Help! How do I write a good AERA proposal?

Ring, ring! —  It is a hot Sunday afternoon.

It is the first day of my journey to visit family over a holiday break. Looking down at my phone I realize I have a missed call from…a professor…what? The education faculty never call me.

“Hello. Sorry I missed your call…” After a few seconds my mentor asks, “What are you doing on June __? Will you be in town?” I hesitantly answer with a negative, then affirmative. Turns out I am recruited, alongside a couple of other doctoral students, to do a presentation/workshop on how to submit successful AERA proposals.

As I crawl back into my car, it hits me – I have never had a conference proposal rejected. Why? Surely in my oh so very short journey as an alt-academic I must have had at least one, right?

Then I am struck with another, larger dilemma. I have no idea what I did right. I can’t even begin to describe to my mentees what I did “right” to get nearly two dozen peer-reviewed proposals accepted. If I have no clue, how can I explain it others.

Writing conference proposals had become so ingrained into my writing schedule that I hardly noticed when I take the time to compose them. I needed to shed this second skin, and think about my overall process (and the struggles I faced while writing AERA proposals the first time around).

Please remember that these notes are based on my experiences and preferences. Your faculty and friends are certain to have contradictory ideas.

---

Here is the list I came up with; Justin Whiting and Verily Tan from IU’s Creativity Labs also helped, and were present for the “Writing an AERA Proposal” Workshop. Please note that most of the links direct to specific 2017 AERA content.

Writing a successful proposal

General info

• Don’t wait until the night before. This is not a 1-page proposal. Also log into the AERA submission system days before you start writing. This will help you structure sections on a word processor.
  • You can revise and upload a newer version of the proposal before the deadline.
  • If you are submitting a research project for presentation you will need IRB approval. If you don’t have it, be prepared to justify why!
• Make sure your proposal follows APA guidelines, is spell checked and grammar proofed. Duh, right? But when you are pulling an all-nighter to write an AERA proposal you will be surprised what slipped through the cracks. Get someone to proof-read for you.
• Work smart, not hard. If you have preexisting work, you can adapt it and build your AERA proposal off that.
• Look over some example proposals.You can always ask your peers, faculty, and even family members look it over.
• Figure out what kind of presentation (Paper, Poster, or Roundtable) you want to do before you start writing and tailor your proposal. More info here.
• If you select the option of submitting a Paper.  Think about also letting your proposal be considered for a Poster or Roundtable that way at least you have a chance at presenting something.
  • Don’t be stuck on only wanting to do a Paper presentation. Posters and Roundtables can be more productive, especially for students as they give you a chance to interact more with audience. Posters are great for getting feedback, especially if you have some flexibility/are in the early states of your research project.
  • Also figure out what division and section, or SIG you want to send it to. That way you can tailor the proposal to better align with their call.
  • If you are confused about which section/SIG to submit to, read over their Call for Proposals. You can find individual SIG/Section calls in the submission portal too!
    • Link to Division descriptions
    • Link to Special Interest Group (SIG) descriptions
• Remember that AERA likes completed studies. Write in the past or present tense. Also you should present some data…even if they are preliminary findings.
  • Methods section is particularly important – i.e., research question, data sources, analysis methods
  • Preliminary findings may suffice. If accepted the expectation will be to report more detailed findings and insights.
• Review all of the detailed guidelines. Did you include all the parts that you needed to? If you are missing even one element, such as a discussion, it hurts your chances greatly.
• Here are the sections you need to include:
  • Objectives or purposes
  • Perspectives(s) or theoretical framework
  • Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
  • Data sources, evidence, objects or materials
  • Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
  • Scientific or scholarly significance of the study of the work
• Make sure you meet the word count limit criteria!
  • Title (15 words)
  • Abstract (120 words)
  • Paper (no more than 2,000 words)
• You do not have to incorporate the annual theme into your paper, but it does help if you can. You shouldn’t try to completely change your research, presentation, or writing style just to fit the theme, but it will help if your research is in line with others. Again, an important part of this is submitting to the correct SIG with similar research.
• Omit author identification information from your proposal. That includes your writing, in text citations and references.
  • Confused? Here is how to do it: According to APA, in-text cite would be (Author, YEAR). References: Author. (YEAR).
  • Also you may have to change the order of authors on your proposal. AERA only allows a certain number of first author entries per person.

Specific to the proposal

• Make your proposal stand out from the start! The abstract and introduction are very important. Remember most reviewers end up reading 10 or more proposals, make yours memorable.
• Be descriptive (yet concise) in your methods section. Let your reader know what you did during your study! A good test for this is calling up a parent/sibling and having them read then explain the section to you. If they can accurately describe your methods after reading the section, then you win!
  • This is a hard skill to master, and it takes time – So, don’t expect your first proposal to be perfect even when you submit it. Just focus on getting it done to the best of your ability.
• Explain why your research is important. Yes we know it furthers the knowledge base…but really, why should someone care. What is the impetus?
• Your research doesn’t need to be perfect. Do your best and get feedback, but don’t get stuck on trying to change the world or have the perfect paper. Remember that you will have more than one reviewer, so don’t be discouraged! Proposal scores are averaged out between 3+ reviewers, so you get feedback from different perspectives too!

 

Questions? Shoot me a line at nsabir@indiana.edu

Please add anything I missed in the comments below.

You can view the hour long workshop on YouTube: https://youtu.be/gT73BwAvFxQ

 

 

KM Self Study Part III

I began a self-study of my learning organization’s growth and flexibility, in hopes to better understand and articulate challenges we faced in adapting new educational paradigms and standards. These postings cover not only the daily occurrences at my college of education, but also some of the experiences I have had while working at other organizations. If you have questions or thoughts please email me at nsabir@indiana.edu.

Institutes of education managing change and shift: A reflective piece utilizing Daft’s framework (part III)

Bias, mission & goals

I think the “most dangerous” of biases Daft discusses is, seeing what you want to see: Not because you truly want to “see” something, but rather because the information we gather, interpret and present to others is constantly shaped by our epistemological and ontological underpinnings. I’m stealing this story from a workshop I ran while working with Organization D.

So, Organization D’s mission statement is something along the lines of a peaceful world and each department has specific/specialized goals targeted at regions or themes. The organization’s goal doesn’t face conflicting departmental goals so much as the message gets lost in all the moving parts and sometimes there are not clear guidelines. On September 21, Peace Day, K-12 educators tackle teaching complex issues of global conflicts and cultural awareness often using social media and synchronous technologies. A couple of years ago there were not too many model schools for this initiative, and teachers dreamt up great projects for their students to do. One the more common examples was Skyping/email a classroom across the world and then reflecting about the experience. In some cases the lack of organizational support/resources lead to a propagation of negative stereotypes, especially at the k-5 level (“Japanese people know origami.” “Koreans eat dogs and that is gross!” “Baby girls are killed because parents want a son.” and “Peace means you can travel wherever you want.” – Just to name a few that were brought up at this workshop). As teachers began to post their students’ work on online forums the banter began about how irresponsible the teachers and Organization D had been to allow students to internalize stereotypes that could lead to conflict.

I think that sometimes working with an organization’s mission statement can be a game of Telephone particularly when they are broad and allow departments a little too much freedom. While having a broad mission statement can be great because it allows you to cover a lot of ground, different parts need to certain have specific objectives that support the official goal.

In many of teams I have worked on, the problem is rather apparent, there is a ____ need and the difficulties lie in crafting solutions. Often times the problem is over simplified by managers, as they are not the individuals placed in the field and their foundation for identifying and understanding the problem is relayed through secondary channels. Because the services the organizations deliver are so embedded in in-country dynamics that crafting solutions becomes a greater focus. Our organizations proposed solutions and timelines are also heavily impacted by major stakeholders – so it becomes a bit of a juggling act.

In our case, because the focus is shifted towards finding a sustainable and compatible solutions for all parties the identification of the issue at hand tends to get brushed over. In the past I have seen this lead to all sorts of communication-based issues, loss of funding, misusing fiscal and time based resources, and I’ve even see projects fail shortly after the first round of evaluations.

While the analytical and researcher based curriculum team I work with attempts to institute changes leveraging an incremental decision model, where instructional concepts are put through an iterative development process to ensure a best fit, this far from what actually happens. In the past four years each terms begins with the goal of trying to replicate a systematic and incremental decision process yet after a couple of weeks that fades away. Because the curriculum development team has to account for student (user) diversity and variation in needs, and constant flux in environmental factors a garbage can model would be more appropriate. Throw into the mix that we have a 60% instructor turnover, annually, and retaining structure can become problematic. Overarching goals are ill-defined, and problems and solutions are often identified vague and attended to simultaneously leading to additional problems. More often than not our team crafts “solutions” for problems which don’t exist and may not even be an issue, and major problems are sometimes pushed to the side for another term (another batch to deal with). Do I think this is effective? No. However, it is the culture of my organization and my mangers’ preferred style to allow for a more organic approach.

It is far too easy to go along with a group or majority decision. This happens a bit differently in my team. We currently have 1 very hands off manager and 11 instructor-designers, who have equal say in how we facilitate our programme. While there are some team players that naturally take a more leadership role and others who are more outspoken about distinct issues, a groupthink mentality is often applied to major decisions. Now this isn’t because of a lack of expertise or diversity but rather an understanding of “let’s agree to disagree” and if we continue to “disagree” the team isn’t nearly as productive, if at all.

Fin.

KM Self Study Part II

I began a self-study of my learning organization’s growth and flexibility, in hopes to better understand and articulate challenges we faced in adapting new educational paradigms and standards. These postings cover not only the daily occurrences at my college of education, but also some of the experiences I have had while working at other organizations. If you have questions or thoughts please email me at nsabir@indiana.edu.

Institutes of education managing change and shift: A reflective piece utilizing Daft’s framework (part II)

Structure, control & culture

At my current job, we have a fairly decentralized system (for immediate interactions) which leads to a series of issues. In an effort to empower the workers and support their professional development management takes a more horizontal approach. However, we our departments have major communication issues and because some people are so attached to their work/frame of mind this has also lead to discrepancies in polices. Since all parties are not on the same page this imposes stagnant approaches to problems.

In our organization the most frequent trap is, “people don’t have enough time to learn.” Because our organization experiences a disruptive environment that requires constant reevaluation our employees are always having to relearn skills and procedures. For example, just last week a peer created a learning module that involved a specific set of software and today we discovered that our student-consumers don’t have access to it. This required a complete revamp of the module and all our staff had to learn new material and procedures in the span of a couple of days.

I think the most difficult step I have seen organizations encounter is the first step, setting up procedures and guidelines. My experiences have shown me that a lack of clear vision often makes the initial process difficult. I have seen firms have a vague vision of execution, access to resources, and reflection but in the process of establishing these steps the organization distinguishes their current direction from their ideal process. That said, I believe that the research findings lack one step, reevaluation of the model or steps. Somewhere along the process there should be a place for leadership to pause and assess if their current process is allowing employees to learn in the most effective and efficient means possible, and if the scaffolding holds up to desired outcomes.

I believe that organizations’ design and structure should be drive by their goals, needs and access to resources, rather than what is considered “best practice.” The text talks about how vertical structures are more efficient and horizontal structures encourage more personnel growth so I think that leveraging both aspects would be a good approach. Our process aligns more with virtual network grouping’s model. While this approach enables flexible and is responsive to changes in the environments, it can be difficult to coordinate and communicate with all member of the organization. The only times I have seen this grouping truly be effective/efficient is when someone very motivated, organized, and patient took the role of integrator.

For day-to-day operations the college of education functions as a pooled Interdependence system; however in the large scale it serves as a reciprocal interdependent system. All of the departmental outputs and procedures feed into one another at the end of the terms however weekly operations allow individual offices and departments to function as separate entities with standardized procedures. This multifaceted approach requires our organization to function with a very high level of communication and collaboration. More often we feel like a cross departmental team working as a single entity rather than separate offices. The logistics trains are not felt by most of the employees but rather the supervisors take on the initiatives to collaborate all of the reciprocated activities.

I think that organizational decisions should be driven by needs, and not what the managers see working at another organization and hope to replicate in their own. Before an organization (re)creates a hybrid structure leadership should consider the weakness that need to be addressed.

I used to freelance for a Country B’s pharmaceutical company, Company A, working with both the local branch and the overseas offices. In Country B the organization is very centralized and represents a typical functional grouping model, however the counterpart organization in State Z is completely different. Because the US branch is considerably smaller it outsources most of its marketing and large-scale production, and much of the staff work across several departments. As citizens of Country B liaisons come to State Z for a year or two many of them actually struggle with adapting to “lack of structure” and several have even opted to return to the Country B’s company because the hybrid model in the US organization was uncomfortable for them. I think it is interesting how an environmental culture impacts an organization’s culture so heavily.

The term effectiveness and measuring an organization’s effectiveness does seems to get a bit ambiguous without a bounded case paired alongside. The goal based approach focuses more on the holistic meeting of an overarching organizational goal while the internal process approaches focuses more on internal workings, such as positive work environment and organizational morale, and not on the organization’s output. One of the great features about using a resource-based approach is that it includes the initial bargaining mix and can include the environment-organization factors.

At my current position several leadership department and offices have a very centralized command structure, which is bounded by accreditation, fiscal and international policy constraints. This bureaucratic system constrained employees to follow set protocols and stifled creativity. Several supervisors and office directors have shifted organizations’ directions by changing their leadership style to account for employee empowerment by moving from a bureaucratic to clan style of leadership and management. This transformation has been a slow progress with slight changes over several years and plenty of employee turnover. This shift allowed employees to further bring their expertise into the design of services.

To be continued…

Digital diaries

Blogs are becoming ever popular for researchers and teachers.  They are used as a source of archiving thoughts, starting conversations, and housing resources.  In my teaching teachers course we talk about the importance of instructors having blogs and websites.  Not only are they a source of information but they are also valuable tools in establishing digital identities.  Overall blogs have emerged as a creative spaces that allow users to carry on a “persistent conversation” (Paulus, Lester & Dempster, 2014, p. 15), and represent a multi-user environment which is not platform restrictive.

More importantly these digital diaries are more than simple text. They allow for hyperlinking of content, embedding visual tools (such as videos or images), and are sometimes video or audio based entries.  Many of the blogging tools used by teachers and educational researchers are very personal expressions and accounts.  They incorporate happenings, ideals, and current issue of concern.  Their posting of text and visuals allows blog visitors to gain a richer illustration of the blogger’s life experiences.  These interactive communicative diaries are often linked to social networks, and “respond to new conditions” (Willi, Melewar, & Broderick, 2013, p. 103) of identity creation.  In other words they allow the blogger to develop a holistic online identity centered around their diary postings, pertaining to issues deemed of value.

So we talked a bit about online identities and blog…what about the other aspects?  Well there is this notion centered about reflexivity, and using blogs as tools to streamline that process.  Let’s start by first defining reflexive practices.  Paulus, Lester and Dempster define this as, “the process of intentionally attending to the perspectives, attitudes and beliefs that shape how you design a research study and make sense of your data” (2014, p. 13).  In other words, how is ‘you as a person’ impacting a situation.  This doesn’t have to be in the realm of data collection or research design, while it might often be related to those two areas.

Let’s ground this fuzzy concept with any example of action research.  A new 3rd grade teacher is welcoming his class during the first week of school and notices that two of his (international) students aren’t socializing with their peers, nor are they speaking up, participating in class, and they even refuse to make eye contact.  Now there are several ways an inexperienced teacher might reflect on these issues. He might think that something is wrong with the students: maybe they are just shy or perhaps they are having troubles adjusting to the new classroom.  He might not even stop to consider that they students come from a different school culture and that instead of changing them he might have to change his approach.

Had this teacher kept a journal he might be able to look over what changes positively impacted his classroom and make changes accordingly.  Additionally, if he kept an online blog perhaps his online community of teachers might have been able to offer suggestions and possible resources. And so, we come back to this concept of changing or practices based on our reflections, and realizing how we impact our design.  They don’t always have to be grounded in the concept of research.

So we have reflective practices and establishing digital footprints and creating conversations.

Let me shift gears and tell you about a great way to aggregate your diary posts and notice trends, themes and issue of importance. Often times when I site down to blog, I start writing about a topic and it takes an interesting turn…sometimes I run off on tangents.  At the end of each blog entry I push all my talking points into a word cloud and use those as my tags. This allows me to self-evaluate what I am really talking about and sometimes enlightens me to the topics that are most prevalent in my entry.  Consider using word cloud tools to thematically analyze, code even, your digital diary.  There are some great websites out there, and Wordle and Tagxedo are two of the best I have found.  Both are fairly simple to use and allow for a customizable experience. Simply copy and paste your text into the box and create! Wordle is simple, clean, and classic (Wordle even recognized a plethora of other examples), while Tagxedo allows for more customization.  Make sure you have Microsoft Silverlight and Java up to date. 

Here is an example of what a word cloud of this post may look like

Using Wordle

Using Tagxedo

References

Harricharan, Michelle and Bhopal , Kalwant (2014) Using blogs in qualitative educational research: an exploration of method. International Journal of Research & Method in Education (In Press).

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Willi, C. H., Melewar, T. C., & Broderick, A. J. (2013). Virtual brand-communities using blogs as communication platforms and their impact on the two-step communication process: A research agenda. The Marketing Review, 13(2), 103-123.

Looking to make the most out of your blog? Check out Bolles’  blog posting on using blogs as a research tool. Not only does it write about his personal experiences but has used the text-based blogging feature to transcribe his video blog.

Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”

A “history” of digital innovation for conveying knowledge (and research)

This week the theme of digital natives comes up a lot, like a lot. Let’s start by first defining digital natives and what that means to the research community. In 2001, Prensky first coined the term to mean individuals who have spent most of their lives “surrounded by and using computers and videogames, digital music players, videocams, cell phones and all other toys and tools of the digital age” (p. 1). These interactions have fundamentally changed the way users interact with platforms and critically think about leveraging technological tools for their motives. Students these days have an affinity for using technology as a crutch and display unique digital literacies.

There however exists a dichotomy between the perceived usefulness of digital tools to convey knowledge and what students area actually doing. Personally, I have noted these two, clear realms of experience in both my teaching pre-service instructors and my attempts to integrate snazzy tools and techniques into my research project designs.

Have you every met a teacher who can use their smart phone to play Words With Friends or Candy Crush, manage their daily lives with integrated calendars and reminder apps, check their emails and leverage social networks for professional development; but failed at using a presentation to effectively communicate ideals in an enhancing manner? There it is again…the idea that digital tools are useful (in our daily lives) but don’t translate into valuable uses for professional outlooks.

Paulus, Lester and Britt (2013) point out that if advisors, faculty, and teachers “are not using the tools in informed ways, it makes it less likely that the next generation will, either” (p. 649). So the baton passes to instructors to enlighten students as to how they can use technological tools creatively and critically. Several texts such as Joiner et al. (2013), Robert and Wilson (2002), and Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson, (1996) address the current value systems of using digital tools to convey and analyze information.

Even within my coursework I notice the perception that the human approach is best. The responsibility seems to therefore extend to current users to inform the community, and their students, about the ways in which you can use digital tools can be best leveraged. I think early adopters should be models for future users and demonstrate efficient practices.

References

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk /1/1/4.html

Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., … & Moon, A. (2013). Comparing First and Second Generation Digital Natives’ Internet Use, Internet Anxiety, and Internet Identification. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-13.

Roberts, K. A., & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/862/1872

1st Semester of Teaching Pre-Service Teachers [check]

Out of a total 22 students, last semester I had 18 respond to the final course evaluation, overall not a bad participation rate (82%).  Here is a short summary of their responses: I would rate the quality of this course (W200) as outstanding (3.7/5) and this instructor as outstanding (4.0/5).  My instructor provided a learning structure that helped me to mentally organize new knowledge and skills (3.9/5) and I had opportunities in this course to explore how I could personally use what I have learned (4.3/5). Then, in this course (W200), my instructor expected me to do authentic tasks (4.3/5).

When students were asked about what worked well in the course and what aspects of the instructor’s teaching approach should not be changed, students responded: 1) “Najia is an absolute gem of a teacher. She is patient and available to her students. On more than one occasion, I sent her an email and she responded within half an hour. While a very demanding teacher she was never unreasonable in what she asked us to do. Her critiques of class preps are very thoughtful and well articulated. So lucky to have had her as a teacher. Whatever she is being paid is not enough. Would not change a thing about her teaching style.”; 2) “I really appreciated the feedback on my projects and how efficient the grading was done. I was also always able to get my questions answered in a short period of time through email which I also enjoyed.”; 3) “I liked that we were introduced to a variety of useful tech resources that we can use later.”; 4) “All of the assignments and projects were very relevant for the future classroom and I learned so much. I love Canvas, it is a very simple and organized tool for grades.”; and 5) in improvements, “When Najia changed the way things were due to a more consistent schedule it helped to ease the confusion and timeliness of the projects.” Based all the responses I believe that I have to clearly communicate my expectations to my students and provide them with structure in time, grading, and classroom management.

When students were asked what I could do to improve the course or my teaching effectiveness, they responded with: 1) “Add something other than lecturing and Powerpoint”; 2) “I enjoyed this instructor and how they taught.”; 3) “Keep having things due at a consistent time. Also, allow more time to ask questions or do things in class. This would help and cut down a lot of stress tremendously.”; and 4) “Space projects out more so that students can get caught up and are able to breathe in this class.” Again the theme of structuring assignments and allow students time to work on projects in class is vital to success.  In the future I plan to improve this aspect of my class by allowing more space/time for students to complete lab style work in class.

For access to the full report

Perpetual Heart Break Machine

These past two weeks my students submitted their feedback evaluating the course, my instructional strategies and suggesting improvements. In looking over the initial feedback, I felt it was somewhat heart breaking in their honestly in commenting. In actually averaging their ratings it wasn’t so bad. While most of the comments were negative I realized that they were not directed at me, persay, but the structure of the course. So I moved from being slightly distraught about not being an effective or engaging teacher…to not being able to really implement the changes they suggested.
For example, an overwhelming number of students hated the 3-hour-long 8 am class (not something I had control over) and suggested the class over two weeks. While I cannot control the length or scheduled time, I feel like I should be able to engross and entertain the students enough so that they don’t notice the horribly early and long class.

Another suggestion that came up was reduce the number of PowerPoint (slides) and reduce the number of assignments. Again this wasn’t something I can directly control, as all class sections have the same work load. While realizing that the work load can be overwhelming, I try to give the students additional ‘lab time’ so that they can work on projects. Even though I have been implementing this from the beginning, students still commented that it was not enough. Every week I struggle with trying to balance lecture, engaging discussions and in-class time for projects. Generally a third to half of my class time is devoted to ‘lab-time’ and it still doesn’t seem to be enough.

There was a hiccup in implementing the survey and it was administer twice, the first time 18 of 23 students responded later only 8 resubmitted their thoughts. Half of the questions were on a likert-scale (of 5 or 4). The first time (4-scale) the students agreed the course as outstanding by 2.5 of 4, the second time (5-scale) it improved to 3.5 of 5. Next the students evaluated the outstanding nature of the instructor. Both surveys were very close in response with a 2.7 of 4, first time, and a 2.9 of 5, the second time marking the teacher as outstanding.
The following responses were drawn from the second survey administration. The students rated the clear communication of content as a 2.5 of 5. The students rated the clarity of explanation of requirements/expectations/assignment as a 3 out of 5. Students rated appropriate use of class time as a 2.5 out of 5. On a more positive note the students felt that the instructor was creatively using teaching strategies, ranking it a 3.2 of 5. Lastly, the students noted that the instructor gave timely feedback by rating it 2.3 out of 5.

When students were asked about recommendation to improve the course and suggestions to the instructor a majority of the students responded that the course had too many things due (n=6), with overwhelming due dates and expressed a need to consolidate class resources. An additional student commented that the content housed to many resources and websites. Within the actual class structure, students commented that the class was too long and too early in the morning (n=4). A couple of the students mentioned that there needs to be less PowerPoint (n=3), less in class discussions (n=1), and more time in class to work on projects, homework, and assignments (n=4). Additionally these lectures needed more consistency from week to week (n=2), more explanations/instruction (n=1), and a great focus on projects not on in-class examples (n=1).
There were three students who commented that the instructor was doing alright. Another two students mentioned that student not be graded as stringently. Lastly, one student commented that “the instructor could assist the students in a less sarcastic manner.” These two points are aspects that I feel I have the greatest control in changing and will work diligently in the coming weeks to explain my grading manner and appear less sarcastic.

When students were asked to list things that they did not want to change they discusses the general content and diversity of technology introduced (n=9), the benefits of the projects, particularly the digital story (n=2), the real-world application of the teacher websites and ePortfoilo (n=2), and the scaffold nature of the course (n=1). Moreover the students did not want to see changes in the structure, content, or method by which the PowerPoint were displayed (n=4). As far as the instructor specific embellishments the students liked the text reminders (n=1), the ease and timely manner of receiving feedback (n=2), and that I do not allow my students to procrastinate on projects (n=2). Additionally a student appreciated the structure of the course that allowed students to choose independent and group projects.

Most meaningful aspects of the course were identified as the creation of the teacher and ePortfolio websites (n=8), introduction of the tools, such as Google drive, Skype and Google docs (n=6), and the utilization and discussion of the 3Es (4 in my class, engagement, enhancement, effectiveness, efficiency) (n=5). Students also noted that the content exploration tools/tasks (n=1) and production tools/tasks (n=2), as well as class projects, such as the digital stories (n=2), case analysis (n=1), webquests (n=1) as meaningful activities.
Least meaningful aspects of the course were claimed to be the digital story project (n=2), and all the video editing that accompanied the project (n=8), along with the case analysis (n=5) and webquests (n=2), commenting particularly on the lack of application of early education teachers. Lastly students noted that the teacher and ePortfolio websites (n=1), “busy work” and “time wasters” in class (n=1), demonstrations in class (n=1), the Go Animate (n=1) and voki (n=1) clips, and the use of Google documents (n=1) were not useful to the class.

And for the random student who suggested a picnic: let’s have one when the weather gets a little warmer!

Do I look like tech help to you?

A major project (creating a digital story, a YouTube video) is due this week and I am terrified that my students are going to spend endless hours fighting with their computers, only to give up and shoot me an email. Despite warning my students repeatedly about technology failing just when you need it, they still seem to want to wait until the last minute to compile files and make a movie.
An important aspect I try to teach my students (and sneakily force upon them) is time management. In fact, I push my students early on to complete aspects of a project by creating mini-assignments, these that stand alone and are not incorporated into the final grading scheme. This is to force students to complete aspects of an assignment before it is due.
Things are scaffolded so that students need to complete parts of a project on a set timeline, encouraging them to not wait until the day before an assignment is due, to actually start it. But somehow a couple of them slip under the radar and 3 days before submission they are recreating a new, and unapproved, storyline.
Normally it is the technology integration that actually hinders them from completing the project. For the most part the students have a vision, they know what they want to execute, but run into difficulties executing it. In my mind there are two main purposes for this course: first to introduce the students to tools they can possibly incorporate into their future teachings; and second, to help them become critical thinkers as they analyze the appropriateness and effectiveness of tech tools. At times, a lot of times, I see the focus of the course shift from that critical lens…only to have me become tech help.
Moreover, my undergraduate lab assistants spend more time walking around the room directing students where to click; when they should be spending time learning valuable teaching skills not helping students play catch-up because they were too busy texting to pay attention.

Evaluation – The song that never ends

This theme of evaluation seems to keep coming up, over and over again much like a song whose words are at the tip of your tongue but you just can’t seem to get them out. This week was I actually evaluated…it wasn’t a self-reflection of what I could have changed but an external review that involves a camera recording my entire class, a formal sit down, and report. Despite that external pressure I didn’t feel the need to over prepare or fluff up my class with cool new tricks. In fact, even thought I was being recorded I found myself just teaching and the evaluation stuff faded away. At that moment I was focused on delivering content in the best way I could, I wasn’t thinking about what I could have changed from last week or five minutes past.

So 24 hours post instruction, it still hasn’t hit me, the whole you are being evaluated thing. I think that be because I know everyone out there is going to have their two cents about teaching and what is the best way to do ‘this’ or ‘that.’ At the end of the day I am my own worse critic and I think more than getting that report or told how I preformed, I want a copy of me teaching so that I can analyze what I did and what I can do to make it better.