“A Dissertation Quilt from the first 8 Years”

 

 

 

 

Report of the EDCI 711 Class, Spring, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion #1

 

The first criterion asked, “In what ways was the literature review connected to the topic?”  Six of eleven literature reviews were well-connected to the dissertation topic.  Chapter 2 in six dissertations made good use of sectioning, transitions, and summary paragraphs.  Other Chapter 2’s lacked explanation, depth or transitions.

 

High quality in this area

 

One of the reviewers wrote of his dissertation:

 

“The literature review was connected to the topic through a historical perspective. The review discussed how desegregation and consolidation had affected busing. Special areas were also addressed in the way of special education and extracurricular activities and the way buses are used to support them. The standardization and safety of buses was reviewed along with the bus driver, the bus rider and the bus experience.  This was a new area of research, with few other studies that could be reviewed about the effects of bus ridership.”

 

Another said, “One-paragraph summaries at the end of each section worked as transitions and connectors to the study.  The literature review ended with a summary that connected the reviews to the topic.”

 

A third reviewer described how the dissertator connected various literatures and research findings to the specific topic of, “why teachers leave the profession:”

 

Another example of the researcher connecting the literature to the study was found on page 27. The researcher noted statistical research and narratives of teachers who left the profession. This section was specific in citing six reasons why teachers leave the teaching profession.

 

 

 Mixed quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote that her dissertation’s literature review did not relate much to the topic: 

 

The purpose of the study was to describe (1) the characteristics and skills that principals perceive as most important in selecting an SRO; (2) the characteristics and skills that law enforcement officials and SROs perceive as most important in selecting an SRO; (3) how much agreement exists between school officials, law enforcement officials, and SROs about the characteristics and skills that should be considered necessary in selecting a SRO.   The literature review, however, covered the following topics: (1) current statistics on school violence; (2) research on prevention strategies; (3) the role of the SRO as one component of the Safe School Movement.  Only the third topic of the literature review seemed close to her topic.  Finally, there was no evidence of weaving the sections together or showing relationships within the literature.  The summary was weak and short.

 

Another reviewer described a Chapter 2 that used headings and sectioning.  Although the literature review was well written, she thought it lacked depth:

 

This literature review explained too many different evaluation programs instead of focusing on one or two of the strongest.  Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Model, Management-Oriented Evaluation Model, Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Model, Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Model, Naturalistic and Participant-Oriented Evaluation Model and Program Outcomes Approach Evaluation Model.

This literature review was also short and choppy with little depth.  This literature review included sections Introduction, Induction Programs, Criteria for Mentors, Training for Mentors, Assignment of Mentors, Role of Mentor, Needs of the Novice Teacher, Benefits for the Mentors and Evaluating the Programs, which includes all the evaluation programs listed above.   There was little depth with some sections only having a one-page explanation. 

 

 

Lower quality in this area

 

Finally, one reviewer wrote that the literature review itself lacked a focus, and did not relate much to the topic:

 

The literature review centered around 23 models and 4 theories about the decision making process among effective principals. The topic, the study of phenomenology   and phenomenological findings, related to the dissertation topic but the number of models introduced in the literature review was overwhelming. It was difficult to understand the relationship of all the models and phenomenology.  

 

 

 


Criterion #2

 

 

The second criteria asked, “In what ways did the dissertations maintain a focus?”  Eight of eleven maintained a focus.  This was achieved through the use of headings, sub-headings, and summary paragraphs.  Three went onto tangents not related to the study.

 

High quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote:

 

The dissertation specifically focuses on why teachers leave the teaching profession or decide to stay. At times the researcher discusses aging teachers, teacher shortages in general and the turn over rate in the profession. These topics are tied into the focus on pages 31-38 by discussing the reasons the turnover rate is an issue today.

 

Another described the structure and readability that maintained the focus and the reader’s attention:

 

Ideas were given in a structure that emphasized the most important elements of the information, material, charts and graphs.  The dissertation flowed well, and was easy to understand.  It was easy to follow and enjoyable to read.  Headings sub-headings summaries and a logical structure helped ensure understanding.

 

A third reviewer described how the focus was maintained by staying close to the four main questions of the study:

 

“Yes, there were four questions asked and each was answered:

1.  What happens on the bus as perceived by teachers, drivers, and school administrators, parents, and students?

  1. What happens on buses as perceived by a neutral rider?
  2. What difference does the ride make for those students who must be on a bus in terms of their general school experience?
  3. What difference does that ride make in terms of student performance at school?”

 

 

Mixed quality in this area

 

One reviewer noted that the focus was maintained, but too much was made of the fact that her topic had not been studied before.  This had the effect of detracting from the focus.

 

The author maintained the focus of the study by using summary paragraphs at the end of chapters.  She seemed to focus too much, however, on the idea that this topic had not been studied.  One example is on pages 5 & 6: “Although some colleges/universities have been requiring students to own computers since the early 1980s, identification of such computer ownership requirements as an experience affecting their attitudes toward computer technology are not in existence.”  Another example is on page 14: “. . . no studies were found that examined these issues in the context of a required computer ownership program at a university.”   Others examples could be given, too. 

 

A second reviewer indicated that, while focus was good throughout, it suffered for another reason:

 

There were too many evaluation models explained.  The author spent more effort and time explaining why certain models were used as opposed to explaining why he chose the evaluation model he used in the dissertation.

 

 

Lower quality in this area

 

Finally, one of the reviewers wrote that her dissertation was hard to follow because of too many unclear sections and sub-sections.

 

The subheadings in the dissertation were hard to follow. For example, while the major headings, the introduction, review of the literature, methodology and findings were clear, the subheadings were not as clear. For example, under the review of literature the subheadings were not marked and were as follows: Decision-making models, prescriptive decision making models, descriptive decision making , decision making  in business and education, adult development and reflection- in –action and summary of review of related literature.

 

 


Criterion #3

 

 

The third criterion asked, “In what ways did the dissertation deepen understanding?”  All dissertations reinforced or deepened understanding to an extent.  Some, however, studied and found what the reviewer felt was common knowledge among educators.  Eight of the eleven deepened understanding more than the other three, which did not. 

 

High quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

After reading this dissertation I can see how this would help educators in two different areas -- mentors working with new teachers in schools and professors preparing new teachers.  So, it certainly added to the body of knowledge.  I had never thought about the how the needs of novice teachers would depend on the type of preparation they received.

 

Another wrote,

 

Yes, this is important information and a good reminder that student bus riding experiences are likely to affect them in the classroom. Bus ridership has not been studied, before, but it is a major school experience for many students.  Since this was new information it also gave a deeper understanding of the topic.

 

Mixed quality in this area

 

Several dissertations got mixed reviews in this area.  Two examples follow.

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

The dissertation could deepen understanding at the surface level.  It reinforces what most educators already know about why teachers leave the teaching force. The fact that the researcher interviewed teachers to better understand their personal situations gives the reader an insight to what teachers deal with on a daily basis.

 

A second reviewer wrote:

 

The author presents “four over-arching themes” that emerged as “a theoretical framework which embodied the eleven initial themes.”  Of theses themes, only the constructivist-informed mentor teacher’s struggle “to help student teachers deal with being different” seems to demonstrate new understanding about the relationship between constructivist teachers and their student teachers.  The author argues, rightfully so, that further research is needed to explore the needs and agendas of mentor teachers and the way they articulate and communicate their beliefs about learning.

 

Lower quality in this area

 

The following reviewers’ words speak for themselves.  This criterion relates to the “So what?” question.  Evidently, some of our students have difficulty understanding that both the choice of a topic and the choice of how to study that topic determine whether or not the end result will deepen educators’ understanding.   

 

One reviewer wrote:

 

 I cannot honestly say the study deepened my understanding about caring teachers and the relationships they establish with their students.  One of the participants stated she tried to treat her students as she would want someone else to treat her own children.  Isn’t that what we all try to do?  Other examples were teachers who wanted to treat their students fairly, and teachers who have high expectations for their own children and set high expectations for their students.  When these teachers were young, didn’t their parents have similar expectations for them? 

 

Another reviewer wrote:

 

The information was a review of common practices that principals use every day. For example, principals know to sort through “filters” such as gut instinct, political influence, time required, and tendency to empathize when making decisions. The dissertation reviewed the factors that influence a principal’s decisions, but it did not deepen understanding.

 

Finally, a third reviewer wrote:

 

This particular dissertation did not deepen understanding of its topic in any ways.  The author identified events and experiences that had positive and negative influences, but the findings were not made clear, anywhere.  All kinds of different tables, charts, diagrams were used throughout Ch. 4, but nowhere were the data explained.

 

 


Criterion #4

 

 

The fourth criterion asked, “What was the quality of proofreading?”   Proofreading was of high quality, except in two cases.  One dissertation had multiple, distracting errors and some sentences that were confusing and too long.  Another had fewer errors, but enough that it was distracting and lessened the quality of the report.  There is no need to have three subheadings for this section.  All but two of the dissertations were thoroughly proof-read, so the quality in this area was high.

 

A typical review said the following:

 

The quality of the proofreading is high.  There are no notable mistakes found throughout the dissertation.

 

The two that had errors were described in the following ways:

 

(1) The quality of proofreading was poor.  There were 15 misspelled words and many sentences were too long.  For example, on page 2, characteristics, was spelled “chracteristics” and on page 4, environment, was spelled “enviornment”.

 

(2) The quality of the proofreading was good with a few exceptions:

On page 26 the word preciously was used in place of what should have been previously.  On page 73 the word were was used in place of was.  On page 73 the word and was placed between the words only and similar without purpose.  On page 95 the word do was left out between to and this.  On page 111 the word the was used when it should have been they.  These errors did not significantly detract from the overall study, but they were noticeable during the reading.

 

I recently ran into Kathleen Owen, who (I believe) still proofreads all the dissertations and theses.  I told her I assumed she was on vacation for the two dissertations that had errors.  She said, “No.”  She had proofread all of them.  So, I asked how this many errors could be in a dissertation.  She said that students sometimes do not go back and do the corrections she notes before they have them printed.  This surprised me, and this practice may be something dissertation chairs should be aware of.

 


Criteria #5

 

 

 

The fifth criterion asked, “How did the authors connect the study’s purpose to something of value in the field of education?”  Eight of eleven made a significant contribution to the field.  The other three had sample size problems (too small), findings that were common knowledge, and findings whose usefulness were outdated. 

 

 

High quality in this area

 

Again, the bus riding study received high marks because it studied a previously unstudied phenomenon.  One of the mentoring studies received a high rating in this area, but the other one did not.  One reviewer wrote:

 

This research has implications for how schools of education and mentor relationships can help prepare young teachers for the profession.  The researcher ends her report by suggesting that “an interview between mentors and candidates could become part of the placement process” in practice teaching.  She also suggests that “university supervisors might ask mentors what they need and how they feel the experience should be structured instead of arranging all of the assignments and formats beforehand.”  The researcher discovers information that adds to the body of knowledge and her findings encourage further conversation about the teacher-mentor relationship—an important aspect of training teachers.

 

 

Mixed quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

Yes, there was some useful information in the dissertation for an administrator who would be working with an SRO.  It would be valuable to know what an SRO thought was important in their job.  For example, in one table, job task items were ranked by law enforcement from highest in importance and they are as follows:  “(1) assists principal upon request in investigations, (2) consults with the principal in developing plans and strategies to prevent violence, and (3) participates in court proceedings pertaining to law violations on school grounds.” 

 

Lower quality in this area

 

The other study about mentoring was regarded as slightly out of date because the program it evaluated has already been in place and modified over the last several years.  The reviewer wrote:

 

This study was significant at the time it was done.  The mentor program was in the beginning stages when this dissertation was written.  It could have been a valuable resource for those involved in this program and its evaluation.  This dissertation could be used as a resource for someone researching the mentoring program.  However, at this time in North Carolina, I feel that most novice teachers as well as those trained to be mentors are very informed about the process.

 

 

Another reviewer noted that a case study approach sometimes contributes little to the field.  

 

She tried to connect her study purpose to the field of education, but since this was a case study regarding computer ownership at one institution of higher education, I am not sure how valuable this would be. 

 


Criteria #6

 

 

The sixth criterion asked, “Was the dissertation clearly written?”  Eight of eleven were written clearly.  Of the others, one was unnecessarily redundant, one was not clearly written, and an overuse of acronyms was a problem for the third one.

 

High quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

The author has a very clear and concise style that is pleasant and easy to read.  She rejected the awkward use of passive voice for an active, first person text.  For example, she wrote, “In my interviews, with both of my participant groups, the veteran mentor teachers and the current mentor and student teachers, I asked the question, “how would you feel if someone were to say that your teaching practice seemed to be influenced by constructivism?”

 

Another reviewer wrote,

 

The dissertation was clearly written. For example, there were numerous experiences that illustrated and helped clarify points, such as the decision making process the principal went through when suspending a judge’s son on page 106-108.

 

A third reviewer wrote,

 

The dissertation was very well written.  Any one inside or outside the field of education could read this dissertation and understand it.  For example, the author wrote, “Administrators and supervisors who seek to create community within their schools and who want to help their teachers create caring classrooms should examine this study.”

 

 

Mixed quality in this area

 

Redundancy, which is often a trait of dissertations, was considered a barrier to clear writing.  One reviewer wrote:

 

There were a few areas of redundancy. On page 21 the author defined and explained qualitative research and the difference between qualitative and quantitative. In the methodology section on page 68 & 69, qualitative and quantitative were defined again.  The limitations of the study were listed on page 23 and again on page 94.  Phenomenology was defined on page 72 and again on page 82.

 

 

Criteria #7

 

The seventh criterion asked, “Was the study designed well?  At what point could a reader draw the design of the study?”

 

All but three were designed well.  The readers could get a picture of the study in Chapter 1.   Clear sectioning, in-depth literature reviews, and multiple data collection techniques contributed to effective study designs. 

 

High quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

 A variety of methods were used to gather data for this case study: field observations, interviews, focus groups, and surveys.  Using these various methods enabled the researcher to “triangulate the true state of affairs by examining where the different data intersect.”

 

A second reviewer wrote,

 

Following the first full reading of the dissertation it was easy to develop a mental picture of the study.  The author was like a bee in pursuit of the nectar it needed to fulfill a presumed responsibility that would help ensure and improve the status of the whole hive or the educational field of study.  The teachers were like flowers, all varying with some degrees of differences, yet from the same regional strain of flora.  The information much like the nectar that is brought back to the hive to be accumulated, stored, and refined in a useable and workable fashion.  The honey is like the dissertation itself.   The unexpected findings are like the uniqueness of the taste of the honey, created by the depth and the characteristics of the flavors, due to responses of the teachers, and to the various nectar’s and pollen's that find there way into the final product.        

 

Very few design problems were visible in the dissertation.  One problem, however, was a failure of a large number of teachers to answer certain questions on the surveys.  The author concluded that this reluctance was related to issues of consolidation and political oppressiveness, due to a fear of being open about how they really felt. She stated that these were unintended discoveries rather than any possible flaws that might exist in the design of the study.

 

A third reviewer wrote,

 

The study was carefully designed and thorough. It was clear that the researcher did not “take the easy way out,” but was extremely careful in making sure she received and recorded valid and honest information.  She not only intensively interviewed the teacher-student pairs, but was also a participant observer in the classroom for an average of 13 hours in each class. . . To build trustworthiness, she used member checks, peer consultation groups, and triangulation.  And to build authenticity, she “continuously examine[d] the influence of [her] background of experience on [her] research goals and approaches, paying “particular attention to voice, reflexivity, and community connection throughout the duration of the study” (9). 

 

Mixed quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

I did not get the feeling that the dissertation was designed well.  The method of collecting data and the analysis of the data became confusing when she started analyzing data with a chi-square test.  I could not find a place where the reader could draw the design. 

 

A second reviewer wrote,

 

I found it very hard to get a grasp on the design of the study. The headings were confusing and extremely general. For example, with the methodology section, the headings were as follows: development and application of phenomenology, research design components, identifying phenomenology as a method, and specific research procedures which included bracketing and choosing the research topic.

 


Criteria #8

 

The eighth criterion asked, “In what ways did the author deal with technical language?”

 

Seven of eleven handled technical language well. Two seemed to go overboard with defining terms.  One did not clearly define technical terms.  The other one did not have a need to define terms. 

 

High quality in this area

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

Yes, six terms needed clear definitions.  They were the descriptors of the different career situations faced by assistant principals -- Upwardly Mobile, Laterally Mobile, Downwardly Mobile, Career Stable, Plateaued Stable, and Shafted Stable.  A clear definition was provided for each.

 

Typical of the reviewers’ comments in this area was the following one, “Terms were appropriately defined and used consistently throughout the dissertation.”

 

 

Lower quality in this area

 

One problem in this area was described by a reviewer in the following way, “Some of the research jargon – “interpretive research project” and “semi-structured interview  were never clearly defined.”

 

Sometimes dissertations have clarity problems because of excessive defining.  One reviewer wrote, “Phenomenology was defined over two pages (49-51) and included origin and four stages in detail.” 

 


Criteria #9

 

The ninth criterion asked, “In what ways were the conclusions in Chapter 5 related to the data and analysis in Chapter 4?”

 

Eight of the dissertations related the data and analysis to their conclusions in Chapter 5.  Among the others, reviewers identified the following minor problems:

 

The data related to the conclusions.  Because the models were extremely broad, however, they captured almost any conclusions.  For example, one conclusion was that, when processing difficult decisions, principals consider other people’s experiences and beliefs and societal norms within the context of the situation.

 

More time was spent restating than actually analyzing the data of the study.  The conclusions were basically a summary of the researcher’s findings. There were two examples of this. One example was in the conclusions on page 133. The researcher restates her findings from the previous page summary and does not address specific conclusions.

 


Criteria #10

 

The tenth criterion asked, “How were biases addressed?”

 

In four of the dissertations, biases were addressed.  These related to relationships between the researcher and the participants, and the researcher’s role in the program being studied.    In four others bias was not addressed, but it seemed possible. 

 

The following reviewer descriptions reflect the various ways that bias and potential bias were handled.  In some cases this was addressed better than in others. 

 

One reviewer wrote,

 

Potential biases was addressed on page 106, where the author wrote:   

“There is no perfect way to design and conduct a research study. It is the obligation of the qualitative researcher to recognize and state the limitations or biases of which she is aware. Because the investigator is often the data collection instrument, herself, and because interpretations of data will necessarily be filtered through her, it is a common criticism of qualitative inquiry that the problem of bias is not adequately addressed.”

 

Another reviewer wrote,

 

The researcher acknowledged potential bias.  She stated that she knew the participants as their supervisor or previous coworker. Therefore, she acknowledged that participants may have been cautious about their responses. Potential bias was mentioned twice -- on page 23 and again on page 94.

 

A third reviewer wrote,

 

A bias might be found in the conclusion of the paper on the last page. There was what I perceive as an emotional plea to highlight the author's sense of affection for the plight of the classroom teacher with regard to their on-going struggle to survive the influences handed down by the principals in the Southern Appalachian Rural Schools.  Her empathizing perception as a " former teacher, now turned principal" could have affected her efforts during the collection of data, or at the very least, put a slant on the conclusions of the results.  The only real evidence of any emotional agenda found in the document was limited to this portion of the conclusion in the dissertation.  She appears to have made an attempt to maintain an element of objectivity throughout the rest of the document.

 

A fourth reviewer wrote,

 

Biases were addressed in the limitations of the study section.  The researcher was the chair of the committee that wrote the mentor program.  The researcher also took the lead in making suggested changes.  The author stated that this closeness to the program gave the researcher insight and indepth understanding.  It could also be perceived as negative due to bias in trying to show that a self-written program works well.

 

A fifth reviewer wrote,

 

The sample size was 13 principals, ten with degrees from WCU.  Could this sample be seen as a biased one?

 

A sixth reviewer wrote,

 

She used the sub-heading "Scope and Limitations of the Study" to address the bias in this dissertation.  She said,

 

“The researcher served as a full-time staff member in the university's Faculty Center for four consecutive years and was a member of the team that developed training materials and programs for faculty in using technology with teaching and learning.  She also taught faculty members at the University how to use computer technology.  While the researcher's heavy involvement with computer implementation may have hindered objectivity, the researcher's insights and perspectives contribute to the understanding of the scope and magnitude of this study.”

 

I do not believe she addressed her bias in this section.