In this course Professor Brazer held very high expectations for us.  This introduction to being a student after more than 25 years on the 'other side of the desk' provided an excellent model of what was expected of doctoral students.  The rigor of the course caused me to question a number of times whether I was in the right place at this time of my life.  What kept me going was the stimulation provided by the lectures, presentations and the readings.  Very tedious but invaluable were the papers.  I had not written a serious, academic paper in 25 years.  Also challenging was David's challenge to contribute to the discussion in every class--not with comments about comments but rather with original thought. 

     Academically I grew by leaps and bounds because I was buying every book on leadership that I could find.  And I was reading them.  It opened a new world and gave a framework for what I had seen outside of academics.  For example, when we studied Allison and Zelikow's book,  Essence of Decision:  Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, the explanation of the governmental model of decision making brought forth an 'ah-ha' moment.  I had just left government service and had wondered why the decisions made in the consular section where I worked were so laborious.  One of my assignments in my job had been to write the standard operating procedures (S.O.P.) for documenting American citizenship.  The process and the special cases were so extensive that after six months it was not finished.   Allison's book helped me see governmental decision making as a model with its own set of protocols.

      In EDUC 802 our written assignments introduced me to scholarly research.   Each paper built on the skills learned by doing the previous one.  Our first assignment was to find four research articles on a topic of interest. I chose bilingual education.  (First paper for EDUC 802)  That first paper showed me that one could find research on any topic.  Not all of it was good and not all of it agreed with others who were investigating the same topic.

      The next paper built on the first by linking four articles to draw conclusions.  I had difficulty with this paper but David's comments helped me to see the importance of a strong thesis statement.  What I appreciated most with this assignment was the stimulation of delving into what some people in the field of bilingual education were questioning and see how their research showed conflicting results. (Four Articles on Bilingual Education) 

         David stressed analytical thinking in this course.  When we studied James March and his theories of rational decision making, I felt very comfortable.  Since I tend to be very multi-task oriented, I have to be organized.  I tend to break everything down into its component parts and work accordingly.  March's book, A Primer on Decision Making,  appealed to me.  Therefore when I had to write about a decision which was based on bounded rationality, I felt sublimely confident.  On the first attempt the paper ( A Bounded Decision)  was rejected because I focused on the results of the decision rather than the process.  The second attempt passed without any negative comments.  (Bounded Rationality)  Having to rewrite the paper helped me to ask questions more.  It also made me realize that a fluent writing style is not enough if the focus of the paper is off target.

       In this course we studied decision making from various perspectives, not just the rational system.  The next assignment involved analyzing a decision from the elements which went into it..  Decisions are made using many ways of looking at the situation.  Rarely are decisions strictly along Rational, Natural or Open systems' perspectives.  They reflect a combination of two or more.   In the next assignment I  looked at how the change from central office leadership to site based management has involved the use of all of the above systems.  (Comparing Systems) 

        As a way to synthesize the information which we were exposed to in the course, our final project involved analyzing the way someone who was considered a leader made decisions.  I chose Jack Welch and showed that Welch's leadership style incorporated a number of aspects from the decision making systems which we studied but that he had an intense dislike of one particular perspective. (Jack Welch) I enjoyed writing this paper.  I learned a lot  about the history of GE, the leadership style of Jack Welch and about his style of writing and speaking.  He had vision and drive.  He also expected everyone who worked for him to have the same.
 
 

           Why did I continue?  First, I came out of the class stimulated.  My mind was working in many directions at once.  I kept a list of what I wanted to research and read more about.  I spent hours on the internet downloading articles by and about every author we read and every subject we talked about.  My workroom was filled with printouts about the Natural Systems, Bounded Rationality, Jack Welch.  Some of those printouts still remain as inspiration. 

           A second reason for staying with the course was the writing.  I had not written much for a very long time.  This course emphasized not only good form but also good content.  I figured that if I gave up the program after this course at least I would have honed my writing skills.  I still use what David stressed about developing an adequate thesis.  I have also used the organizational rubrics in other classes to check myself before handing in an assignment.

           A third reason was that my mind was stretching.  I had envisioned studying education, education and more education.  But in this class I was studying management styles, decision making processes, leadership issues and how all this can be applied to educational systems.  My horizons were expanding.

           Another reason to continue is that I was finding so much about myself.  For years I had been in a closet designated 'to be used by others' and now I was discovering what I had put aside for so very long.  And it felt good.  This course gave me something to talk about other than family and friends.  I remember a conversation with a colleague about bounded rationality and how we as teachers make so many decisions using elements of March's theories.  My husband overheard the conversation and interjected how, a year ago I would never have been having that kind of intellectual conversation.  I was growing, changing, evolving back into the person I had been years ago.  I was tired, stressed, overworked.  It felt good.
 

          This course brought out the varied scope of interests represented in the Graduate School of Education.  We heard about research being done by faculty members in instructional technology, special education, child language acquisition,  counseling, mathematics education.  We heard about literature reviews, qualitative and quantitative research, writing a dissertation.  When I look back at the syllabus, I realize that we had a bird's eye view of many major aspects of the doctoral program.  I didn't want the course to end.  I still had so many questions.

           During the first semester of EDUC 805 we were a small group and one of the objectives was to develop academic writing skills.  We had to review four articles which we read before listening to the author of the article.  We had to critique the articles using APA style. 

           I chose the first article because it left me very confused and I wanted to analyze it to see whether I had missed something the first time I read it.  I wondered whether it was a style of academic writing which I had not encountered before.  The author was not scheduled to speak to us. 

           The first article I reviewed told of the third year of a three year research study on a program designed to improve the quality of teaching.  The article confused me because it started out discussing techniques which good teachers used and it ended by talking about measuring test results.  I felt that the focus changed from teachers to students.  In terminology I did not know then, it started out as a qualitative study on how effective teachers interacted with their students and ended up as a quantitative study of which group of students improved and by how many points.  It gratified me to find out, when Dr. Gorrell came to take the place of a professor who had a last minute conflict, that I was right in my assessment of the article.  The study started out with a focus on analyzing high achieving teachers and ended up analyzing tests scores.  Dr. Gorrell told quite a story about how the organization which funded the study changed what they were looking for in the last year of the study.  That is why the study switched what was measured and how it was measured.  It was an exercise in what could go wrong in  funded research. (Gorrell)Seeing what can go wrong can be as valuable as reading reports which go smoothly.

           I chose the second  article to critique because the author, Dr Evelyn Jacob,  gave food for thought during her presentation.  She shared some honest words which really stuck with me.  For that, I wanted to explore her research more.  One of the phrases she used which guides what I do as I think about dissertation topics is "So what?"  Professor Jacob stressed that when we think about research topics, the question must have 'so what?' value.  There has to be a reason to do the research.  It has to contribute to the body of knowledge.

          Another word which has stuck with me is 'puzzlements'.  Professor Jacob mentioned puzzlements as ideas which you don't understand but which won't leave you alone.  She said that some of the best dissertations are based on puzzlements.  She stressed how as doctoral students we should not abandon our puzzlements if we find that those questions keep coming back to us.  If we can't find answers maybe we should investigate the issue ourselves.

           The article which Dr Jacob had us read dealt with integrating technology in examining puzzlements.  The article describes the Cultural Inquiry Process (CIP) for analyzing and accessing cultural information.  One of my special interests is cultural awareness and sensitivity training.   Dr Jacob's  CIP web site is a valuable tool for teachers who work with students from diverse backgrounds.  I have passed on the web site to many colleagues and have mentioned  it during staff development at my school. (Jacob)

           In an attempt to reflect on how what I was learning from these presentations fit together, I wrote a comparison of Dr. Scruggs' article and Dr. Gorrell's article  for my next critique.  Dr. Goor found the comparison so interesting that he had me send it to him as an attachment.  He posted my Two Articles Compared on Blackboard as an example of a way to approach a critique for his class.  He told me that it was the first time a student had used a comparative technique and that he found it very meaningful.

           The last article I critiqued was one which appealed to me both professionally and personally.  It dealt with females and weight loss.  How did that enter into a class on educational research?  Dr. Kitsantas related her study on successful weight loss strategies  to strategies which can be used in classroom situations.  I found the study fascinating!  Now that I have had a  part of a research course, I question the reliability of the study because of the small sample but if definitely has the 'so what' factor. (Kitsantas)

           I was looking forward to writing more critiques in the Spring semester of EDUC 805 but the class was so big that we did all of our writing on Blackboard.  We used Blackboard to post questions which surfaced during the presentations.  We wrote our comments and raised more questions.  It was a valuable exercise but it didn't have the intensity of analyzing and critiquing articles.

             I found myself thinking that the keyword for the faculty of GSE who spoke to us was vision.  The presenters were not satisfied with saying  what had been done.  Their focus was on the possibilities for the future.  They encouraged us to dream, to stretch, to think  of the possibilities.  That impressed me more than anything.  Most of the presenters looked forward and they wanted us to do so too.

             What I found most fascinating (and it is difficult to choose one presentation over the others) was the presentation by Ginger Collier and Wayne Thomas on 'Making US schools effective for English language learners".  Their research forced me to make a paradigm shift on my attitude towards bilingual education.  Their graphics plotted the test results of English language learners who started learning English when they entered the US school system.  It showed that the students were on the same learning curve for the first 2 or 3 years no matter what language support program they were receiving.  But, the differences begin to occur after the initial years.  Only when the learning/teaching happened in both the home language and the second language for a period of 4 years, did the language gains continue so that the children could reach or surpass their native English speaking peers.  My negative attitude towards bilingual programs shifted and I started to look at the dual language program at my school with more open eyes.  Dr Collier explained after her presentation that what I was against was not bilingual education as much as poor program design. 

            Dr. Collier explained in a few words the explanation that had eluded me.  What I had seen through my teaching career were programs which did not incorporate what was effective for the students they served.  This reinforced my original goal of wanting to study effective program design to maximize learning for second language learners.  Dr Collier graciously consented to be on my program committee.  I look forward to learning from her expertise.
 
 

Return to top

Return to Coursework

 
 
 
 

           I found this course invaluable for familiarizing me with not only the faculty of GSE but also the myriad of research interests represented in the faculty.  I was impressed with all except one presenter.  That presenter showed that she knew her area of study but she was not aware of the realities of international politics.  To keep the reference broad, let me just say that some very politically naive remarks made me realize that as a scholar, I have to keep all that I do in perspective.  Research doesn't happen in a vacuum.  We are studying the world, not just facts and figures.  We need to keep cultural differences in mind if we are dealing with other cultures.  If not, our research becomes one-sided and so does our reality.

          As I reflect on this course and the faculty I met and the topics I heard about, I find that my horizon was broadened so much that I was starting to lose my focus.  I found myself wanting to work with professors who had nothing to do with multicultural education, or with second language learning.  After presentations I found myself wanting to pursue research in counseling, early childhood education, weight loss strategies! 

           This class made the professors more than just names on articles.  I had  mentally chosen a professor whom I wanted to work with based on her research.  When she presented to our class, I realized that she and I would not work well together.  On the other hand,  I had felt that one person whom I had read and admired for a long time would be unapproachable.  After the presentation when I introduced myself, she surprised me by saying that she would be glad to work with me.   The class was worth it for that one result!