Scot W. McNary Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Educational Technology and Literacy

College of Education

Detailed Supporting Statement: Scholarship

In the period 2013-2018, I participated in writing two technical papers, four manuscripts,

and ten conference presentations. I was first or solo author on one of the technical papers, and

seven of the conference presentations. Below is a more complete description of my scholarly

products and my role in producing them.

2013-2014

Technical Papers

McNary, SW. (2014). Acuity of private residential treatment facility residents vs. public

residential treatment facility residents using chart reviews of all residents of Maryland

facilities as of January 31, 2012. Prepared for Maryland Association of Resources for

Families & Youth, Baltimore, MD.

Conference Presentations.

McNary SW, Wang, Z, & Lohnes-Watulak, S. (2014, March). Facebook usage, social networks,

and social support and university undergraduate women. Roundtable presented at the

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual Conference,

Jacksonville, FL.

Lohnes-Watulak, S, Wang, Z, & McNary SW. (2014, March). Facebook and mattering: How

can instructors make the most of undergraduates' Facebook use? Poster presented at the
 Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual Conference,

Jacksonville, FL.

McNary SW. (2014, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

Summary. The technical paper I wrote in my role as an evaluator to an agency interested

comparing private and public residential treatment facilities admissions. I conducted all aspects

of the evaluation including data preparation, analysis, and writing. My conference presentations

with Drs. Wang and Lohnes Watulak were from a research project we conceived with support

from a Frances-Merrick award. Dr. Lohnes Watulak and I coequally designed, implemented, and

wrote the findings for these presentations. Dr. Wang also participated in project management of

the study and co-wrote the presentations. I conducted all of the statistical analyses. This

manuscript written with Drs. Gould and Sadera was based on Dr. Gould’s dissertation. I

conducted some of the analyses and co-wrote and edited the results section. My invited

presentation to APA Fellows of the MFP is for advanced graduate students or early career

professional psychologists conducting research on minority issues. I conceptualized, developed,

and wrote 100% of the presentation.

2014-2015

Manuscripts accepted

Gould, K., Sadera, W. & McNary, SW. (2015). Comparing changes in content knowledge

between online problem based learning and traditional instruction in undergraduate health

professional students. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 74-86.

 Conference Presentations.

McNary SW. (2014, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

Summary. This manuscript written with Drs. Gould and Sadera was based on Dr.

Gould’s dissertation. I conducted some of the analyses and co-wrote and edited the results

section. My invited presentation to APA Fellows of the MFP is for advanced graduate students

or early career professional psychologists conducting research on minority issues. I

conceptualized, developed, and wrote 100% of the presentation.

2015-2016

Manuscripts accepted

Haverback, H. & McNary, SW. (2015). Shedding light on preservice teachers’ domain specific

self-efficacy. Teacher Educator, 50(4), 272-287. DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2015.1070942

Martinez-Alba, G., Wizer, D., Cruzado-Guerrero, J., McNary, SW, Mogge, S., & Huggins, S.

(2016). A duck is a duck is a duck? The roles of reading specialists. Literacy Issues &

Practices, 20(1), 5-22. Retrieved from:

http://somiracjournal.weebly.com/uploads/6/3/9/4/63944271/vol_20_no_1_fall_2016.pdf

Conference Presentations

McNary SW. (2015, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

McNary SW. (2015, November). Psychometric considerations in judgements of task criticality.

Invited address for the Disaster Recovery Construction Specialist Development and

Research Planning Forum, Washington, DC.

Roush, C., Song, L. & McNary SW. (2016, March). The impact of clickers on students’ foreign

language learning. Paper presented at the Society for Instructional Technology and

Education Annual Conference, Charleston, SC.

Summary. This manuscript written with Dr. Haverback was one in which I conducted all

the statistical analysis and wrote up the results for the paper. I was a secondary editor for the

remainder of the paper. The paper written by Dr. Martinez-Alba et al. was one in which I

consulted on the data analysis only. My status as a co-author was granted through the generosity

of Dr. Martinez-Alba. My invited presentation to APA Fellows of the MFP is for advanced

graduate students or early career professional psychologists conducting research on minority

issues. I conceptualized, developed, and wrote 100% of the presentation. My invited presentation

to the Disaster Recover Construction Specialist Development and Research Planning Forum was

conceptualized, developed, and written entirely by me. I consulted with Dr. Roush on the data

analysis and write-up of her dissertation for the purposes of this conference presentation. I also

conducted some of the analyses myself to support Dr. Roush’s presentation.

2016-2017

Manuscripts accepted:

McQuitty, V., Ballock, E. & McNary, SW. (2017). An exploration of professional knowledge

needed for reading and responding to student writing. Journal of Teacher Education, 1-

13. DOI: 10.1177/0022487117702576

 Conference Presentations

McNary SW. (2016, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

Summary. This manuscript written with Drs. McQuitty and Ballock is a mixed-methods

study that was well underway (data collection and initial qualitative analyses complete) when I

was asked to join the team. I conceived of a quantitative analysis approach that would fit with the

developing mixed-methods design. We collaborated equally on the data preparation, and the

interpretation of the findings. I wrote the results section, and was a co-equal editor for the

remaining sections for the paper. We were interviewed by staff at the journal (Journal of Teacher

Education) for their JTE Insider Podcast. It is available at this link:

https://edwp.educ.msu.edu/jte-insider/2018/podcast-interview-ballock-mcquitty-mcnary

My invited presentation to APA Fellows of the MFP is for advanced graduate students or

early career professional psychologists conducting research on minority issues. I conceptualized,

developed, and wrote 100% of the presentation. Drs. Li & Richman have been conducting and

MHEC funded study of Computational Thinking. I am the evaluator for the project, conducted

all the statistical analysis, and wrote the statistical results for the presentation.

2017-2018

Manuscripts under review

Wang, Z., Lohnes Watulak, S. & McNary, SW. (submitted). Technology usage as projections of

well-being: how undergraduate students' Facebook activities correlates with their sense of

mattering. Submitted to Computers in Human Behavior.

 Technical Reports

Parrish, A., Sadera W. & McNary SW. (2018). One-to-One Technology Program Evaluation

Proposal for Harford County Public Schools. Towson, MD.

Conference Presentations

McNary SW. (2017, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

Li, Q., Richman, L. & McNary, SW. (2018, March). Computational thinking and teacher

thinking: An examination of a PD model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Society for Instructional Technology in Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.

Summary. This manuscript written with Drs. Wang and Lohnes Watulak reflects work

funded by a France-Merrick award. Dr. Lohnes Watulak and I shared efforts equally in

conceptualizing, designing, collecting data, analyzing, and preparing the manuscript. Dr. Wang,

a recent graduate of our doctoral program, conducted project management, helped with data

collection and transcribed all audio data, and wrote approximately 30% of the most recent

version of the manuscript. Drs. Parrish and Sadera and I wrote a proposal to evaluate 1:1 device

implementation in Harford County Public Schools. We co-equally conducted literature reviews,

contributed to the drafting of the proposal, and developed the methodology for the evaluation

plan. My invited presentation to APA Fellows of the MFP is for advanced graduate students or

early career professional psychologists conducting research on minority issues. I conceptualized,

developed, and wrote 100% of the presentation. Drs. Li & Richman have been conducting and
MHEC funded study of Computational Thinking. I am the evaluator for the project, conducted

all the statistical analysis, and wrote the statistical results for the presentation.

Trajectory

I am involved with two evaluation projects that began in the last 12-18 months. One with

Dr. Li and Dr. Richman, and one with Dr. Jin. I expect them both to lead to either conference

presentations or manuscript submissions in which I will conduct the data analysis and write up

the results.

Dr. Song and I have begun a project to develop a self-efficacy of teaching instructional

technology measure this spring. I expect data collection for that to begin in the next year and the

developmental process to unfold over the following two to three years.

I will continue to work on reading clinic case report files for fluency assessment analyses.

I began this project a couple of years ago, and spent my sabbatical this past spring working on it.

I expect one conference presentation to be submitted this year from it and I will submit a

manuscript for publication in the next two years.

 Scholarship Artifact

There are several reasons to showcase this article as an example of scholarship. First, I

appreciate how our work flowed naturally from what was a qualitative study before I became

involved into a mixed-method study after I began to work with Drs. McQuitty and Ballock.

Researchers who specialize in mixed-methods design (e.g., Cresswell J.W. & Plano-Clark V.L.

(2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed-method Research, Sage) and others might call this a

QUAL>quan design (exploratory sequential), in which the qualitative analysis preceded and was

primary to the quantitative data analysis. Drs. McQuitty and Ballock explored their open and

axial coding as far as they felt they could, but yet still felt there was more to learn from the data.

Dr. McQuitty approached me for ideas how to look at their data in a quantitative way. She

wanted to see how all of their coding categories of student noticing collectively hung together. In

this way, we could make maximal use of something humans do well, i.e., make meaning from

socially mediated events, but also we could take advantage of what computer algorithms do best,

which is to efficiently find patterns in multivariate space. In keeping with mixed-method

practice, we took the patterns discerned from the quantitative analysis back to the transcripts and

used cases to determine that the quantitative findings made sense. In our case, the qualitative

data was the standard and the quantitative analysis was the tool compared to the standard.

Second, I enjoyed how this encouraged me to stretch my learning about a quantitative

method (Multiple Correspondence Analysis). I had been playing with MCA for awhile and was

curious about how it could be employed with real data. There is nothing like a real problem in

statistics to drive discovery. I needed to do some homework and practice in the method with

sample problems before I felt able to apply it to the noticing data.

 Third, the iterative process we went through was labor-intensive but so very much like

how we solve problems in real life: we analyze, then interpret, and then test our interpretations

against our data, then cycle back to perhaps re-code the data, re-analyze, re-interpret, and repeat

again. The feeling of anticipation was stimulating as I eagerly pored over the tabular findings and

graphical displays for what new insight might be revealed. On a typical afternoon, I would run

some analyses, share them with Drs. McQuitty and Ballock to see if they made sense, then

incorporate their feedback into a new round of analyses. We had all agreed before beginning that

the quantitative results had to made sense before we used them. Because the qualitative analyses

preceded and were conceptually prioritized over the quantitative analysis, we used the qualitative

results as the standard by which meaningfulness of the quantitative results were judged. But we

also found that the quantitative findings caused Drs. McQuitty and Ballock to look back at their

transcripts and coding scheme with fresh eyes. Their subsequent recoding of the data led to

another round of quantitative analyses. There were at least two rounds of re-coding and re-

analysis like this. In the end, the qualitative and the quantitative analyses were both informative

about, and informed by, the other. If there were a path forward I could point to for our colleagues

and our students about how to do mixed-methods research, I would give this as an example. Both

approaches led to mutually reinforcing interpretations.

 Fourth, I think we were successful in not making our paper a tutorial on MCA. When one

writes about a method that is not commonly used like MCA in a journal article there is some

responsibility to inform the reader about what one is are doing. The risk of trying to write clearly

about methods is that it can overwhelm the substantive content of the paper, which is the real

focus. I believe we were clear enough in our descriptions that the method of MCA was not swept

under the rug, but not so wordy about MCA that the focus on the results of the noticing research

were diluted. I am proud of our collaboration.

Mary Neville with The Journal of Teacher Education interviewed us for the JTE Insider

podcast. The link to that interview is here:

https://edwp.educ.msu.edu/jte-insider/2018/podcast-interview-ballock-mcquitty-mcnary/