There is a point in the doctoral student experience in IT where the student goes from having ideas to having notions. I’ve seen this discursive acquisition again and again, and I am beginning to feel that it’s a kind of shibboleth. It marks a significant change. While we might joke about having notions instead of ideas, hedging one’s arguments is a sign of a gradual progression towards a new way of thinking, and I dare say, a different disposition. A scholar’s discourse is often hedged like this because they have encountered time and again the limits of claims.
Hedging and limiting claims is the discourse of a scholar, and is an honest sign, in the signaling theory sense. It signals that the learner has changed in identity and behavior, and more importantly, in the way they think. The change happens little by little, and the change is far deeper than the milestones toward degree completion might suggest. This idea of gradual progression is not new, or profound. The 7-year-old artist’s illustration is spot on. We know pretty early on that we can do it, and doing it takes a long time. However, by the time most people get to doc study, I think they forget what they learned when they were seven. I know I did. I felt I knew far less about many things when I graduated than when I arrived at doc study. Inside you it changes, little by little.
Making big changes in the way one thinks is not why people come to PhD programs. People come for a credential. If one works hard and is lucky, change happens, but I don’t think people come to PhD programs to change. In fact, I think when they come to PhD programs, they need to be pretty resistant to change because of the grit it takes simply to get this far. However, attaining a PhD credential, and learning to think and talk like a scholar are very different things. They only coincide if the learner eventually accepts the change. That is not easy to do, because what they came for was the credential, not the change.
Therein lies the rub. The value of the credential lies in the likelihood that this change in thinking and disposition has taken place. The change includes attitude, intellectual curiosity and grit. No one hires a PhD not to do critical research, and critical research manifests in publication. Of course, the context of the research might change, and the publishing process might manifest in different forms, but the essential thinking remains. These attitudes, curiosities and grit result in an ability to write with precision, consider and reflect in multiple ways, and rewrite until a difficult task is complete. This part of the curriculum is all hidden, and at the same time, the skills that will eventually convince those who work with this newly minted PhD whether or not the skill accompanies the credential.
PhD programs should scaffold this hidden curriculum, and find ways to recognize the more pivotal aspects of change when they become visible. The nuts and bolts of PhD milestones tend to garner the most recognition, if any recognition happens at all. Conceiving of a study worthy of investigation, grappling with all its complexity, and negotiating the politics of a work environment during this process is unreasonably difficult. But it is the attitude, initiative, disposition and perspective that are the real learning strides. These take place while learners have full lives with all the other complexities one would encounter. Doctoral candidates have spouses, parents, and kids. Their lives are complex and more intricate than one can manage to create by the undergraduate years. Programs attempt to resolve this with one credit doc seminars meant to scaffold progress early on in the degree program, but I think that serves as more of an orientation than development. What should happen are high-fives in research group, or advisor-student research meeting when the students start having notions about what they are studying, take the initiative on a research task, or carefully negotiate how something might be accomplished strategically.
A few years ago, I wrote a blog post about three learning interventions that I particularly admired: The Kanda Self-Access Center, The IU Plagiarism Test, and the Texas A&M Catpals reading program. This time I want to talk about the EPC awards. I want to frame it as a learning intervention. We don’t normally think of this sort of thing as a learning intervention, but it is. It is a special kind of learning intervention that again, is in school but out of class. If you’re reading this, you should go, and here’s why, IMHO.
Awards are mechanisms that increase motivation, and in learning, motivation is our most prized learning outcome, second to only one, identity. Awards are not just about feeling good. Rather, “When people are given an award, they are likely to work better and be more engaged… They have higher intrinsic motivation.” (Bruno Frey). Awards are given in ceremonies, not in private. Awards are very social things. The power of an award is carried in its social recognition and appreciation. An award leaves behind a bond between the award giver and the award receiver. We see lots of organizations that capitalize on this bond. The military is the obvious one, but surely not the only one that you can think of quickly. A retirement is a recognition in the same sense. There’s a big different between retired and stopped working.
An award has a unique value for educators’ most prized learning outcome, identity. Especially when given by an academic department, and award can help not only the learner that gets the award, but those who see it as a potential result of their own study in the future. The reason I call attention to this particular learning tactic is because it addressed a teaching challenge that is daunting. Scholars are remarkably hard to nurture. To start, these are intelligent people who are quite wary of embarking on a task not worth doing. Scholarship can be intimidating, isolating, and frustrating. The most common feedback the doctoral student gets is the revision. Complexities abound, and are often mired in conflicting perspectives held by other advanced scholars who are simultaneously correct but nevertheless apparently in-congruent. Evidence the dissertations committee. I once joked that doctoral students must be pretty thick to need a committee of four to teach them through a single study. A close friend commented, “It speaks to the complexity of the learning that no one scholar could hope to accomplish such instruction of an early scholar completely alone.” I am not saying that one must identify as a scholar to get a PhD. It may serve some people well to simply get the degree. However, I am saying that worthwhile doctoral study changes someone’s identity to that of the scholar. The change is a kind of motivation to keep learning. A line of scholarship, informed curiosity, not simply a study.
Attending an event like this is a step towards that identity. Entering a community of scholars as a scholar is different than entering such a community from the outside, or leaving the community once the paper is handed in. One does not have to win the award for the award to have effect. Just being there, being part of it, lends to that new identity through the potential of the work undertaken. Seeing others win can inspire– sometimes it takes seeing the other person ride the bike to know you can ride the bike.
It’s a common misconception that PhD study is about the courses you have to take. It’s not. It’s about the work that you do, but it’s hard to find the roads into that work early in one’s program. Sometimes courses help with that, sometimes they don’t. I have heard that PhD programs in other countries contain no coursework at all. That would be even more disorientating. A PhD is disorienting enough even with the rudimentary road map coursework provides. No coursework at all sounds like bicycling with one’s eyes closed, in the dark, in the fog, with your flashlight turned off, on the wrong side of the road, and a little tipsy (that’s Ray Bradbury’s description of the writing experience, btw). In education, we often try to mimic PhD training in the hard sciences by replacing the “lab” experience with the research group (RG) experience. We compound that confusion by trying to tie that experience again to coursework. Unwary doc students are then left to navigate the process on their own. This blog post is in response to questions about the LDT PhD program’s courses: LEES 602 and IT 693.
The purpose of research groups is to learn to do research. Think, “I work in so-n-so’s lab.” It’s the same thing. You can get your training there, you get to learn from others there, and you might want to lead your own research there when you are ready. But the adviser is the one running the lab. In education we don’t actually get a lab though—we can barely afford a conference room. Your participation is to train you. It is the primary locus of advisement and learning in a PhD program. Some programs contain ONLY research group. Often RG will have a reading list that first semester students will read through together and meet separately. I don’t have one yet. A formal RG nor a reading list to start on in that RG.
RG’s don’t really end. They run consecutive semesters. And yes, RGs run through the summer, regardless of registrations. If a program is large it might have several RG’s being led by different faculty. Sometimes faculty will share a RG. If a program is small, likely there is only one RG per faculty member. If you are in a large doctoral program, one can visit several. If you are in a small doctoral program, visiting another RG might mean changing to a different doctoral program within that department, or enroling in a different program altogether.
In a RG, you bring your own voice to the current work of the group. However, RGs usually rely heavily on the expertise that the adviser brings to the group. Often, it’s a methodological approach that unifies the group, and students voice areas where they are interested in exploring. Sometimes something happens and a RG focuses entirely on one topic the adviser is into. For example, when a RG gets a grant. Some advisers will run more than one RG because the two groups deal with different topics. I tell my students to bring their topic to everything they study, in every course they take. The same goes for research groups.
When I was in RGs, I always brought a discourse topic to the group, and the group investigated it with whatever methods they were using. For example, I was in a group that used conditional probabilities to generate claims about teaching and learning (MAPSAT under Ted Frick at Indiana University). I created a discourse protocol that was then used in conditional probability research and later published; we called it the anonymity study. My dissertation was also conceived in conversations within that RG. For a RG on design under Elizabeth Boling, I studied design discourse and worked on articles revolving around the method of knowledge building that became termed as the instructional design case. Those studies were years in the making, and in each group I had to read some foundational literature in the early years. You don’t have to be registered for credits to attend a RG, but once you start coming, you’ll likely need to come well beyond the end of your registered time in order to finish the studies you started. Some ABD candidates stop attending RG to focus on drafting the dissertation, some continue. Dissertation time is always stressful- some RGs help alleviate that stress by providing access to other students, and the support one needs to keep going.
Participation in a RG is intended to be progressive. First semester as an observer, the second formulating your research design, then collecting data, and finally writing it up. This can, and often do, span several semesters. Oftentimes, universities will require these types of credits taken in consecutive semesters; I don’t believe UT has the requirement, perhaps due to our small size. Typically, I have seen a number of PhD students attend RGs outside their actually registration times. Some for several years, consecutively. My present doc student is on year three of her somewhat isolated research group of 2.
While one can sign up for these credits whenever they want, I would advise students do so later in their program of studies. For my group, I would hope to see a new member have completed ALL the research methods and at least one of the LDT advanced core before registering for these credits. Have said that, it is never too early to attend a research group and get involved. In my own first year I was in a rather large PhD program and there were several to choose from so I attended as many as I could and then made an informed decision. I learned a ton from Charlie Reigeluth, Curt Bonk, Tom Brush and Elizabeth Boling’s groups—even though my dissertation came out of Ted Frick’s group. Some students perform poorly in research group and loose the interest of their peers, flounder, or don’t get much out of the experience. I’ve another blog post for that, called Strategizing Group Research, that offers some of the strategies I saw in various groups that were consistently performing well, publishing research, and getting students involved.
Teaching in the evening, it’s often difficult to find a colleague to observe my teaching. Here I have video recorded a typical lesson in IT 521. This served a few different purposes. (1) A few learners were missing from the lesson and needed to watch it, and (2) I need a colleague to watch it and be able to run it at higher speeds to make the observation task easier. (I can’t imagine watching a whole three-hour class just to write up a peer observation!) I have also always wanted to have a lesson to share for the occasional inquiry. So here it is, week three from IT 521: Instructional Design and Technology as a Profession. The lesson covers a brief overview of learning theories – just enough to keep an instructional designer informed but not overloaded.
I learned a few things in attempting this task. Primarily, I learned that simple video editing software, at least that which ships with the basic windows machine in 2019, is oddly interlinked with photo editing software. This standard video editing software has a limit of about 35 minutes of video time that can be comfortably finalized into a viewable file (mp4). The 2:40 lesson ended up being workable only in 4 different files. Breaking them up provided more user control in the end. I do prefer separate files for sections of the lesson. Excessive scrolling is obviously tedious. Multiple files forces the viewer to open and close different parts of the lesson to take in the whole thing, but I think it also empowers the viewer to get where they want faster.
There is this perspective in education called the deficit model, deficit view, deficit perspective, or some other combination of deficit and some visually oriented term. What learners cannot yet do, or where they fail. It appears in practitioner publications like Edutiopia as well as in scholarly journals. Essentially, the notion frames learners in terms of lacking skills or other knowledge; it foregrounds knowledge deficiencies. It is negative, and it is not an entirely new concept. In the larger picture of educational philosophy, there was once a rage against the notion of tabula rasa (blank slate) which was part of Freire’s theory of banking education, arguing that it is wrong. Learners do not start as blank slates. Everything come from somewhere. It all sounds like mere pontification until hits you in the face as a parent.
My daughter created the image on the right, and I immediately recognized learning strides. I was impressed that the illustration had not happened in school. Of course, my daughter is surrounded with art supplies from my doctoral advisor who is also a close friend, but she chose to use scrap school paper for this one- sketching an idea while at home. She knew this was not for production; rather, it was meant as a sketch, a learning tool. She documented a memory of a trip to Niagara Falls when discussions came up about another trip. Most importantly, she was not instructed to do this learning. My first thought after “cool!” was that if anyone else saw it, they might immediately jump on the inaccuracies rather than the successes.
I think there is more to the realization. Relative to other more grown up fields of study, instructional design is still working on sketches and learning. I think there’s a bit of bad press that might be holding the field back, and all too often it looks wiser to give up in the face of others recognizing our errors. At the same time, we are still limiting our research to things that are meant to appear like drawings other people did. I am less worried about ID learners not being recognized for their value. In fact, they are doing quite well. I do not know I can say so much for their teachers. Are we recognizing our successes and building on them?
There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the prospectus, the proposal, and the dissertation. This may be so because this task is one left to advisement and mentorship rather than formal instruction. An open and critical discussion on the purposes of these documents rarely happens among scholars for good reason. The interpretation of these documents are unique to the research context, and the mentor. Even so, I feel there is much to be gained from an open discussion about the meaning of these documents; I welcome any comments on this. When doctoral students do not understand the purposes behind these documents, their completion may appear like administrative hoop-jumping rather than learning. While I do not wish to dictate to other faculty how to view these three documents, clarification around the purposes allow a mentor and mentee smoother communication, and hopefully less frustration. I have written this explanation for my own doc students, Katie and Sam, and share it here.
The prospectus is a plan to study something. This plan is written down on paper for the purposes of facilitating discussions with faculty one might want on their committee. Writing the prospectus supports the candidate’s muddling through complex methodological and topical areas to form a team whereby a research strategy can be collaboratively orchestrated by the doctoral candidate. Of course, the writing process always helps clarify plans, but that’s not the immediate practical value of the task. If you assembled a team, you had a successful prospectus.
One thing a prospectus is not—an abstract of the dissertation. While sentences from the prospectus may in fact appear in the proposal or even in the final dissertation, the prospectus is not to be written as an attempt to capture a study in its entirety. Rather, the purpose of the prospectus is to start the discussion enough to assemble the team. The team is going to want to know what your plan is about so they can see where they might fit in, and that the topic is going to jive well enough with your life plans such that there’s a reasonable expectation that you’re going to finish the study. Red flags include academic jargon that seems unconnected to the learner’s larger picture of life goals, or text written purely to satisfy the interests of the faculty member. Effectively, you are looking for their buy-in, on your study, not theirs. Assembling a team requires that buy-in, and among scholars, buy-in is achieved only when ideas meet paper (or digital paper, you know what I mean).
The prospectus is not a written form of your dissertation elevator pitch. Instead, it’s a sales pitch and with that, all the subtle intricacies of sales play into it. There are a fair number of subconscious elements at work here, including your presentation evidencing that you’re organized enough and cooperative enough to make this working together experience relatively enjoyable for the faculty member. Having your ideas written down makes them real- both in what is said and how it is said. The prospectus need not capture all perspectives, but it should convey enough to the reader knows why you’re in it and how they fit into your study. There is also risk on the side of the learner that the faculty member does not become invested, and at the same time, the faculty member risks that the student never completes the study. These issues are being felt out in the prospectus process. In real and concrete terms, the prospectus should outline the plan in no fewer than two pages and no more than ten. Having sections mirroring the sections one might find in a dissertation is helpful. These guidelines surely vary among mentors.
The proposal is a refined plan of action. It should capture the conversations supported in the prospectus, yet none of the language that appeared in the prospectus need be in the proposal. There is a common adage that the proposal is the first 3 chapters of your dissertation. After I completed my dissertation, going back and changing much of what I had in my original proposal, I felt this was untrue. However, this did not stop me from telling other people that the proposal was the first three chapters of the dissertation; it’s an easy description to fall back on when time is short and one need not get into a longwinded blog post about the purposes of a proposal. This refined plan of action’s purpose is to support the candidate both in laying out directions, and support the candidate’s self-efficacy surrounding the study.
An approved proposal guides the research process. The proposal should support even the most frustrated dissertating candidate because it is a document that, when approved, evidences that the candidate came up with a reasonable, manageable, and worthwhile plan for study and that plan was approved by those who should be able to foresee any issues that can be foreseen. Think bumper rails. Candidates should recognize that part of the purpose of the proposal is to get the scope of the study under control, and manageable. If you’re bring entertained by collecting and analyzing more data beyond what was in your proposal, it is not likely that such activities will be welcomed y the committee unless you check with them. Research studies can organically grow too large to complete. The committee’s oversight is there to make sure the project does not become too large, or wander into territory outside of the reasonable expectations of a first independent study (which is a dissertation after all). I advocate catching up with your committee every once-in-a-while to stay on track. If we look at the proposal as a confirmation that the candidate has the support of four learned scholars who agreed that the candidate had created worthwhile study that is manageable in scope, then the document should support self-efficacy. The proposal is also to support and scaffold the learner through self-doubt and frustrating times when things don’t go as planned. That leads to the well intended by logically false contract adage.
While logically wrong, there is another adage that the proposal is a contract. A proposal cannot be a contract because a contract outlines what happens when certain foreseen events happen; and unforeseen events void the contract. Unexpected results don’t void your dissertation proposal though. Research is by definition new territory, so not everything can be predicted. Therefore, a proposal cannot be a contract; the logic simply does not hold. However, the adage is a confidence builder for the student because it offers reliability that the student will not be left in the lurch should things not pan out as expected. It is a way of telling the student that if they in fact do what they planned to do, the process will result in a worthwhile dissertation no matter what the results show. Contracts do not plan for the unexpected, but in the context of a dissertation, there are often feelings of self-doubt, and at times, panic. The contract adage works against the panic, even if the adage is false. A proposal is a detailed plan, but no plan is perfect, and contracts are not plans. While contracts are not written for unknown entities, this way of thinking about the process is a good one; don’t bother arguing the semantics here. Just go with it.
In real and concrete terms, the prospectus should range from approximately 30 pages to no more than 100, and 100 is still really long. These guidelines surely vary among mentors. A proposal of less than 30 pages may raise concerns; it would for me. Not because committees measure quality by word count, but rather because detail is so important. The lit review in the proposal is important ground work. The methods need to be spelled out or cited extensively so procedures are obvious. The committee needs to know why you’re going to do the things you’re going to do, and how you’re planning on doing them requires detailed planning that needs to be discussed. A little working of real data goes a long way in playing out the plan; good to have, but it doesn’t need to be in the proposal. Sometimes that data is not available, but usually, there’s a way to get at least a small sample, enough to make that proposal a really good guess. Of course, you can use previous data, but the closer your data is to the data you will use for the dissertation itself, the better your guess will be. You may well see important things that change your analytical plan in major ways. The task of the committee is to help you get to your goal, and without sufficient planning, you might lose a lot of time in rethinking things.
A proposal of more than 100 pages will raise concerns. Not because committee members are getting old and feeble, making it difficult for us to read for long stretches, but excessive writing suggests you’re over planning, or can get sucked into a rabbit hole. It is important to let go of the writing process and submit it at some point. No writing project is ever truly finished, by life does march on by if you don’t submit it.
The dissertation is a show-all-work, independent, original research task. It’s not a magnum opus. And no matter what you have been told, your dissertation does not define you as a scholar. I have also heard people call the dissertation simply a book, but it’s not the same as a monograph. A dissertation must please 4 committee members. Books don’t necessarily have to do that. Rather, a dissertation places you in a field of study as someone who has contributed. It should connect you to the field you want to be in when you finish it, but if it doesn’t, you’re not going to be doomed. I think strategizing the dissertation takes more time than actually writing it. I would encourage all doc students to start thinking about the dissertation from the start of doc study. Big ideas don’t change; it’s the details of how to get it done that change. I came to doctoral study wanting to study the way people learn language because I was convinced that the way you talk has enormous influence on the quality of life that you lead. After a few years of more graduate study I learned what types of language I wanted to study, and some nifty tools that gave me access to study it. My dissertation topic was the same the day I left as it was the day I arrived. The tech I used to do it was not all that important. What I learned was how to do research.
Long awaited conclusion to this dry blog post
The relationships between these three documents are actually not linear, though they may appear so. One need not finish the prospectus to start the proposal. Each of these documents serve different purposes. There are some tricks that help the writing process. For example, for each research question you write, imagine the possible answers and write down what meaning those outcomes would have. This will make writing the discussion chapter much easier. Try not to be too hard on yourself. Make small, accomplish-able writing goals. For me, I had each chapter in a separate word file, and if I wrote a page a day, on any of them, I considered it a good day. I decided to be happy with myself for that day, even if it was just one page. I wrote a page (500 words), I had worked. Of course, there were days where I wrote a lot more, but I found the key was having no days where I wrote nothing. A day where you write nothing, or do nothing, is your enemy. Those days can pile up fast, as can days where you write just 500 words. You’ll find each chapter done in about 3 three weeks.
I also advocate being cognizant of the people skills beneath the dissertation process. How to navigate scholars and communicate with a committee of very different minded individuals is important learning and part of the process. Lastly, the doctoral research experience is not meant to be uniform. All PhDs do not serve the same purpose nor the same learning. It should do what you want it to do for you, and revisiting that at some point during each of these documents is wise. Each new scholar finds value in different places. For some, the people skills are the most important and the most crucial. For some, it is in fact the writing. For some, it is the defense itself. Some PhD’s are pursued to get a job, some to enter a field of research, some to enter a career in teaching. I believe that in all these cases, the dissertation serves as an exercise, albeit a very formalized, careful, and important exercise. In the end, it is training, an education. The dissertation is an exercise in creating knowledge and convincing others who have also consumed a fair bit of related knowledge to agree in the value of this knowledge that you created.
While everyone’s dissertation experience is different, the three stages of prospectus, proposal, and dissertation unify the experience among all scholars. I think most who have earned a PhD will understand what one means by these three documents though they may not actually have the time to explain the nuances, and will often take the easy outs provided by the adages. The misinformation is not borne of malice, rather of trepidation that their experience is unique, which it is. At the same time, I do not believe anyone who actually went through this process knew the differences among these docs when they started. I sure didn’t.
We need more instructional design cases written by those who did not actually do the design, but where to start?
I suggest interviewing the designer. Elizabeth Boling did the same in her case about the Alcatraz cell-house audio walking tour. I have done interviews twice now to begin design cases about designs I did not create, and I share the protocol I developed here. This protocol was originally developed from reviewer questions in an article where I belabor all the difficulties I went through doing my own first design case. Of course, the instructional design case doesn’t begin and end with the interview. A good case will also have a few images of the design, the authors experience of it, maybe a few quotes from others’ user experiences, and the author’s reflection about why they were originally drawn to write the case. But of course, start with interviewing he designer.
Interview Protocol for Instructional Design Cases
- Telling them you are recording AFTER the recorder starts, so you get their agreement on tape
- Explaining that a member check will go out to them prior to the article’s submission for publication.
- Mentioning the time it takes– 90 minutes seems about right in most cases.
- Explaining that the markers and paper are there for exploring, please use them when needed. The notes are drawing from teh designer used to explain their product or process are important parts of the interview!
- This meeting is about the instructional design, not necessarily about the success of the design.
- Most importantly, Thank the designers for participation in this process.
Situating the design context and process:
- What were changes in context which motivated the design? Something must have happened that brought this design about.
- Who was the design team and what were their influences? Can we assume that the different members of the design team had different goals? Was that discussed? How were those decisions made?
- Did you initially intend to have students create a game? What were those key decisions? When did they happen?
- Can you describe the process by which you came to the initial formulation of the design?
- As you reflect on how you created these learning opportunities, what were the pivotal moments during the formulating of the instruction, the ah-ha moments or innovations, that you would want to tell someone else, who might be considering doing something similar for their learners?
Describing the design:
- Can you map out all the parts, especially the invisible ones, which someone viewing this teaching intervention might not see from the game itself? [Point to markers / pencils / paper]
- What is particularly interesting about this instruction?
- If you were to name the instructional design, NOT THE GAME, what would that name be?
Depicting the experience of the design:
- Can you describe the user experience? / How was learning measured, or not?
- Can you tell me about any unforeseen obstacles or aspects of the design that needed revisions that you only found out about after decisions were made?
- Did you try anything out, or consider anything, that was deemed in the end to be a bad idea in retrospect?
- How has this instructional design created complexities or challenges in your teaching? Has the instructional design failed anyone? TA’s, students, not met your goals?
- Have you skipped anything for simplicity’s sake? This can often trip up a design case because often what was skipped may be rationale for design decisions.