Friday, September 08, 2006
Thoughts on Dissertations on Teacher Education
Currently, I am planning to conduct a study on second career teachers. This will be the first of what I hope will be many studies in my career. Along the way, I have been reviewing a series of unpublished dissertations on teacher education and on the topic of second career teachers. (I am also working as a research assistant on a teacher education study and am preparing a literature review for a study next year on components of teacher education programs. In addition, I will be presenting a paper on alternative certification programs in October at a conference on curriculum and pedagogy. So, I’m really into the field right now.)
I wanted to share my thoughts about what I have discovered about dissertations. I present these ideas in a bulleted list.
1. Where the dissertation comes from matters. Sorry, folks, but not all Ph.D.’s are equal. Some universities allow for far less rigorous studies than others. Examples of less rigorous studies include studies with extremely small sample sizes (4) for a qualitative study involving two separate interviews each (only eight interviews). In addition, one dissertation used a survey method with an instrument that had not been validated. The doctoral student admitted in the limitation section of the study that no validation had occurred and that the results may not be valid. A final example occurred when one doctoral student relied so heavily on a previous dissertation that she used the exact path analysis and conditional matrix as the predecessor to explain her findings.
2. A Good Abstract Counts! For gosh sakes, I hated reading an abstract that doesn’t clue you into what the study was about. The best dissertations included a quick summary of the research questions, the research methods, the participants (YES! Give me the participants—interviews of 8 teachers, or 3 focus groups for candidates in an ACP, or some clue!), and bulleted findings. Is that so hard to ask for? In some of the dissertations, I had to virtually hunt through every page (yes, of course I read all the pages) to find all the information.
3. Bullshit is bullshit! I’m not perfect, but I strongly believe writing has to be coherent, useful, and “tight.” I remember Bill Stott’s book “Write to the Point.” I hated, absolutely hated, having to drudge through pages of fluff. Here is an example: a study on alternative certification programs does NOT need to include the history of teacher certification since colonial American times. Also, some doctoral students spent a tremendous amount of energy describing their opinions and personal feelings about things like the importance of teaching or their philosophy or background. While some of this may be useful for grounding the perspective of the researcher, too much of it reeks of self-promotion or page-filling. I had a professor who once said, “Aside for the quality of research, I think some committees have a weight requirement.” He held up his hand as if holding a stack of papers and continued, “Yeah, it has to feel like a dissertation.” Yuck!
4. Knowing the Field. The quality dissertations on teacher education topics expressed an in-depth understanding of the research in teacher education. These doctoral students provided the context for the study given the current research agenda and situation. However, unfortunately, many students wrote dissertations without a sense of the field. For example, more than one doctoral candidate made bold claims about teacher education, saying things like “Research demonstrates that alterative certification programs are far inferior to traditional education programs.” Or some doctoral candidates have made claims against traditional undergraduate programs relying on the work of Ballou, Podgursky, Walsh, etc., but not referring to Darling-Hammond or Arthur Wise or Reynolds. Another pet peeve is when the doctoral student will lump two seemingly opposing researchers together as if they both agree on the same subject. I found this frightening. Finally, a doctoral candidate may have cited a study with an obvious bent, such as work by the Fordham foundation or Kate Walsh’s National Center for Teacher Quality group, and pay no attention to the limitations of the study or who said what and what others said about it.
5. Where the hell are we going? Good dissertations had pretty detailed table of contents and used lots of subheadings. This made it so much easier on the reader to follow along and see the line of arguments developing. The bad ones tended to use the same old trite headings and lump too much under each heading. If I can’t tell where the dissertation is headed by reading the table of contents, then I think, “Oh no, another one of those dissertations.”
6. Give me the Big Picture. I found dissertations that provided a summary (even a bulleted list) of the key findings very helpful. Sometimes in the literature review section, the good dissertation will have a summary of the lit review, giving a good nutshell version or even a chart categorizing the findings and the researchers. Also, in the findings section, a good summary addresses each research question one at a time in a clear, easy-to-find format.
I hope you find these thoughts interesting and helpful.
I wanted to share my thoughts about what I have discovered about dissertations. I present these ideas in a bulleted list.
1. Where the dissertation comes from matters. Sorry, folks, but not all Ph.D.’s are equal. Some universities allow for far less rigorous studies than others. Examples of less rigorous studies include studies with extremely small sample sizes (4) for a qualitative study involving two separate interviews each (only eight interviews). In addition, one dissertation used a survey method with an instrument that had not been validated. The doctoral student admitted in the limitation section of the study that no validation had occurred and that the results may not be valid. A final example occurred when one doctoral student relied so heavily on a previous dissertation that she used the exact path analysis and conditional matrix as the predecessor to explain her findings.
2. A Good Abstract Counts! For gosh sakes, I hated reading an abstract that doesn’t clue you into what the study was about. The best dissertations included a quick summary of the research questions, the research methods, the participants (YES! Give me the participants—interviews of 8 teachers, or 3 focus groups for candidates in an ACP, or some clue!), and bulleted findings. Is that so hard to ask for? In some of the dissertations, I had to virtually hunt through every page (yes, of course I read all the pages) to find all the information.
3. Bullshit is bullshit! I’m not perfect, but I strongly believe writing has to be coherent, useful, and “tight.” I remember Bill Stott’s book “Write to the Point.” I hated, absolutely hated, having to drudge through pages of fluff. Here is an example: a study on alternative certification programs does NOT need to include the history of teacher certification since colonial American times. Also, some doctoral students spent a tremendous amount of energy describing their opinions and personal feelings about things like the importance of teaching or their philosophy or background. While some of this may be useful for grounding the perspective of the researcher, too much of it reeks of self-promotion or page-filling. I had a professor who once said, “Aside for the quality of research, I think some committees have a weight requirement.” He held up his hand as if holding a stack of papers and continued, “Yeah, it has to feel like a dissertation.” Yuck!
4. Knowing the Field. The quality dissertations on teacher education topics expressed an in-depth understanding of the research in teacher education. These doctoral students provided the context for the study given the current research agenda and situation. However, unfortunately, many students wrote dissertations without a sense of the field. For example, more than one doctoral candidate made bold claims about teacher education, saying things like “Research demonstrates that alterative certification programs are far inferior to traditional education programs.” Or some doctoral candidates have made claims against traditional undergraduate programs relying on the work of Ballou, Podgursky, Walsh, etc., but not referring to Darling-Hammond or Arthur Wise or Reynolds. Another pet peeve is when the doctoral student will lump two seemingly opposing researchers together as if they both agree on the same subject. I found this frightening. Finally, a doctoral candidate may have cited a study with an obvious bent, such as work by the Fordham foundation or Kate Walsh’s National Center for Teacher Quality group, and pay no attention to the limitations of the study or who said what and what others said about it.
5. Where the hell are we going? Good dissertations had pretty detailed table of contents and used lots of subheadings. This made it so much easier on the reader to follow along and see the line of arguments developing. The bad ones tended to use the same old trite headings and lump too much under each heading. If I can’t tell where the dissertation is headed by reading the table of contents, then I think, “Oh no, another one of those dissertations.”
6. Give me the Big Picture. I found dissertations that provided a summary (even a bulleted list) of the key findings very helpful. Sometimes in the literature review section, the good dissertation will have a summary of the lit review, giving a good nutshell version or even a chart categorizing the findings and the researchers. Also, in the findings section, a good summary addresses each research question one at a time in a clear, easy-to-find format.
I hope you find these thoughts interesting and helpful.
# posted by A.J. Castro @ 11:33 PM 
