Through course work and research efforts my appreciation for different research approaches has grown. I have not aligned myself with one particular school of thought towards research, nor do I value post-positivist research over the interpretive/constructivist paradigm. It is my belief that a scholar’s research questions and objectives should drive the design of a study. This is extremely important because I plan on working with a variety of clients in the future, with specific objectives and questions. It is my belief that once the research design is established the researcher can then best choose the most appropriate instrument to collect data.
Seven research competencies are listed below that are necessary for the development of a scholar. I have acquired several research competencies and believe these efforts have gone beyond the foundational level. These competencies will be discussed further in reference to particular studies on my research agenda. Evidence of these acquired competencies is provided throughout the research section of my dossier.
Competency 1. Conduct Literature Review (Acquired)
Competency 2. Evaluate & Critique Research (Acquired)
Competency 3. Write Research Proposals (Acquired)
Competency 4. Design, Develop & Implement Research Instrumentation Evidence (Acquired)
Competency 5. Research-based Report for Publications (Acquired)
Competency 6. Conference Proposal (Acquired)
Competency 7. Develop Basic Understanding of Securing Funds (Acquired)
Competency 8. Apply Research to a Real World Case Study (Acquired)
Collaborating with various faculty and students in the human performance, persistent issues in history (PIH), and the leveraging-technology (Lev-Tech) research groups on various projects and studies has allowed me to strengthen my areas of interest. As a member of the HPT research group, I have worked on several research projects which have allowed me to grow as a scholar. For example, I took a leadership role in the development and implementation of the ISPI 2008 Practice & Job Task Analysis Survey, this study was designed to gain an understanding of the demographics and job status of ISPI members. Also, the survey assesses the efficacy of the Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) standards (i.e. perceived importance and frequency of using standards). My efforts in this project include: questionnaire item design, data analysis, interpreting qualitative results, and presenting the research findings in several Performance Improvement Express articles as well as during the 2008 ISPI Conference in New York. (See Research Competency 5b-f for Performance Improvement Express articles; See Research Competency 6a 2008 ISPI Conference in New York; See Research Competency 4b for ISPI 2008 Practice & Job Task Analysis Survey Instrumentation Evidence).
In addition, two team conference proposal were accepted, one for 2008 ISPI Europe conference and the other for 2009 ISPI conference in Orlando. Due to funding constraints the team was not able to attend the 2008 ISPI Europe conference. The proposal title, “What are HPT consultants thinking, saying, and doing in regards to ADDIE?” may be presented at the next conference. The team is currently preparing to present a 90 minute session at the 2009 ISPI conference titled, Common Issues and Improvement of Needs and Cause Analysis Standards (HPT). (See Research Competency 6b&c for conference proposal acceptance).
Data from this research will also be used to publish a paper titled, Relationships among Gender, Certification, Use of ADDIE Standards and Salary. This study uses equity theory assumptions to examine the relationship between variables and to answer the following three questions: Is there a salary difference between male and female certified performance technologist (CPT)? Does the 10,000 hour rule proposed by Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, hold true for CPTs? And does the frequency of using ADDIE differ for males and females? (See Research Competency 1a. for Equity Theory Literature Review and Research Competency 1c for ADDIE Literature Review) This paper is still in draft form and is currently undergoing revision based on feedback received from R695: IST Doctoral Seminar presentation, consequently not included in this review of my dossier.
The ISPI 2008 Practice & Job Task Analysis Survey has also paved the way for the revision of the CPT standards. I hope that my work on the CPT standards revision project will ultimately lead to a dissertation proposal. For example, the team is currently in the process of working with ISPI in securing CPT applications from various industries to analyze and compare them against the CPT standards. This project will provide a valuable opportunity for me to examine practical application of HPT principles. I also plan on working on the 2008-2009 ISPI Salary Survey, which will also provide me with further understanding of individuals’ interested in performance improvement professional profile, compensation and job satisfaction.
As a junior member of the Persistent Issues in History (PIH) research group I had the opportunity to work with senior IST students on the PIH Laboratory for Virtual Field Experience (LVFE) project. My work with this group led to a scheduled publication in the Journal of Interactive Online Learning (JIOL) in March 2009. My role in this research project included conducting lab experiments, interviews, presenting finds at the 7th Annual IST conference, creating presentation materials for the 2007 American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference with team members. (See Research Competency 5a for Evaluation of the Persistent Issues in History Journal Article scheduled to be published in March and Competency 3b for AECT proposal acceptance; See Research Competency 6b for IST Conference program).
My participation Leveraging-Technology (Lev-Tech), has allowed me to sharpen my skills in forming a research agenda, developing strategies for recruiting subjects. I also helped the team in designing research instruments for the Leveraging Technology to Keep America Competitive a National Study of Teacher Technology Use and Education.
The Lev-Tech group has also given me an opportunity to present my technophobia literature review. During my w401 teaching I noticed that many of my students exhibited some form of anxiety, which I later discovered through the literature review is a form of technophobia. I also noticed the same anxiety in my previous work experiences and how it affects individuals’ behavior and ultimately their performance on the task at hand. The purpose of this literature review was to examine intrinsic barriers to technology integration, as well as the phobias that may prevent the integration and use of technology in the classroom. This review attempts to define intrinsic barriers and technophobia with intent to distinguish between both terms. The review revealed that self-efficacy theory helps in explaining teachers’ behavior towards technology. In addition, the literature was reviewed for methods on how to recognize intrinsic barriers and technophobia within teachers. Recommendations based on this review are provided to assist with measuring each key term utilizing existing survey instruments. Suggestions for future research on intrinsic barriers and technophobia within the field of educational technology are also included. (See Research Competency 1b for Technophobia Literature Review) A research proposal will be developed during the summer of 2009 to further progress this research.
My teaching has helped me to see value of microteaching for pre-service teachers developing their technology integration skills. However, I am also interested in understanding students’ perceptions of the value microteaching during their w401 class experience. I will begin content analyzing former students’ microteachings reflection during the spring 2009 semester. I am currently taking Y611: Qualitative Research and hope this course will assist me in coding, synthesizing, and identifying significant patterns in student reflections. The Y611 course project will assist in developing a theoretical framework, research proposal, and possible interview questions. A research report is scheduled for the end of the spring 2009 semester. (See Research Competency 5g for The Value of Microteaching).
Coursework in IST has also helped me to grow as a scholar. For example, during R711: Doctoral Readings in IST I conducted several critiques of articles and studies related to the field. However, I plan to conduct further HPT article critiques as a part of my spring 2009 R695 contract. (See Research Competency 2a-e for all critiques)
These critiques include:
a. Clark, R. (1994) Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21-29.
b. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Interaction between learning and development (pp. 79-91). In Mind in Society. (Trans . M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
c. Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L. & Wagner, W. (1988) The events of instruction. In principles of instructional design, 3rd ed. (pp. 177-197). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
d. Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency.
e. Spotts, T.H., Bowman, M.A. & Mertz, C. (1997), Gender and the use of instructional technology: A study of university faculty. Higher Education 34(4), 421-436.
I also wrote a research proposal for Y520: Strategies for Educational Inquiry. This research proposal reviewed the literature related to Michael J. Piore’s 1968 study, On-The-Job Training and Adjustment to Technological Change. The specific aims of this proposal included 1) examining commentary on Piore’s work 2) recommending ways to improve Piore’s study and 3) propose a new research strategy. This research is significant because unless more cost effective and efficient methods of training manufacturing workers are developed companies will lose profits, have idle equipment and workers will be unemployed as technology in the industry advances. (See Research Competency 5g for research proposal).
In the spring of 2007 I was a part of a student consultant team for Eli Lilly. The project entailed evaluating two units of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) pilot training onsite at Eli Lilly’ Manufacturing & Quality Learning Center for three days including a presentation of the evaluation report. The team consisted of four group members from the R561: Evaluation & Change in Instructional Development Process course. This was a detailed evaluation report and several instruments were used to collect data such as questionnaires, focus group and interviews. This gave the team an opportunity to work on specific aspects of the evaluation research. My major roles in the research include:
Questionnaire Design – (Pre-training & Post-Survey Training)
Questionnaire item design - (Pre-training & Post-Survey Training)
Observation of participants’ behavior during one of the training session and observation of the instructors’ behavior during the second training program. Team members alternated these observations of each session.
Interview participants and instructors during each training session using focus group
Interviews were held with the instructor and observers to record their experiences with the training program, the interviews were held simultaneously. The four-member evaluation team split in two groups to conduct the interviews. In each group, one member asked questions while the other took notes. The interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Survey Data Analysis
Pre-Survey data analysis and creation of appropriate tables and charts to illustrate findings.
Post-Survey data analysis and creation of appropriate tables and charts to illustrate findings.
Assisted in interpreting qualitative results with team members.
Presented the report findings to the client with team.
This research is the property of the client as noted in the contract. The evaluation report and client presentation were evaluated by Dr. Pershing as indicated in the evidence section of this competency. (See Research Competency 4a Eli Lilly Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Pilot Training)
Before entering the IST program in 2006 I worked in the College Advancement Office of Bethune-Cookman College. I held three positions in this office before leaving to pursue my Ph.D. I started as an intern, became a Donor Acquisition Development Officer and ended my service as a Corporate & Foundation Development Officer. Working in these positions has given me a wealth of experience in fundraising on several different levels: grant writing, preparing reports for funding entities, and assisting in the development of a scholarship management process for the entire college. (See Research Competency 7a-c for a Daytona Beach News Journal Article highlighting my grant writing success; My last employee evaluation in the Office of College Advancement; and a learning institute program itinerary which I attended annually while working in the Office of College Advancement)