banner

Course Reflections

Spring 2008                 Summer 2008         Fall 2008        

Spring 2009                 Summer 2009         Fall 2009                    

Spring 2010

Spring 2008

EDUC 800:  Ways of Knowing
Ways of Knowing was an enlightening, challenging, exciting and frustrating course for me.  Before this class, I never thought much about how we come to know and how we decide what is true.  The range of readings – from Descartes’ (1999) rationalism to Lyons and Lebosky’s (2002) narrative inquiry – and class discussions required me to look beyond my comfortable ways of making sense of the world to broaden my perspective of thinking and knowledge building.

For most of my life, I was raised, educated, and trained in the positivist tradition.  As a teacher, my students benefited greatly from direct instruction and strategy instruction, both of which approach knowledge building from a positivist stance. I collected measurable data to determine whether my students met their IEP goals, and evaluated test results to decide whether or not students were eligible for special education services.  My entire career has been spent “looking at the data.”

My ways of knowing, and the type of knowledge I value, evolved throughout ways of knowing. I still value the research-based practices that were so effective for my students.  On the other hand, I have always felt that there is more to teaching than just teaching content.  In addition to the curriculum, schools must also foster a positive climate for learning, a commitment to character, and a connection to the broader community (Boyer, 1995).  As a teacher in a school that followed Ernest Boyer’s Basic School philosophy, I developed a deep committed to addressing the needs of the whole child in the school environment.

Reading Bruner’s (1996) ideas about knowledge building through social interaction in this course was a turning point for me. His arguments about the social nature of learning, and about how knowledge cannot be separated from the individual, made perfect sense to me. Bruner put into words things that I had sensed for a long time. Additionally, his narrative approach to teaching and learning was powerful for me. We learn through story in all other settings in our life. Why shouldn’t we approach knowledge in the same way in schools?  Furthermore, Bruner addressed the disconnect many of our “at-risk” students feel between their lives and their schools.  Based on my experiences working in schools with large numbers of low-income and limited English proficient students, I believe addressing this disconnect is a critical issue for schools.

The logical extension of Bruner’s arguments is the use of narrative inquiry as a way of knowing.  Narrative inquiry can be a powerful tool because of the role it allows teachers to play in developing knowledge of effective teaching practices. Action research and narrative inquiry as ways of knowing are exciting because they recognize that rich teacher-knowledge as useful and valuable for others in the field of education.

I believe that the combination of positivists and narrative approaches to knowledge building offers a powerful tool for examining effective instructional practices for students with special learning needs.  As I continue through my doctoral study, I think it is important for me to cultivate my skills in multiple types of research. In that way, I will have the flexibility to look at student learning through multiple lenses.

References:
Boyer, E. L. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Descartes, R. (1999). Discourse on method and related writings. (D. Clarke, Trans.). London:  Penguin Books. (Original work published 1637).
Lyons, N. &LaBoskey, V. K. (2002). Narrative inquiry in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Course Products:

EDRS 810: Problems and Methods in Education Research
On the first day of EDRS 810, I knew that I had a lot to learn. Dr. Mastropieri gave us a pretest on the concepts to be covered throughout the course. Having worked as a research assistant at a public policy research firm, and having taken a few statistics courses in college, I was confident that I had good background knowledge for the course. After reading the first couple of questions on the pretest, however, I realized that I knew very little, if anything, about research methods.

By the end of the semester, however, I had learned a great deal. I felt comfortable reading a variety of types of research, including quantitative studies, qualitative studies, and surveys. I could discuss internal and external validity, knew when to use a t-test, and could write an HSRB proposal. As I moved forward in my studies, I continually drew on what I had learned in 810 to help me master new material.

Writing the quantitative research methods section and the HSRB proposal to go with it, and writing the qualitative research methods section were particularly helpful assignments.  When writing the quantitative methods section, for example, I replicated a previous study by Barbetta, Heward, and Bradley (1993) as a model. I wrote the first version of my methods section independently.  Dr. Mastropieri’s comments on my work were extremely useful in helping me add more detail and clarify confusing parts.  She also helped me reorganize information so that it made more sense.  My second, qualitative methods section was much better, thanks to Dr. Mastropieri’s guidance.  When I had to write research proposals for both EDEP 654 and EDRS 812 the following semester, I felt confident knowing that I had the skills to design a research study and communicate that information to an audience.

Overall, I feel I learned a tremendous amount about research methods in education in this course.  I am glad that I took it the first semester of my PhD program as it has proved a necessary foundation for success in my subsequent coursework in special education and research methods.

References:
Barbetta, P.M., Heward, W.L., & Bradley, D.M.C. (1993). Relative effects of whole-word and phonetic-prompt error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 99-110.

Course Products:

 

EDSE 843:  Leadership in Special Education
When I began EDSE 843, Leadership in Special Education, I felt disconnected from the material – it was not my area of interest and it had little to do with my future goals. As a teacher, I was not interested in administration and had not given much thought to all that went on at state and district levels to make special education programs in schools effective.  My focus was on instructional practice. After the first few weeks of the course, however, I gained an appreciation for how much is done at administrative and policy levels to make good teaching possible in the classroom.

The course assignments were particularly useful in helping me develop a broader perspective of the field of special education. First, Dr. Baker required us to develop a personal leadership plan, and provide updates on our progress throughout the semester.  Writing out both my short- and long-term goals helped me see that I really did have a lot of interest in issues outside those in my classroom. Furthermore, providing progress updates throughout the semester helped motivate me to stay focused on my goals, and helped me feel that even my loftiest goals were possible to achieve.

The second assignment that opened my eyes to issues beyond my immediate experience was the reframing project.  For this project, I was required to think of a situation I faced and look at it from a variety of perspectives, as outlined by Bolman and Deal (2003) – the human resources perspective, the structural perspective, the political perspective, and the symbolic perspective.  This exercise pushed me to think beyond the human resources perspective that I employed as a mentor to first-year teachers, to consider the symbolic meaning behind the principal’s actions in the case, and the role that scarce resources played in instructional decision-making. In fact, through this reframing exercise, I realized that I do work from the political perspective in my daily activities as a teacher.  That is, I continually advocate for my students to get more assistance, more resources, and more consideration in school-wide decision making.  This new realization helped me see that, even as a teacher, I took on many leadership roles outside of the classroom that had big impacts on school-wide administrative decisions.

Many of our class discussions in 843 returned to a topic near and dear to me – the relationship between general education and special education teachers and administrators.  It is my firm belief that having general educators and special educators work together as one instructional team is the only way that we will begin to close the achievement gaps between general education students and those with special learning needs.  In my own experience, I have seen how much more can be accomplished by all students when teachers collaborate. This course helped renew my passion for making this collaboration become de rigueur at all levels of special education, and not just something that happens at some schools for some students.

References:
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Course Products:

 

Summer 2008

EDUC 994:  Advanced Internship in Education
When I entered the PhD program, my goal was to learn the skills and gain the experiences necessary to have a job that combined research and teaching.  I did not have a clear idea about what that job would be, however.  I had considered working at a university as one possibility.  For my internship, I wanted to have the experience of teaching at the university level. I knew I loved teaching children, but was unsure if that love would transfer to adults.

During the summer of 2008, I taught EDSE 501, Introduction to Special Education, to five students at George Mason University’s Prince William campus. This experience validated my belief that good teaching is good teaching no matter the age of the students, and helped me confirm that I do enjoy teaching adults.

Teaching a university course required me to use different skills than I had in the past. For example, I was required to develop a syllabus.  Using syllabi from several different instructors as guides, I was able to outline course expectations, assignments, and schedules.  I found the process challenging.  As a classroom teacher, I knew my students well and planned instruction to match their individual needs.  Planning a course before meeting any of the students was like trying to complete a job without all the necessary tools.  After meeting my students on the first day of class, I found planning much easier.  As I reflected on the syllabus at the end of the course, I identified at least two changes I would make when teaching the course again.  First, I would modify one of the assignments I developed because it did not work well for my students.  Second, I would pace assignments differently so that the work was spread out more throughout the course, rather than have multiple assignments being due at the end of the semester.

Another new experience for me was working with a struggling adult learner. When working with struggling elementary-aged students, I closely monitored their work and provided any needed assistance along the way.  For long-term projects, I worked in conjunction with parents to make sure the student was able to successfully complete the work on time.  I did not have that level of control when working with adults.  From the first assignment due date, one of my students struggled to break assignments down into smaller parts, remain focused on the goals of the assignment, and complete her work on time.  While I was able to meet with her individually on several occasions to break assignments down into smaller parts and provide guidance on exactly what needed to be accomplished, I had limited ability to make sure she actually did the work.  From this experience, I learned that any problems adult learners have meeting course expectations must be addressed immediately and clearly. 

All in all, I enjoyed my teaching experience.  I feel that my teaching skills improved as a result of this experience, and I got a better sense of what the job a professor is like.  I am teaching the course again this semester (Spring 2009).  With a larger group and a different full-semester schedule, the dynamic of the class are different. It is proving to be a great opportunity. 

Course Product:

 

Fall 2008

EDUC 805: Doctoral Seminar in Education
Throughout the semester in EDUC 805, Doctoral Seminar in Education, professors from the Graduate School of Education presented their work and talked about their experiences as researchers.  It was very interesting to hear about the range of work that is done at Mason.  Our theme was communities of practice (Wegner, n.d.). Communities of practice (CoPs), as envisioned by Etienne Wegner, are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (para 1).

When reflecting on my learning throughout the semester through the lens of communities of practice, the importance of collaboration in research emerges as a major theme. Every single person who spoke to our class talked about his or her collaboration with other researchers.  Two professors explicitly talked about how they had been passionate and ready to start research in their field, but were getting nowhere.  It was not until they found others to work with that things started happening. This emphasis on collaboration matched my experiences working as a graduate research assistant (GRA) on an intervention research study.  All of the activities I am involved in as a GRA, from testing students to planning lessons to scoring dependent measures, are done with my colleagues.

A particularly vivid example of communities of practice came from the work of Dr. Fox and Dr. Brazer.  Drs. Fox and Brazer spoke to our class about their work with beginning teachers.  As part of providing authentic professional development for teachers, the researchers use reflection as a way to assess teacher learning.  At four different points in the program, the researchers give the teachers prompts to guide reflection papers.  The researchers then look at the reflection papers to identify how often the program’s themes are mentioned.  Looking across the four reflection papers in the program, the researchers tallied the number of times each theme was mentioned in a paper of a member of the cohort to look for trends.

What I found most interesting in this study was the ways in which the themes discussed in reflection papers varied for two different cohort classes.  Although the classes received the same content and same assignments in their program, the themes stressed by the two classes differed.  For example, in the third reflection paper, the first cohort class focused primarily on the theme of diversity, while the second cohort class focused their reflections on teacher as change agent.  To me, this clearly demonstrated that the cohort classes are CoPs.  They are individuals coming together for a common purpose, and they are learning how to improve their practice through their interaction with others in the group.  I found this particularly interesting because it shows that classes, whether made up of adults or children, are CoPs where learning is shaped by the students in the class.  The learning that occurs in a classroom is not just the learning planned for and presented by the instructor.

Communities of practice have played a large role in my professional development throughout my career, both as a teacher and as a researcher.  The same is true for the professors who discussed their work during the doctoral seminar.  Regardless of ones areas of study or belief system, it is through interactions with others that we develop and expand our knowledge. 

References:
Wegner, E. (n.d.). Communities of Practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from www.ewenger.com.

Course product:

 

EDRS 812: Qualitative Methods in Educational Research
Qualitative Methods was an interesting course for me.  I began the course feeling that I would enjoy qualitative research and be good at it.  During Ways of Knowing, I had found myself drawn to thinkers like Jerome Bruner (1996).  Additionally, much of my work as a research assistant, before becoming a teacher, involved gathering data through interviews and focus groups.  It quickly became apparent to me that, while the idea of creating knowledge through qualitative means was easy for me to accept, the language and culture surrounding qualitative research would take longer for me to get used to.

During the course of the semester, I completed a small, qualitative research project.  The project focused on the role student-teacher relationships play in promoting achievement for individuals with severe emotional and behavior disorders (EBD).  My study was a representational case study, which included interviews with three teachers in a public day school for students with EBD.  I enjoyed interviewing the teachers, and found the information gained through the interviews to be both interesting and worthwhile. 

While I knew that conducting qualitative research would be different for me, coming from a quantitative, special education background, I did not anticipate how difficult the metacognitive shift between quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry would be. At every step in the process, I found myself thinking more like the quantitative positivist I have been trained to be than a qualitative researcher. At times, letting go of known methods of inquiry was even uncomfortable. As I came to the conclusion of the project, however, I recognized that I had become much more comfortable adapting and changing my methods as the research process emerged. I was able to see how all of the decisions I made throughout the study came together to form a coherent whole.

Although I made gains in my qualitative research skills during this course, I am still not as comfortable designing a qualitative research study as I am developing a quantitative study.  As I progress through my studies, I hope to find opportunities to practice my qualitative research skills so that I am capable of and comfortable with conducting qualitative research in the future.

Reference:
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Course product:

 

EDSE 841: Intervention Research in Special Education
I have developed an interest in intervention research as a result of my work as a graduate research assistant. Intervention research connects my interests in research and teaching in a way that I find exciting.  Therefore, I felt that EDSE 841, Intervention Research in Special Education, was a course that would be particularly interesting to me.   In fact, I saw a tremendous amount of growth in my understanding of intervention research and my research skills as a result of this course.  

Much of my learning about intervention research came as a direct result of completing a mega-analysis of writing meta-analyses.  For this project, I conducted a literature search for all writing meta-analyses conducted in the field of special education, designed a coding instrument, read and coded the meta-analyses, analyzed the results using SPSS, wrote a paper about my findings, and presented the paper to my class.  Going through the entire process from start to finish, and making countless decisions along the way about my methodology, was a powerful learning experience.

Analyzing meta-analyses was challenging for me.  After taking EDRS 810, I was finally feeling comfortable reading and analyzing research studies.  Analyzing meta-analyses required a big leap forward in knowledge.  While reading and coding the articles, I regularly felt overwhelmed by the task.  Once I started analyzing my data, however, I saw that I had learned a lot about how researchers conduct meta-analyses and what their findings mean about the effectiveness of an intervention.  I also recognized the wide variety of methods used to conduct such analyses and the variability in quality across meta-analyses in writing.

In addition to improving my research skills, conducting the writing mega-analysis also increased my familiarity with writing intervention researchers.  Having read meta-analyses about a variety of aspects of writing, I am more familiar with researchers doing work in the field, and more knowledgeable about the particular aspects of writing they investigate.  I am beginning to notice that I am able to reference particular researchers and particular meta-analyses in conversations with my peers who are also interested in writing.  Seeing my familiarity and comfort with the research, even outside of the course setting, is another indicator to me of my growth as a researcher.
To build on the knowledge I gained through this course, and to meet my research goals, I would like to refine this writing mega-analysis and submit it for publication.  Having been through the entire process for my class project, I have had the opportunity to reflect on ways that the analysis could be improved.  Furthermore, my additional coursework in research in special education has increased my confidence in my understanding of intervention research to the point where I feel could do this well.  I would like to complete the mega-analysis and submit it for publication as an independent study course during the summer or fall of 2009.

Course products:

(Note Table 1 and Table 2 are separate files under Course Products)

 

EDEP 654: Learning, Motivation, and Self-regulation
Learning, Motivation and Self-regulation was my introduction to educational psychology.  From the very first class, I was struck by the differences between the way learning is researched and discussed in special education and educational psychology.  Viewing learning from the lens of educational psychology was a great experience for me, and helped me deepen my understanding of how people learn.  It also exposed me to different research methods that are used to construct knowledge in the field of education.

Self-regulation and motivation was a topic that was particularly interesting to me as a special education teacher.  Most students with special learning needs have difficulties with self-regulation in some aspect of their learning.  Throughout the course, we discussed self-regulation as it relates to different areas (e.g., reading, athletic performance), and discussed the implications of self-regulation research on instructional practice. While taking this course, I was teaching self-regulated strategy development for writing to students with emotional and behavior disabilities.  The issues we discussed in class had a direct connection with my work and helped me develop a deeper understanding of why different components of the writing strategy were so critical for student learning.

I also learned a lot about different methods of research through this course.  Prior to taking this class, most of my exposure to educational research had been intervention research and qualitative research.  Much of the research we read throughout the semester was quantitative research unrelated to instructional strategies.  This was new to me.  I learned about selecting validated dependent measures for a study, designing treatment conditions to isolate the learning feature under study, analyzing data, and interpreting results.  For example, Dr. Kitsantis explained path analysis – a term I had heard in the past but did not understand.  While I do not have the skills to do that type of analysis at this point in my studies, I can now read a study that analyzes data using path analysis and understand the results.

One course assignment that really helped me build my skills was writing a research proposal.  For this project, I had to conduct a literature review, design a method for conducting the study, and propose a method for data analysis.  I chose to write a single-subject study to teach self-regulated strategy development for writing to students with intellectual disabilities.  The experience of writing a quantitative methods section in EDRS 810 and my experiences as a graduate research assistant gave me a good foundation for designing the study methods.  For me, conducting the literature review was more challenging because I had not done a literature review at that point in my PhD studies.  Looking through all of the research on the topic and selecting those most applicable to my study was a good exercise.  Not only did it expose me to the work that had been done in my field of interest, but it also taught me to frame my study in the context of the literature in a thoughtful and convincing way.  Furthermore, it gave me a chance to practice managing information about many different research studies, a skill I know I will need when I write my dissertation.

Course products:

 

EDUC 897:  Independent Study – Special Education Leadership Cohort
Throughout the semester, I participated in a variety of activities as a member of the special education leadership cohort.  Working on the Penn State-GMU writing project, attending field trips to the US Department of Education and the Library of Congress, and attending presentations on publishing and on diversity in special education have been extremely useful in helping me develop research skills and understand the role research plays in the field of special education.

Working on the Penn State-GMU writing project has been an incredible learning experience.  This year, I was able to be involved in implementing the study during the early stages.  Seeing all of the thinking that went into the design of the study gave me a much better understanding of the many details that must considered before beginning an intervention study.  In one example, mapping out an observation schedule to ensure that enough observation data was collected for each student across groups really demonstrated to me how organized the study has to be before you ever set foot at the school site.

In addition to new knowledge about designing a research study, I gained a number of new research skills over the course of the semester.  First, I was involved with writing semi-scripted plans for POW+TREE instruction and training new graduate research assistants on implementing those plans.  Related to writing lesson plans was the skill, as an instructor, to closely follow those plans to ensure fidelity of treatment.  Additionally, I was trained as an observer to collect behavioral data on students.  This was a learning experience for me because it demonstrated how difficult it is develop conventions for data collection across a team of people.  Finally, although I was not involved with organizing the data management system, I have seen how that system is set up in order to handle the continual flow of data that occurs once the study starts.

The field trips and presentations I participated in throughout the semester were also important learning opportunities.  First, the field trip to the Library of Congress was invaluable for improving my literature search skills.  I used the strategies learned at the Library of Congress when conducting literature reviews for EDSE 841 and EDEP 654.  Also, visiting OSEP’s research to practice division helped me learn about the wealth of resources that are available through OSEP and appreciate the role the federal Department of Education plays in shaping instruction.  Finally, the two presentations I attended during the semester were very useful.  The discussion on publishing was eye-opening, and emphasized the need for me to start becoming comfortable with the publishing process at this point in my studies.  Dr. Mary Kealy’s presentation was also interesting.  I was particularly curious to learn about how response to intervention was being implemented in schools in Loudon County.  Together, these learning experiences helped me build my knowledge of the field of special education as a whole and improve my research skills.

Course products:

 

Spring 2009

EDUC 802: Leadership Seminar
When I saw the syllabus for the leadership seminar, I recognized one book right away – Leading in a Culture of Change, by Michael Fullan (2001).  A principal friend of mine had loaned it to me when I was mentoring new teachers, telling me that it was a terrific book that emphasized the importance of relationships, relationships, relationships in effective leadership.  I read the book and enjoyed it.  It made sense to me.  I read the book for a second time when I took EDSE 843, Leadership in Special Education.  In the context of that class, I gained a more in-depth understanding of how Fullan’s five aspects of leadership came together in schools. 

When I read the book for a third time for this class, again I saw it in a new light.  I still found myself agreeing with Fullan on most points.  However, I began to see that his was not the only useful framework for understanding leadership or becoming and effective leader.  When juxtaposed against other books on leadership, such as Howard Gardner’s (2008) Five Minds for the Future, I could more clearly see how Fullan captured certain important dimensions of leadership but did not necessarily address others. The variety of readings, from Machiavelli (2005) to Hahn (2007) really helped me begin to piece together my own, personal beliefs about leadership, rather than just repeating what others have said.

To be honest, I do not have a totally focused conception of effective leadership that I can display on some sort of diagram.  However, I have clarified the principles that will guide me as I continue my career in the field of special education.  They are: (a) all leadership in education is instructional leadership; (b) all students, regardless of ability, have the right to a free and appropriate public education based on their individual needs; (c) special education and general education must work together to meet the needs of all students in our public schools, regardless of disability status, and (d) people want to do well in their jobs, and part of the role of the leader is to develop people’s skills and attitudes to help them improve their practice and achieve their career goals.  In my final paper for the course, I outlined my personal leadership goals in the areas of personal excellence, team leadership, and advocacy.

References:

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Hahn T. N. (2007). The art of power. New York: HarperCollins.
Machiavelli, N. (2005). The prince. (W. J. Connell, Trans.) Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. (Original work published 1532)

Course products:

 

EDSE 842: Applied Research Methods in Special Education
As I reflect on this course, it is clear to me that it marked a turning point in my understanding of research methods.  I came into the course confident in my understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods.  I had taken 810, an introduction to quantitative and qualitative research, and had recently finished 812, which focused on qualitative methods.  In addition, I had already take 841, which focused heavily on reading, understanding, and evaluating intervention research in special education.  Outside of the classroom, I had already worked on two intervention research studies.  I was ready.

While my solid foundation in research methods certainly helped me understand and master the content of this course, I noticed that my knowledge became much more focused and detailed as a result of this class.  One area, in particular, where I saw a dramatic increase in my knowledge was in understanding data analysis in different types of research studies.  For example, Dr. Scruggs walked us though what to do with data gathered from surveys.  We talked about issues such as reverse coding, calculating the reliability of the survey instrument, family-wise vs. pair-wise significance levels, and the like. 

The most difficult tasks for me were completing the midterm and final exams.  Without a textbook to refer to, I did not have confidence in my ability to accurately answer the questions.  Instead, I poured over class notes, reviewed studies we had discussed in class, and looked for other resources on data analysis to complete the exams.  In retrospect, the lack of a textbook really forced me to rely on my own knowledge and experience to make sense of research methods.  It gave me confidence in myself as a researcher and as an independent learner.  If you asked me last Spring, I never would have thought I would look back fondly on those difficult exams!

In addition to the midterm and final exams, we were also required to write methods sections for single-subject, qualitative, survey, and quantitative research studies.  My previous coursework had prepared me for this, and I found that I had become very comfortable with this task.  Realizing that I had become more fluent with writing methods sections showed me how much I have learned since starting the PhD program.  All in all, this course provided me with an opportunity to recognize my growth as a researcher and pushed me to the next level in my understanding.
Course products:

 

EDSE 844: Current Issues in Special Education
This course was structured to focus on a different current issue in special education each week, with students presenting on issues of their choice.  An issue paper based on the chosen presentation topic was also written.  I chose to focus on a current issue in literacy.  Specifically, I focused on reading comprehension for students at the secondary level.  This was a new area of research for me, and I found the topic interesting and worthwhile.  Because I did not have much, if any, background knowledge on the topic, I began by reading meta-analyses on reading comprehension (Gajria et al., 2007; Roberts, Torgeson, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008).  I found that text enhancements and cognitive strategy instruction were the most effective methods.  Given this information about research-based best practices, I investigated methods currently used by teachers.  There was limited information on what effective secondary teachers actually do to teach reading comprehension.  This led me to consider how to bridge the gap between what research says is effective and what teachers actually do.  One discrepancy that I found interesting was that most reading intervention research with secondary students was conducted in small group settings outside of the regular education classroom (Gajria et al., 2007).  However, most students with learning disabilities receive their language arts instruction in the general education classes (Newman, 2006).  That, in itself, speaks to a disparity between researchers and teachers.

Investigating this topic built on the skills I had gained through other courses, while igniting my interest in a topic for future research.  Learning how to conduct and interpret meta-analyses in EDSE 841 gave me a strategy for finding out about a new area of research.  I knew that I could get the information I needed by looking for a meta-analysis on the topic, and I knew how to pull out the essential information for my project from the article.  I also built on my teaching experience to understand some of the factors that might impact teachers’ instruction in the classroom that would not be considered in intervention research studies.  Furthermore, this project added to my interest in the gap between research and practice.  In the mixed methods course that I am currently taking, I am designing a study that will look at how research-based instructional strategies are implemented by classroom teachers, how they are modified, and how those modifications impact the effectiveness of the strategy.

References:

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225.
Newman, L. (2006). General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Roberts, G., Torgeson, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction for older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63-69.

Course Products:

 

EDUC 897: Special Education Leadership Cohort
As part of the special education leadership cohort in Spring 2009, I continued my work on the PSU-GMU Writing Study. By the end of the semester, I had been involved in writing intervention studies that used three different research designs – a design study, a single-subject study, and a group experimental study.  There were pros and cons to each given the population that we were working with (middle school students with severe emotional and behavioral disorders) and the task we were teaching (persuasive writing).  As I look toward doing my dissertation, I am considering the pros and cons of each design for my own study.  One of the biggest factors that I see affecting my design selection is the availability of participants.  If I continue to work with middle school students with EBD, which I plan to do, it may be difficult to find the large number of students needed for a group experimental design.  If I select a single-subject design, I will need to carefully think through how to I collect the numerous pre- and post-intervention essays required by the design.  I will also need to negotiate the amount of time available for instruction at the research site to include at least two additional weeks for data collection.

In addition to the writing study, I participated in a number of other activities, including: (a) presenting lectures and a poster session at the Council for Exceptional Children conference in Seattle, (b) attending a session on grant writing for doctoral students with Dr. Ann McGuigan at Mason, and (c) preparing to attend a Supreme Court hearing of Forest Grove School District vs. T.A.  Attending the grant writing session, in particular, was very eye-opening for me.  I did not realize how complex the grant writing process is or the amount of time involved in writing a grant and receiving funding.  It made me very aware of the need to have experience with grant writing before graduating from the PhD program.  I know that I will have the opportunity to apply for funding this Spring to fund my dissertation in the Fall.  I plan to apply for that funding, and look forward to learning about the process.

Course products:

 

Summer 2009

EDUC 897: Independent Study: Writing Mega-analysis
In order to focus on two of my research goals – becoming more proficient at a variety of research methods, and submitting a manuscript for publication – I chose to do an independent study to work on the writing mega-analysis I had begun as a class project in EDSE 841, Intervention Research in Special Education.  Tasks completed over the summer include: (a) refining criteria for inclusion of meta-analyses in the analysis, (b) conducting a more in-depth literature search, (c) refining the coding instrument based on experience from the class project, and (d) reading and coding meta-analyses.  During the Fall 2009 semester, then, I have further refined my coding instrument to focus on the most critical information needed for the analysis, and begun recoding articles to collect the additional information required.   I have also set up an SPSS file into which I will input coded data.  Finally, I have written up the methods section of the manuscript, although it will need to be revised based on the new information that is being coded.

This project has been a good learning experience for me on several fronts.  First, I am learning a great deal about writing intervention research conducted with students with learning disabilities.  As some of my colleagues and I have begun thinking about dissertations focused on writing interventions, I can see that I have learned a lot about what has already been done and the effectiveness of the interventions.  It is exciting for me to see how much I have learned in this area.  I feel like I am on my way to developing the content expertise needed for my dissertation.  This independent study project has also been a good learning experience for me to find out what it really takes to do research for publication.  Going into the project, I thought it would be much easier than it is.  Doing research for publication is not like doing a really good class project.  It requires a much deeper level of analysis and precision in methods.  I am grateful to have this experience before I graduate and am required to produce work at this level to continue in my career.

I will be presenting the findings from this mega-analysis in a poster session at the Council for Exceptional Children conference in Nashville this spring.  The session is titled, “What does research tell us about effective writing instruction?”  This will provide me with a good opportunity to present my research in a way that is accessible to a wide audience of researchers, teachers, and others.  It will also be interesting to hear feedback from others on the research and findings.

Course products:

 

Fall 2009

EDRS 811: Quantitative Methods in Education Research

This course provided an introduction to basic statistical procedures used in quantitative research.  I learned a lot during the semester and appreciated Dr. Buehl’s clear, step-by-step explanation about why and how these procedures are used.  Specifically, we learned about z-scores, t-tests, Chi-square tests, correlations, simple regression, multiple regression, ANOVA, and ANCOVA.  We also briefly discussed MANCOVA and effect sizes.  While I had heard of these statistics throughout the doctoral program, it was during this class that I felt I understood what they were, when to use them, and how to properly report them.  One thing that disappointed me about this course was the singular focus on statistics, with little regard for other aspects of designing sound quantitative research methods.

One of the most helpful parts of the course was the final project.  The project required us to identify a data set, develop research questions, and analyze the data to answer those questions.  It was a very challenging project for me from start to finish.  I had not worked with large data sets before.   After being unable to find a special education data set to use (the ones I found all required training before you could access the data), I chose the School and Staffing Survey.  I was immediately confronted with how to cipher through the enormous amounts of data that were available.  I learned to use the codebook to help me find what I was looking for.  Then I split the data set so that I was only using information for special education teachers and, later, only new special education teachers.

My research questions focused on the classroom readiness of new special education teachers and how their readiness was related to their licensure status (i.e., traditionally certified, provisionally certified, or emergency certified) and professional development activities.  No significant differences were found between teachers who pursue traditional certification, provisional certification or emergency certification in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, or grade level.  Results showed that participation in first-year induction programs was negatively correlated with classroom readiness, while the traditional certification path was positively correlated with classroom readiness.  Analysis of differences in readiness between teachers with different types of certification revealed statistically significant, though small, differences between teachers with traditional certification and those with provisional certification. 

As I worked to analyze the School and Staffing Survey data, I reran my analyses many times.  It seemed that every time I ran an analysis, I realized I forgot to include something or used the wrong type of data, and had to rerun it . . . several times.  Eventually, though, I figured it out.  Having to work through using the data set and running the analyses was an invaluable learning experience.  When confronted with another large data set, I am sure to fumble and have to rerun analyses again and again.  However, I will be a smarter consumer of research, and will be able to understand the basic concepts that are presented. 

Course products:

 

EDRS 823: Advanced Research Methods in Single Subject and Single Case Design

Having worked as a research assistant on single-subject studies for two years, and having read a number of single-subject studies as part of my coursework, I went into this course with a good amount of background knowledge.  I found that I was able to build on this background knowledge throughout the course to refine my understanding of single-subject research.  I found our textbook (Kennedy, 2005) to be very useful, particularly for understanding the different designs that are available and when they can/should be used.  Each student had to conduct a single-subject study for the course.  Ongoing group discussions about each person’s project were very helpful for further developing my understanding of single subject research and how to select the methods that best help one find out what she would like to know.

For my own project, I conducted a single-subject study on two different methods for teaching letter recognition to a preschool-age boy – traditional visual, letter-name methods and handwriting instruction.  While neither method was particularly effective for my participant, I did learn a lot about how better to design a study based on my experience.  For example, targeting the age of the participant more carefully (based on findings from other research studies) may have changed my results.  Additionally, a different design would have helped cut down on potential interaction effects in the study.

One of my goals when entering this course was to learn more about data analysis in single-subject research.  I was glad that we went beyond the textbook (Kennedy, 2005), which only covered traditional visual analysis, to discuss techniques such as percent of non-overlapping data and randomization.  I would have liked to have more hands-on practice with these techniques, but feel that the exposure I did have was useful for helping me understand research that I read.

Another valuable experience I gained during this course was obtaining HSRB approval for a study.  While I had written HSRB applications in the past for classes, this was the first time I actually submitted one for approval.  I was very nervous prior to submitting the proposal.  However, after providing minor clarifications on my proposal, it was approved without difficulty.  I appreciate having gone through the HSRB process before reaching the dissertation stage so that I know what to expect.

References:

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Course products:

 

EDRS 797:  Advanced Applications in Mixed-Methods Research

Mixed-methods broadened my thinking about research design.  Rather than focus on developing a proposal or completing a small study, as most of my other research methods courses have done, this course required me to think through what I want to know, what sources I can use to gather that information, and what might cause me to reach the wrong conclusions.  Thinking was not constrained to fit proscribed methods, but rather to select data sources that could answer particular research questions.  Combining both qualitative and quantitative methods allows for understanding the “big picture” as well as the finer nuances of situation.

The course assignments were designed to allow students to think through different aspects of a potential study they were interested in conducting, whether it be for a dissertation or something else.  For example, one assignment required us to develop our conceptual framework.  Another focused on identifying threats to validity and how they could be addressed.  We also had the opportunity to present our study to the class to get feedback about particular aspects we were struggling with. 

For my projects, I chose to focus on implementing intervention research, such as self-regulated strategy development for writing (SRSD), in real-world school settings.  My aim was to take research-based strategies and see how they might need to be modified or adapted to make them work in non-research settings.  Such an approach relies on both the knowledge of the researcher and the expertise of the teacher to design a workable intervention.  Taking a design research approach, I was able to think through different stages of the process of bringing research-validated practices into classroom settings.

I am glad that I took this course because it forced me to think through what I value in research – what I think is essential and what I think is flexible.  During our discussions of our own projects, I always found that the special education students in the class were the ones to ask about measures.  What are you measuring?  How are you measuring it?  What was that measure designed for?  Are you capturing what you think you are capturing by using that measure?  I was regularly surprised to find that people really did not have a strong sense of the measures they wanted to use to target what they wanted to know, whether they were using qualitative or quantitative measures.  It made me realize how integral measurement is to everything we do as special education teachers and how important understanding measurement is to research.

Course products:

 

EDUC 897: Special Education Leadership Cohort

This semester was an exciting one for me in the special education leadership cohort.  I had the opportunity to work as the assistant editor of Exceptional Children.  It was an opportunity I had not anticipated, but one that was invaluable for my development as a researcher and scholar.  I learned a great deal through my work on the journal that I could not have fully learned through coursework or through my work as a graduate research assistant.  Coming on board as new editors took over the journal allowed me to see all that goes into building an editorial board, setting guidelines for authors and reviewers, and managing submissions and reviews.  I also gained an appreciation for the exacting standards reviewers and editors have, and how truly difficult it is to get a research study accepted for publication.  Additionally, I came to be grateful for the rigorous instruction I have received from Dr. Mastropieri and Dr. Scruggs in conducting research studies and communicating them to others.  Working on the journal has truly been a rare opportunity and I am thankful for it.

In addition to working on Exceptional Children, I also participated in a visit to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) during the semester.  It was very informative to see the vast interests of CEC.  They are the leading organization in special education, covering policy, professional standards, publications, and more.  Compared to other associations dedicated to special education, they are very large and their influence is far reaching.  It was helpful to gain a larger perspective of what goes on in the field of special education outside of my own experiences teaching and in higher education.

Course products:

Spring 2010

PSYC 557:  Psychometrics

I will admit that I was not looking forward to psychometrics.  After a semester spent studying quantitative methods, single-subject research, and mixed methods, my enthusiasm for and opinion of statistics was not high.  However, I have come to the end of the course with a new respect for psychometrics and the important role it plays in social sciences research.  Additionally, I have noticeably increased my understanding of concepts like reliability and validity.  I have also increased my understanding of relatively new techniques in the field of psychometrics such as item response theory and structural equation modeling. 

This introductory psychometrics course covered a range of topics, including classical test theory item analysis, item response theory, generalizability theory, reliability, inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement, validity, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.  Throughout the semester, I found numerous connections between what I was learning, and what I have learned in other classes and been exposed to through other experiences.  For example, while enrolled in this course, I attended a policy briefing on the next generation of performance assessments.  Issues we had discussed in class came up throughout the briefing, such as how you can educate the consumers of psychometric information about what it means and what it does not mean. 

Our largest project of the semester involved developing a scale, administering it to a group of people, analyzing the results, and writing a technical report.  I chose to use a self-efficacy for writing scale because we had been working on revising one for use in our writing research project, and it is a topic that interests me.  While my scale was designed for secondary students in a writing class, the convenience sample used for this project consisted entirely of adults.  Therefore, findings from this project are in no way applicable to the work I do with students.  However, I was still interested in the results. 

The finding that was most interesting to me was obtained through exploratory factor analysis.  The self-efficacy for writing scale had been developed to include items covering all stages of the writing process – planning, translating, and drafting – as well as items related to self-regulation of the writing process.  Therefore, I expected that there might be subscales within the measure.  However, exploratory factor analysis revealed that the items loaded primarily on one factor.  This led me to wonder whether the results would look different for students who were learning the writing process, as compared to adults who were more experienced writers.  It also made me curious about the implications of this finding for instruction.  Writing instruction has moved to a process writing approach over the last 30 years.  Intervention research has shown that process writing approaches are more effective than isolated skill approaches to writing.  The results of this self-efficacy scale would seem to lend further support to this conception of learning writing as a whole process.  It would be interesting to learn any information that might be available from brain research about writers at different stages of skill development, to see if it corroborates results from intervention research.  This experience highlighted, once again, that researchers can look at a given phenomenon in many different ways, and the way in which they look at it will determine what they are able to see and not see.  Therefore, information of different types from different sources has the potential to provide a more comprehensive understand of a phenomenon.

Overall, I am glad that I took psychometrics.  I feel that the information I learned in this class is information I would not learn on my own over time, and it is information I will need to know on a daily basis in my future role as a researcher and scholar.  For instance, I would not have given much thought to different types of reliability had it not been for this class.  In the past, I saw issues related to psychometrics as a matter of fitting my data into pre-established formulas that readers expected to be reported in a research study.  I have come to appreciate the problem-solving nature of psychometrics.  It is not simply a matter of plugging numbers into formulas.  Great thought must be taken into deciding what it is you want to measure and how you want to use that information.  Then you can use the available statistical formulas, among other things, to make a case that you measured what you thought you measured and that this is what you learned from it.

Course products:

 

EDUC 897:  Independent Study – Writing Research Literature Review

I undertook this independent study to develop a strong background in writing research as I move toward my dissertation work next semester.  While I had read many writing studies throughout my time in the doctoral program, most of the primary research studies I read centered on a particular writing strategy – self-regulated strategy development for writing (SRSD).  My work on the writing mega-analysis gave me a broad overview of different lines of research in writing for students with learning disabilities, but I had not read many primary studies in these different research lines.  Furthermore, I had seen very little on revision for students with disabilities, which is the primary focus of my dissertation.

At the beginning, the process of conducting a comprehensive literature review was overwhelming.  The research on writing in special education dates back decades, with different strands of research branching in numerous directions.  Because it was hard to pull all of that information together, I decided to begin with revision research.  This decision was useful for two reasons.  First, I knew very little about what was done previously in revision, and I needed ideas to start developing the revision strategy I would like to use for my dissertation.  Second, it focused me on the strand of writing I was interested in, and I was able to work backward from there to more general writing research. 

In the end, I have learned a tremendous amount about previous research on writing for students with learning disabilities by conducting this literature review.  Now that I have begun this process, I know that there is more research available that I must include in my dissertation proposal on this topic.  The literature review helped me move beyond the SRSD strategy to view larger possibilities for writing instruction.  I have developed a draft plan for my dissertation methods based on what I learned from previous writing research.  It is exciting to have a sense of where my work will fit in with the work of other researchers to improve writing instruction for students with disabilities.

Course products:

 

EDUC 897:  Special Education Leadership Cohort

This semester in the special education leadership cohort we had two field visits – one to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and one to a policy briefing on performance assessment.  We also attended and presented at the Council for Exceptional Children annual convention in Nashville.  Finally, I continued my work on Exceptional Children. 

Reflecting across these experiences, my biggest take-away was a clearer sense of how special education fits into the field of education as a whole.  At NASDSE, I was encouraged to hear about how they work with other organizations to advocate for special education, including both special education and general education groups.  I also enjoyed hearing about their IEP Partnerships project, which leads community teams through a process to integrate services across general and special education.  These discussions were very heartening.  I believe NASDSE will be a good resource for me to use in the future as I work with schools and new teachers.  They share my value of strong partnerships between general and special education.

On the other hand, my experience at the policy briefing on the next generation of performance assessment was less encouraging.  I thought the discussion of the need for new assessments, the types of new assessments that should be created, and the ways in which these assessments can be made to work in the current policy environment to be very interesting and on-track.  However, I was saddened to realize that there were no representatives from special education involved in the process.  When I asked one of the leaders about that, and about how this new assessment system fits with RTI, she did not seem to think that it mattered at all.  This was very frustrating to me because it perpetuated the status quo of separate priorities for general education and special education, rather than moving forward to a more productive relationship that would benefit students and teachers.  It was overwhelming to realize that policy would move forward along a less-than-ideal path when we are at a juncture where a more radical change is needed and possible. 

It still frustrates me to think about this experience.  I am not yet sure how my realization of the deep divide between general education and special education will affect my future work.  As an elementary school teacher, it did not seem that there was such a wide gulf; all teachers worked together to meet the needs of all of our students to the greatest extent possible.  When I have worked with new teachers, either as a mentor or as a university instructor, the gap between general and special education did not seem so insurmountable.  However, it seems that the higher up in the power structure one gets, the more the divide exists.  It is sad to think about the negative impact this turf war ultimately has on the children we are supposed to be serving.  I suppose that my role in all of this, then, is to keep working at the local level with teachers on both sides of the divide to provide more integrated, seamless, individualized services to students on a daily basis.  I believe that teachers are ultimately the ones who can bring about the positive change that is needed in our educational system. That is why my efforts will focus on them.

Course products:

 

Spring 2008                 Summer 2008         Fall 2008        

Spring 2009                 Summer 2009         Fall 2009                    

Spring 2010

 

Back to Top

Site Design and Map

smills5@gmu.edu