My advisory committee included Dr. Thomas Brush and Dr. Krista Glazewski. I met with Dr. Brush
on May 19, 2015 for the initial review of my dossier and again on December 15, 2015 with Dr. Glazewski. Their feedback and my action taken in response has been summarized below.
-
Website is organized clearly and shows a good connection between direction and progress toward achieving breadth and integration of competencies.
-
Research competencies progressing appropriately with focused indicators to achieve them
-
First-authored study is proceeding well and should be completed prior to Dossier II.
-
Make the dossier website more interactive; allow reviewers multiple avenues to move back and forth among the web pages without restricting navigation to the menu bar of your dossier website. Provide links to evidence for competencies.
Action Taken too Address: In addition to the list of dossier menu items, hyperlinks have
been added to assist readers to access links between pages and evidences to help
readers easily navigate between the pages of your dossier website.
-
Candidate Statement: Dramatically reduce the quantity of background content in the introduction and focus more attention on succinctly articulating my research interests
Action Taken to Address: Limited the background content to four paragraphs and provided
clearer focus between my previous practitioner experience and my development as a
research scholar.
-
Research Competencies: Explain clearly the connection between the research groups I have participated in and how each contributes to my particular research focus.
Action Taken to Address: Provided greater depth and detail in the scholarship sections and
research competencies. Related participatory work in both Case-based Reasoning and Problem-Based Learning research groups to my individual research and philosophy of
research.
-
Teaching Competencies: Provide more detail regarding previous teaching experience prior to enrolling in IST. Connect minor coursework in Education Leadership to future goals as a university instructor.
Action Taken to Address: Added evidences of teaching credentials and more detail regarding my competence as an assistant instructor for W200 with Dr. Leftwich, teaching assistant for R-547 with Dr. Myers, and co-teaching for R-690 with Dr. Glazewski.
-
Service Competencies: Provide evidence regarding your internship at the Monroe County Community Schools Corporation (MCCSC) and relate this work to your service in the IST department and the School of Education.
Action Taken to Address: Provided evidence of hours completed and task performed while fulfilling an internship with MCCSC. Revised information detailing the breadth of service accross the IST department, the School of Education and MCCSC.
-
Provide more detail regarding the first-authored study.
Action Taken to Address: I have added links to the survey questions, interview protocol, response to IRB feedback, and the research draft presented for review and and student feedback in R-695, semester sessions two and three.
Précis of Feedback
In February 2016, I defended my dossier in the presence of the IST faculty and students. My external
reviewers were Dr. Curtis Bonk and Prof. Elizabeth Boling. Below is the summary of actions taken in response to receiving a conditional pass.
-
Complete the first authored study (including all analyses) and write up the results.
Action Taken to Address: I had worked with Dr. Brush to complete the data analysis and implications section for the completed first authored study.
-
Make presentations at two scholarly conferences (these do NOT have to be related to the first authored study and one of these can include the IST conference).
Action Taken to Address: I delivered a PowerPoint presentation of preliminary results for a second article that introduced radar graphs to present data at the March 2017 IST Conference in Bloomington, Indiana. In April 2017, I presented synthesis of the results comparing public school superintendents and teachers in Indiana for a poster session at the April 2017 AERA Conference in San Antonio, TX.
-
Compose brief 2,000 word papers (exclusive of references and appendices) on 3 of the 4 assumptions that Tom made during his presentation as per below.
-
Technology does not help (or foster) student learning. In contrast, teachers do help student learning.
-
You cannot be a good teacher without being a good researcher.
-
Superintendents are not taught to be reflective about their work.
-
Fulltime technology coordinators in K-12 schools do not have adequate pedagogical skills or knowledge. (Alternatively, “Typical school leaders or superintendents lack adequate pedagogical skill or knowledge.”)
Action Taken to Address: I selected items 1, 3, and 4 to complete the three white papers:
1. Digital technologies as tools in K-12 public schools:
Highlighting a pedagogical focus to achieve an educational purpose.
3. Public school superintendent and reflective thinking:
Distinguishing reflection from critical reflection.
4. Public school technology coordinators:
Pedagogical skills and knowledge might be helpful but are not required.
