of interest. Our goal was to implement technology in order to learn new cooking skills and techniques, track our progress and reflect on our shopping and planning practices. We reached our goal by utilizing Web 2.0 technologies, implementing best practices, and drawing on the support, communal findings and reflections of the team members. We selected our participants using what Ernest Stringer calls purposeful sampling, where we consciously selected people based on the extent to which an individual is affected by or has an effect on the issue(p. 43). We identified our key stakeholders to be ourselves and our immediate families, whose lives are affected every day by our meal preparations. Our families helped us define and explore the problem and solutions by engaging in our action research. Our sampling included researchers Sara Lohndorf and her husband, Dawn Turek, her husband and two children, (2.5 yrs old) and (3 months old), and Aimee Willis, her husband and two children, (6 yrs old) and (5 yrs old). The setting in which the action research took place was in the homes of the researchers. Stakeholder participation was implied considering the topic and environment of the research. However, researchers encouraged proactive participation by conducting family interviews and taking into account participants preferences when selecting meal ingredients. Additionally, family discussions and surveys engaged participants and allowed them to voice approval, criticisms or suggestions for improvement, ultimately giving them ownership of the process. Although Dawn reported good participation from her husband, her children were too young to have fully participated in the surveys. The 2.5 year old was, however, extremely honest and did not hold back on his verbal opinion. The 3 month old, who is solely breastfed, showed his distaste for certain meals by displaying fussiness and/or digestive discomfort. The childrens age and inability to fully participate in the family surveys did not change or skew the research results from what was expected, as this factor was taken into consideration prior to undertaking the research. Both Sara and Aimee experienced honest and cogent survey feedback from their family participants. The questions we set out to answer during the course of our research included: 1. How could we use Web 2.0 tools to improve our planning, purchasing and preparing of five affordable, nutritious dinners per week? 2. Which Web 2.0 tools would most effectively aid in our tracking, planning and preparing of meals? 3. How did having an online support network improve our teams planning, purchasing and preparing of five affordable, nutritious dinners per week? We researched and implemented the use of several Web 2.0 tools to conduct our research and house our data. The following chart lists the data we gathered, the Web 2.0 tool/instrument we utilized, and the research question the collected data was intended to address. Data Gathered Tool/Instrument(s) Research Question(s) Addressed

Shared Resource Postings Reflections Journal Self Surveys (Pre/During/Post Research) Post Meal Family Survey Grocery Tracker (date, cost, number of shopping trips) Subject Matter Expert (SME) Interview

Wordpress Blog Google Document embedded into Wordpress Blog Google Form (survey) embedded into Wordpress Blog Google Form (survey) embedded into Wordpress Blog Google Spreadsheet embedded into Wordpress Blog Email converted to chart displayed in the Data section of Wordpress Blog

1, 2, 3 1, 2 ,3 1, 2, 3 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2, 3

As made evident by the chart above, all of our data was housed under the umbrella of a blog website (www.techchefs.wordpress.com) in order to disseminate information including, but not limited to how to videos, articles of interest concerning the topic of family meals, and recipes from social sites like Pinterest. The blog served as a hub for our communal data collection, enabling the team to make entries that provided qualitative data, as well as provided us the capability to embed our tracking chart and surveys. These results were graphed and served as qualitative data. Data Analysis Methods Using the mixed method of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, we analyzed both types of data. Data from our post meal surveys and reflections were analyzed qualitatively to gain an understanding of successes and failures in our attempt to implement research in order to improve the process of meal planning and preparation. Using the coding system to analyze our familys responses and individual reflections, we uncovered trends and recurring themes. We also compared and cross referenced the SME interview data with the established themes. Additionally, we analyzed the data from our blogs quantitatively. Our self-surveys and grocery tracker chart were graphed and analyzed quantitatively in order to visually clarify results. We quantified our data by converting charted responses into a graph in order to coalesce results, which uncovered insightful, and in some cases, surprising trends. The following chart addresses the data we gathered, the type of data and the method we utilized in order to analyze the data: Data Gathered Shared Resource Postings Type Quantitative Method of Analysis Number and dates of posts calculated and

(Blog Entries)

Qualitative

cross referenced with number of days research was conducted. Referenced quantitative results with of self survey question #5 (On a scale from 1-5, with 5 being the most motivational and 1 the least motivational, how would you rate your motivation as a result of team environment and support?) Each member contributed to a daily reflection journal over the course of the research, which was then Coded by Theme - available for review on blog Number of meals cooked per week per team member charted and graphed - refer to Appendix Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 Each team member participated in a 6 question Self Survey before, during and after the research, which is available on the blog. The results were then charted and graphed - refer to Appendix Fig. 3. Family members (participants) engaged in answering 4 Post Meal Survey questions after each home prepared meal, which is available on the blog. The results were cross referenced with Reflection themes. Team members tracked the date, cost and number of meals purchased using a Google Spreadsheet embedded in the blog. Results were charted and graphed refer to Appendix Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 Team members researched and contacted a Subject Matter Expert, in this case a published author that blogs about family meal preparation, and requested an interview. Interview questions were emailed to SME and the responses were cross referenced with Reflection Themes refer to Appendix Fig. 6 for Interview Questions and Responses.

Reflections Journal

Qualitative Quantitative

Self Surveys (Pre/During/Post Research)

Quantitative

Post Meal Family Survey

Qualitative

Grocery Tracker (date, cost, number of shopping trips)

Quantitative

Subject Matter Expert (SME) Interview

Quantitative

Findings
Subheadings to reflect themes found in research - 3-6 max Possible themes - family values, time management, utilization of Web 2.0 tools, motivation, support Themes from Reflections: Comparison of the research to the literature review (sometimes themes will be the same between the same not always)

The data we collected and analyzed provided insightful information for each of the research questions we set out to answer. For the sake of clarity and simplicity in reporting our findings, we have organized our data results according to each research question where we discuss the qualitative and/or quantitative data as it pertains to each question. Reference to visual data is indicated by suggestions to refer to the appropriate figure in the Appendix in order to review captured findings and information. Question #1: How could we use Web 2.0 tools to improve our planning, purchasing and preparing of five affordable, nutritious dinners per week? Research question #1 yielded the most information in terms of data, as every data collection method we utilized provided direct or indirect information regarding how we could use technology to improve our meal planning and preparation procedures. The Wordpress blog proved to be a highly useful and beneficial storing and dissemination tool. Reviewing the Reflections data quantitatively, to which we contributed daily via an embedded Google document, provided excellent information on our goals and progress in answering question #1. Refer to the chart in Fig.1 and graph in Fig. 2 of the Appendix for a visual representation of the data that reveals that each team member prepared a home cooked meal 25 out of the 33 days between February 27th to March 30th. It is evident that utilizing technology to track and reflect on family meal preparation enabled each team member to reach the communal goal of planning, purchasing and preparing at least 5 family meals per week during the 5 week research period. Verbal discussions among the team members provided qualitative evidence that revealed time and again that accountability played a large role in our inspiration and motivation to stay on task, contribute data and share reflections and resources. The embedded Google spreadsheet that enabled us to track grocery shopping data provided evidence concerning how technology aids in the planning phase of meal preparation. The act of tracking number of trips to the store, food costs and the number of meals planned over the 5 week research period afforded team members an undeniable awareness of their costs and activity. Charting and graphing this information, as seen in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 of the Appendix, provided quantitative data that addresses not only a 5 week history, but also qualitative insight regarding areas for which there is room for improvement. For example, Aimee discovered she could improve upon her number of meals planned per week, and Sara realized her total food costs and average cost per meal were higher than she expected. These qualitative realizations speak directly to the Look, Think, Act cycle that team members can continue to implement in order to improve the

process the research addressed in terms of how technology can improve the planning process of meal preparation. The Post Meal Family Survey, collected by means of an embedded Google form on the Wordpress blog, generated a spreadsheet view of the responses. The surveys spoke to the preparation aspect of research question #1. The Post Meal Family Survey provided qualitative feedback that addressed how team members could reflect (think) and act accordingly regarding meal preparation. The following examples are feedback each team member received that would facilitate future meal preparation in order to meet participants requests and improve the prepared meal: Example 1 : The pork chop was a little thick would have preferred a thinner cut. Example 2: Don't put the yucky cheese in the eggs, more strawberries and less cantaloupe. Example 3: I would add some avocado and maybe make some fries with it. The Self Survey data, also collected by means of an embedded Google form, provided both qualitative and quantitative data that addressed how technology aids in meal planning and preparation. Refer to Fig. 3 in the Appendix for a detailed view of the represented data. It is evidenced that the number of meals each member cooked per week increased from 3-4 to 5 or more over the course of the 5 week research due, in part, to technologically organizing and tracking meal planning and preparation. The number of shopping trips per week was also affected by organizing and tracking and were reduced from 3-4 to 1-2 during the research time frame. There was a slight improvement in budgeted amount for the weekly shopping trip to cover the costs of at least 5 home prepared meals. Although one team members response remained constant at $101 or more for each of the 3 surveys, two team members responses dropped from $101 or more and $51-75 to $76-100 and $51-75, respectively. There were areas of the research that did not show notable improvements as a result of the use of technology, including ranking of cooking skills over the course of the research, all of which remained level at a 3 to 4 out of a possible 5. Another relatively unaffected area was budgeted amount of weekly grocery costs covering the cost of at least 5 meals, which was answered overwhelmingly Yes in each of the 3 surveys per team member. This indicates that either technology did not particularly affect this area or that team members were proficient in this area prior to conducting research. Ultimately, the team members feel they adequately addressed and answered research question #1 and have gained experience apply Web 2.0 technology in their meal planning and preparation procedures. Question #2: Which Web 2.0 tools would most effectively aid in our tracking, planning and preparing of meals? Unlike the other two research questions, this question required additional research prior to the outset of our official research in order to ascertain what technologies were available and which ones would serve our purposes best. After utilizing Google searches and reviewing smartphone applications, we decided to implement a Wordpress blog that would enable us to share information

via blog postings, embed documents that housed our surveys, reflections and charts, as well as embed documents that displayed our proposal, literature review and data analysis. We utilized Google documents for the reflections, proposal, literature review and data, a Google spreadsheet for tracking grocery information and Google forms for our Self and Post Family Meal Surveys. The success and effectiveness of the chosen technological tools is made evident by the participation and contributions of the team members to the blog, surveys and reflections during the course of the research. There is no specific quantitative data to report as it concerns which Web 2.0 tools most effectively aided in our research. However, indirect qualitative data exists regarding the effectiveness of the chosen tools as made evident by the amount of data we were able to collect and analyze in order to track our progress and answer research questions 1 and 3. Question #3: How did having an online support network improve our teams planning, purchasing and preparing of five affordable, nutritious dinners per week? Number of posting per dates of research Qualitative themes of reflections SME interview

Frustrating Effort w/ Negative Outcome - Time Management, Motivation, Preparation Team/Community Support - Motivation / Support Stay positive and learn from the experience - Motivation, Benefits of shared mealtime, family values Team member info - sharing with team - Motivation, Support, Web 2.0 tools (blog) Pleasant Experience w/ Positive Outcome - Motivation, Time Management, Support, Preparation, family values, possible use of technology? Reliability and Validity - elaborated from proposal and changed to past tense - what you did to make sure your research had checks for (Stringer p 57-59) rigor research was trustworthy In order to add credibility to our findings, we used the methods of prolonged engagement and triangulation. We received feedback from our participants at various times throughout the project in order to allow participants to express their opinions over an extended period of time. We also gathered data from multiple sources (our different families), which allowed us to compare and contrast our results. Our research is transferable, as we will share our results and blogs with others in hopes that they can apply aspects of our research to their situations. For dependability, we have conducted a final inquiry audit on our research which will describe our procedures used (Stringer p. 59). We have confirmed our research by allowing outside observers to view the data we collected to test its validity. Comparison of the Research to the Literature Review Literature review themes:

Nutritional Importance of Meals Cooked at Home The Benefits of Shared Mealtimes and their Effect on Families and Individuals Emergence of Technology to Aid in Meal Management Research Themes: Limitations - be honest about the work youve done humble without knocking yourself down. Address scope - in an ideal settingI would have. Report all of the items that could have limited the reliability, the accuracy of study after this, remind us why study is still valuable. Referencing cycle Koshy pg 5 Stringer pg 8-9 (look think act process). This is just one phase of action research project, I am going to continue asking questions / collecting data, etc. One limitation or unreliability of our research was the using of our families and in our own environments. Although our husbands say they are being honest they could be holding back just a little? That little bit could sway our findings? This was a unique challenge with the pros and cons being the same, in that we know where our families sleep. No questions directly addressing research question #2 - next time add this to self survey Summary - where you provide the so what why this is important to you and to your research environment. So, what change you are going to make based on the interpretation of your data Our teams research experience has had many positive outcomes. We applied our best practices in shopping habits which decreased the number of trips to the grocery store, and increased the number of available ingredients, a trend we hope will continue long after the research phase has ended. We also have enhanced our family environment by establishing a positive presence in the kitchen and emphasizing the importance of family mealtime. We found Web 2.0 tools a useful aid in our purchasing, planning and preparing of meals. Through maintaining a blog, using social sites to research and share information and by collecting and reporting data using an online tracking system we have sharpened our Web 2.0 skills which will help us personally and professionally. Conducting this research has provided us with the opportunity to solve a practical problem while improving our everyday processes. Through engaging our key stakeholders we received feedback from the most valuable people in our lives, our families.

Appendix Fig 1 - Chart of Meals Cooked by Day of Week

Fig 2 - Graph of Meals Cooked by Day of Week Chart in Fig 1

Fig 3 - Self Survey Data Chart and Graphs by Question (this image will be replaced with Word table upon download before turning it in = more legible)

Fig 4 - Grocery Tracker Chart

Fig 5 - Grocery Tracker Graph of Chart in Fig 4

Fig 6 - SME Interview