Description
Observation is an important data collection method in qualitative research. It may include observation of the movement and behavior of people or the physical environment where they live or work or play. It may draw attention to previously unidentified cultural factors that influence behaviors compounding a public health problem.
In this Assignment, you will conduct a set of direct observations using a windshield survey. A windshield survey is a good way to get an overview of physical conditions or the behaviors that influence health. Consider the information you could gather when observing from a vehicle, while sitting in a parking lot of a church, neighborhood, or farmers market. Windshield surveys can also be conducted on foot or even indoors in a smaller environment where you are sitting in a chair. In addition to the built environment, you should observe and record cultural factors (i.e., directly related to religion, family make-up, or patriarchy/matriarchy), or other themes that are related to a public health problem.
TO PREPARE
Select a community to observe and conduct a windshield survey with a community member.
Spend 40–60 minutes observing and keeping detailed notes.
Summarize your findings from the observation.
ASSIGNMENT
Your two- to three-page summary should include:
A summary description of the physical environment you observed.
The main themes resulting from your observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health.
Provide examples from your observations that exemplify the themes.
Examples should be thorough and detailed descriptions for each theme you identified.
An interpretation of your findings and their relationship to the health problem.
Walden University, LLC. (2017). Needs assessment: Conducting a windshield survey [Video]. Walden University Blackboard. https://waldenu.instructure.com
Community Tool Box. (n.d.). Section 21. Windshield and walking surveys, University of Kansas, Center for Community Health and Development. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment…
Bonello, M., & Meehan, B. (2019). Transparency and coherence in a doctoral study case analysis: Reflecting on the use of NVivo within a ‘framework’ approach, The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 483–498.
Namey, E. E., & Trotter, R. T. (2015). Chapter 15 | Qualitative research methods, In G. Guest & E. E. Namey (Eds.), Public health research methods (pp. 442–482) SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398839.n15
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Designing qualitative studies. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed., pp. 244–326) SAGE Publications.
Note: Read Module 29, “Data collection decisions.”
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Fieldwork strategies and observation methods. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed., pp. 327–420) SAGE Publications.
Note: Read Module 43, “The power of direct observations” and Module 48, “Integrating what to observe with how to observe.”
Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative analysis and interpretation. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed., pp. 520–651) SAGE Publications.
Note: Read Module 65, “Establishing a strong foundation for qualitative analysis” and Module 70, “Interpreting findings.”
Soriano, F. I. (2013). Chapter eight: Qualitative data preparation and analyses. In Conducting needs assessment: A multidisciplinary approach (2nd ed., pp. 137–152). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335780.n8
Soriano, F. I. (2013). Chapter nine: Recruiting and collecting data from participants. In Conducting needs assessment: A multidisciplinary approach (2nd ed., pp. 155–167). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335780.n9
Tomaszewski, L. E., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers , International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174
Document: Qualitative Coding Data Example
PUBH_8248_Module4_Assignment _Rubric
PUBH_8248_Module4_Assignment _Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePhysical EnvironmentSummary includes a description of the physical environment you observed.
20 to >17.0 ptsOutstandingFully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly description of the physical environment observed. 17 to >15.0 ptsVery GoodThorough, well-organized, and supported description of the physical environment observed. 15 to >13.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsAdequate description of the physical environment observed. 13 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsMissing, unoriginal, or does not adequately describe the physical environment observed.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThemesSummary includes the main themes resulting from your observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health.
20 to >17.0 ptsOutstandingFully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly identification of the main themes resulting from observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health.Thorough, well-organized, and supported identification of the main themes resulting from observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health. 17 to >15.0 ptsVery GoodThorough, well-organized, and supported identification of the main themes resulting from observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health. 15 to >13.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsAdequate identification of the main themes resulting from observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health. 13 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsMissing, unoriginal, or does not adequately identify the main themes resulting from observations of behaviors and other factors that influence public health.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExamplesSummary includes examples from your observations that exemplify the themes. Examples should be thorough and detailed descriptions for each theme identified.
20 to >17.0 ptsOutstandingFully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly identification of examples from observations that exemplify the themes previously identified. Examples are thorough, and detailed descriptions are included for each theme identified. 17 to >15.0 ptsVery GoodThorough, well-organized, and supported identification of examples from observations that exemplify the themes previously identified. Examples are thorough, and detailed descriptions are included for each theme identified. 15 to >13.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsAdequate identification of examples from observations that exemplify the themes previously identified. Examples are adequate descriptions and have been included for each theme. 13 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsMissing, unoriginal, or does not adequately provide examples from observations that exemplify the themes previously identified. Examples are not thorough and detailed descriptions or are not included for each theme identified.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInterpretationSummary includes an interpretation of your findings and their relationship to the health problem.
20 to >17.0 ptsOutstandingFully developed and supported, insightful, credible, and scholarly interpretation of the findings of the windshield survey and the relationship to a health problem. 17 to >15.0 ptsVery GoodThorough, well-organized, and supported interpretation of the findings of the windshield survey and the relationship to a health problem. 15 to >13.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsAdequately interprets the findings of the windshield survey and adequately interprets the relationship to a health problem. 13 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsMissing, unoriginal, or does not adequately interpret the findings of the windshield survey or their relationship to a health problem.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Extent to which Discussion communication demonstrates doctoral-level writing in APA format with proper grammar, mechanics, tone, vocabulary, and spelling as well as proper paragraph structure with a clear central idea. In addition, sources are identified to support responses and referenced properly.
20 to >17.0 ptsOutstandingDiscussion communication is fully developed and demonstrates complete understanding of doctoral writing and APA expectations as well as the rules of proper grammar, mechanics, tone, and vocabulary; includes no spelling errors; contains cohesive paragraphs with a clear central idea; and identifies proper sources to support the post. 17 to >15.0 ptsVery GoodDiscussion communication is generally thorough and grammatically and mechanically correct with proper tone and vocabulary and minor or no spelling errors. Post demonstrates proper doctoral and APA writing and contains mostly cohesive paragraphs with a generally clear central idea and identifies proper sources to support the post. 15 to >13.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsDiscussion communication adequately meets expectations for doctoral and APA writing with infrequent and minor errors in grammar, mechanics, tone, and vocabulary, and minor to moderate spelling errors. Post contains some cohesive paragraphs with an adequately clear central idea and identifies adequate sources to support the post. 13 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsDiscussion communication does not meet basic expectations for doctoral or APA writing or in grammar, mechanics, tone, or vocabulary; includes several spelling errors; has non-cohesive paragraphs with an unclear central idea; or does not identify proper sources to support the post.
20 pts
Total Points: 100
