Goals Statement

Erin E. Peters

1/31/07

I feel that I have made quite a bit of progress in my doctoral work from the last time I wrote a goals statement. My previous goals were to continue to build my background in metacognition and the nature of science, continue working on my research skills and continue to develop professionally as an educator. I feel I have met these goals and have done so by expanding my professional network. I have used the online library, the search tools on Amazon.com, and the FastLane database at the National Science Foundation to find core articles on metacognition, the nature of science, and self-regulation. This year I read books on applied metacognition, learning theories, self-regulation and the history of science. I continue to search for and read books that might be relevant to my dissertation topic. I have also branched out to include the metacognition of engineering design process. I was fortunate to be asked by NASA to represent them in the development of the first draft of K-12 engineering standards through Project Lead the Way. During this series of meetings, I felt there was merely a list of the types of engineering rather than why students should study engineering. On the fly, I introduced the group to the nature of engineering and a framework that would use this information as a structure, rather than additional content. Out of the five resulting “chapters” of standards, two reflect the work on the nature of engineering. I feel that my background in the nature of science and metacognition helped me to express the need for the nature of engineering within the standards.

This coming year my focus will be on refining my dissertation experiment. Last year, when I was still teaching in the classroom, I ran a pilot experiment of my dissertation idea. I designed a pre-/post-test quasi-experiment using a control group and an experimental group. Approximately 100 students participated in the quasi-experiment where the experimental group received metacognitive prompts based on the nature of science (EMPNOS) embedded in an inquiry unit. The control group did not receive the metacognitive prompts in the inquiry unit. I have used the analysis of the data to inform my proposal and perhaps alter the intervention slightly. I plan on using this coming year to use the pilot study to the best of my ability to improve my dissertation.

Thinking past my dissertation, I also plan on learning more about the interview process for academic positions. I have begun to ask new faculty for their advice on conducting a job search. Several faculty members have helped me through discussions and even a power point presentation that is given to advanced doctoral candidates on conducting a job search. I would like to have a position where I can support my teaching with research. My research agenda includes examining the social power structure in science classrooms. After reading Sheila Tobias’ book, They’re Not Dumb, They’re Just Different, I started thinking that there is a barrier in the types of social structures in science classrooms that leads to most students’ decisions to pursue other careers outside of science. Perhaps there is a connection between the amount of access students have in how scientific knowledge is created and their decisions to pursue science and engineering careers.