We submitted a paper!

We submitted a paper today on our project to a journal! It is:

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M. & Sickel, A., Brooks, E., Brown, C., Cormell, M., Ewing, L., Hart, D., Koons, D., Olson, C., Parker, P., Semenova, V., & Stoneking, S. (In Review). Independent Living Oldest-Old and Their Primary Health Provider: The Influence of Patient Personality Traits. The Gerontologist.

This week Dr. Giles and I are presenting our research at a confeence in Billings MT:

Stadtlander, L. & Giles, M. (2012, May 18). The Oldest Olds' Relationship with Their Primary Health Provider: Wants, Needs and Wishes. Invited presentation, Saint Vincent Healthcare Comprehensive Geriatric Education Program, Billings, MT.

Lee Stadtlander

Summer residency

More news- our poster was accespted for the summer Walden poster session:

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M. & Sickel, A. (2012, August 24). The Student Experience: Three Quarters in an Online Laboratory Poster presented at Walden University Summer Session, Minneapolis, MN.

Lee Stadtlander

More news!

Dr. Giles and I were invited to be the main speakers for a conference for nurses where we will talk about our oldest old data. Here is the info:

Stadtlander, L. & Giles, M. (2012, May 18). Physician Relationships and the Oldest Old. Invited presentation, Saint Vincent Healthcare Comprehensive Geriatric Education Program, Billings, MT.

Lee Stadtlander

Some news

We had a poster proposal accepted to present the student data (the survey portion presented below) at a national conference: 28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning in Madison, Wisconsin in August! This is one of the big conferences on distance education - so we are really excited to share our data.


Lee Stadtlander

Qualitative Student Data

We are hoping to present this info on a poster in Minneapolis at Walden's summer session. This is the data from the student journals

Analyses: In order to qualitatively analyze the 9 students’ journals, week 6 and week 12 journals were examined for each of the three quarters.  Only journals that addressed at least one of the following topics were included: comments on the study, personal insights/ thoughts/ comments on group interaction. No late assignments were utilized. Some students reflected on personal issues in their lives, these were not included in the analysis. The responses were coded and themes explored.

Quarter 1 Themes (training and data collection)

Learning, research knowledge, reality of research, self-learning, time management, excitement, group support, new skills, confidence, flexibility, shared experiences

"This journey continues to prompt me to learn about myself and the experiences I have.  I continue to expand my levels of knowledge." (Student D)

Quarter 2 Themes (quantitative & qualitative data analysis)

Research knowledge, mental challenge, learning, enjoyment of research process, group learning, conference call, decision-making, new skills, awareness of applied skills, accomplishment, aware of lack of knowledge

"I will honestly say that before this point, I had not really thought a lot about the interview answers that some of my participants provided.  Going back and transcribing them made me really think about the answers and what they had in common." (Student C)

Quarter 3 Themes (literature review & journal quality write up)

Awareness & appreciation of elderly, writing, conference call, learning, fatigue, perfection, almost gave up, flexibility, conference call, skills, reduced anxiety, learning to ask questions, help with dissertation, dedication

"I would like to think that my awareness of issues experienced by those 85 and older has increased.  I find myself more conscious of those individuals I encounter on a daily basis.  I feel that I have been able to increase this awareness in others as well." (Student D)   

"My steam is beginning to run out, which is starting to be reflective in my work quality. I have to get over that and keep moving :>)." (Student E)

 Themes over 3 quarters:

Individual growth and self-learning: recognition of self-limitations, did not know how to do things they thought they knew but came up with a plan to solve problems, appreciation for group connectedness

"I suppose that the learning that occurs in the [other] classes is more on a knowledge base and increasing that base.  The exposure I have had through the project is on a number of different levels.  The actual immersion in the process, completing portions of the process and then putting the portions together encompasses other levels." (Student D)

 

Students showed individual growth and self-learning. Many reported appreciating the shared experience of working and learning in a group with a common goal. It was a common experience to report that while they had studied and applied concepts and skills in a classroom setting, the application of those skills in a research setting was more complex. For example, everyone had taken statistics courses, but the application with a real data set was more difficult than expected for the students.

 

The qualitative data demonstrated that with a three quarter interval between data collection and write-up, the students (and faculty) appeared to become fatigued with the process. For example, students responded slower to discussion questions, they were less verbal in lab meetings, and reported in journals that they were tired and stressed with the project.

Lee Stadtlander

First student data

We have some data for you from the student research tests. Recall that students (in lab and control groups) were asked to take a research knowledge and a research efficacy (confidence) test at 4 time points: Before the lab started, after the first quarter, after the second quarter and at the end of project - at the end of the third quarter.

For the research knowledge test, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the total score across all 4 time periods. There was a significant effect of time (F(3, 15) = 15.52, p < .001), thus the means for each of the 4 time periods were significantly different (Time 1, M = 94.3; Time 2, M= 81.7; Time 3 = 129.1; Time 4, M= 131.8). There was also an effect of condition (F(1, 15) = 12.13, p< .05) in which the mean for the lab students (M = 116.64, SD = 2.9) was higher than the control group (M = 101.78, SD = 3.1). There was no interaction effect (p> .10).

For the research efficacy (confidence) test, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the total score across all 4 time periods. There was a significant effect of time (F(1, 14) = 10.2, p < .01), thus the means for each of the 4 time periods were significantly different (Time 1, M = 68.38; Time 2, M= 70.1; Time 3 = 72.5; Time 4, M= 73.6). There was also an effect of condition (F(1, 14) = 6.3, p< .05) in which the mean for the lab students (M = 73.8, SD = 1.5) was higher than the control group (M = 68.5, SD = 1.5). There was no interaction effect (p> .10).

What they mean: Being in the lab significantly improved the students' knowledge about research and their confidence in the research process over students matched to be at the same points in their program, but did not take the lab. They improved as the project progressed (particularly when they were analyzing the data in the 2nd quarter - 3rd testing time).


We continue to work on the oldest old data and the article, although that is going slow due to other work and projects interfering. We hope to have some info on that for you soon.

Lee Stadtlander

Lab Wrap Up

We have now officially ended our three quarter lab and what a busy, full three quarters it has been.

This for me has been a tremendous experience. I have truly enjoyed working with students in a manner untraditional to our Walden work - that is, not with students as my doctoral mentees or as students in a class I am teaching. It has been a pleasure to get to know our students in a different capacity and I will miss it.

I have also gained by working with my colleagues throughout this lab experience. It has been challenging and rewarding to work together towards this common goal and to see how and where each others' strengths informed our instruction, mentoring, and lab execution.

Thank you all!
AES

Last survey

Hi all,
Since we are almost finsihed with the lab, we are asking once again for you to particpate in our survey.  We would appreciate it if you went to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FRDS85C and completed this survey.  We do so appreciate your help with this throughout the lab.

Summary Week 10 and 11

Personally, it has been a busy 2 weeks. My husband had his second hip replacement surgery and since then I had the role of caregiver. He has made a great recovery and is now back to work and driving and I am back to my normal routine. The past 2 weeks in the lab, students have been rewriting, not fun but a great skill to learn!

I thought I would take the opportunity to consider some of the things we have learned about virtual labs over the past 3 quarters. We have learned that flexibility is very important – both for the students and for the instructors. I think everyone must be willing to change the plan as needed, and give the students any additional time and instruction that they need. This quarter we changed the syllabus 3 times, as we came to be aware that the students needed to work on basic professional writing skills.

We have found that conducting the study itself works well online, as long as there are built in methods for supervision. We had students record all interactions with participants which worked well, although it required a lot of time for faulty to review the recordings. Analyzing the data was less satisfactory, it is difficult to bring everyone up to the same skill level in statistics, which I know frustrated some of the students. Writing in a group does not work well! I think if we were to do this again, it would make sense for the faculty to write the paper and have students edit and make suggestions.

Two pieces I would definitely keep going forward: weekly journals and this blog. The journals provide the students a chance to vent and to let us know how they feel about the instruction and learning situation. The blog provides similar background info on what the instructors are feeling and how they are coping with the learning environment.

I believe we have had the opportunity over the past 3 quarters to share our love of research with the students. They have come to realize the excitement of conducting research, getting the data and beginning to make sense of all of the pieces of information we have accumulated.

I have been considering if and how to proceed with this blog. I think we will continue it (at least for a while) and share our studies' findings. We are now collecting the final data from the lab students and our control group on their research knowledge and research efficacy, so we will share our results as they become available.

Lee Stadtlander

Multiple Authors & Merging Work

Writing is tough.

While writing does not invoke fear in me, personally, the way it did at one point (now, the issue is more a question of making time to be able to write) I think it certainly did paralyze me a bit as a student writer. Academic writing involves critical thinking, the ability to hold multiple perspectives accurately in mind at once, the ability to articulate original thought in written word, and of course all while remembering to whom one is writing. When it comes time to merge the written product of multiple authors, it can seem like the challenge has grown exponentially. Our lab students are now working on writing revisions which involve revising their own work and that of peers and this seems to be challenging.

Thankfully, we instructors realize how challenging writing, and writing as a team, can be. For interesting commentary on this, see Horner and O'Connor (2007) who discuss the role of self-regulation relative to writing. These authors nicely highlight that writing is a skill unto itself which requires study and practice. Our Writing Center staff would surely agree, judging from the considerable amount of support offered in their Writing Resources (http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/Writing-Resources.htm). So much so, in fact, that the Writing Center has a section of their web site dedicated to prewriting (http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/325.htm)!

I respect our students for putting themselves out there as authors and think we lab instructors do appreciate how non-intuitive academic writing is. Having to critique someone else's work as a student so as to make decisions about how to edit that work and then produce a document which hopefully has one clear voice is complicated. My suggestions to students in this particular writing situation or who are struggling with writing at all are to: 1) slow down, think and plan your work 2) let the product/end goal be your focus (as opposed to the authors themselves and 3) think about that product from the reader's (i.e. readability) perspective.

Keep at it and remember we all continue to practice our writing,

AES


Horner, S. L. & O'Connor, E. A. (2007). Introduction: helping beginning and struggling readers and writers to develop self-regulated strategies. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23(1), 1-5.

Winding Down

Our project definitely *feels* like it is winding down. Students are working on writing certain sections of the literature portion of the paper and given the changes we have made to the syllabus of late, things feel like they are wrapping up. There is quieter in the lab/classroom and less discourse. Students are starting to process the wrap up via their journal work. This is a mixed blessing, as while it is almost always good to complete something it is also shifting gears and seeing this lab wind down. I can see where it could be nice to have regular lab work with students as it is very enjoyable as faculty, to have the opportunity to work with students in a way different from Walden's standard instruction/classroom and different from the mentoring we do with doctoral/thesis students.

For me, so far, the biggest lessons this lab experience has taught (or reinforced, more accurately) is first, the need for flexibility. As an adequately Type-A person, this is not always my strong suit. This is true too, when I think back about my in-person lab experiences as graduate student, graduate assistant and investigator - working with others on complex shared goals is always challenging.

Next, this lab experience has reinforced for me the need to be precise, clear, and detailed (and this does jive better with my Type-A tendencies). Research simply works better with these practices, in my humble opinion. The combination therefore, of needing to be flexible yet precise - is a challenging one and I think it is safe to say, I am still working on it ;-)

AES

Summary week 9

This week we again changed the assignments for the rest of the quarter. Students expressed a great deal of frustration with the previous assignment of working on a section of the paper. They had to wait for their classmates' sections in order to incorporate them in to the whole paper. In order to address this, we have asked each student to work on the full paper and treat it as their own, not incorporating anyone else's portions.

The goal for the quarter remains to give students the opportunity to perfect their writing and get a feel for what it us like to write at a professional level. Faculty are providing feedback on each draft and giving the students a chance to revise their work. 

Lee Stadtlander

Summary Weeks 7 & 8

As the other faculty mentioned, we have been busy over the last 2 weeks! We attended the poster session and faculty meetings in Miami. Our lab was definitely a topic of conversation! As Dr. Amy discussed we had great comments on our posters. We also conducted a training session for faculty on how to develop their own labs – which created a lot of enthusiasm for the idea! We have had many emails from faculty and administrators asking for more details. We will also be conducting training webinars for faculty in February on developing the labs.

Students have been reworking their sections of the lit review the past 2 weeks. We are definitely seeing improvements in writing and critical thinking in the students. We had a phone lab meeting this week in which we discussed the plans for the rest of the quarter. Students will continue to work on the lit review and the faculty will work on the rest of the paper. We will keep in touch with the students after the quarter has ended and give them the opportunity to edit and make comments on future drafts.

In my travels I read two interesting books that I would like to share with you. The first is:

Cicirelli, V. G. (2002). Older Adults' Views of Death. Springer Publishing.

I read this book because I am working on a paper on the topic. I was struck with the author's great descriptions of his mixed method study and the interesting details he shared on the elderly participants' thoughts on death. His interview questions were different than our former study's, but definitely consistent.

The second book is:

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. Crown Publishing

As an introvert, this book interested me. It is a research based book that will make you understand how the American culture has developed in praise of extroverts. But it also makes you very aware of the need that we have for introverts and their great power in observation and listening. Whether you are an introvert or extrovert I think you will find it fascinating.

Lee Stadtlander

Miami & Our Posters

I don't have a lot to say this week except that we (Dr. Giles, Dr. Stadtlander and myself) had a great time (yes, a *great* time) at the poster session in Miami last week. As Dr. Stadtlander indicated in our lab meeting this past week, both our students and we the PI's had posters.

I was very proud that our students were organized and motivated enough to put that poster together. It was very well received and I think our students did a great job of motivating other faculty to consider working with Walden students in such a lab.
Seeing our students push themselves like this is one of the most rewarding parts of this job.

Nice work ;-)

AES

Thoughts

I realize I haven't posted in a while.  It seems that teaching, grading, dissertations, and life sometimes gets in the way of things I want to do.  "Should's" often get in the way of "want to's", even for researchers.  I have been reflecting on the third quarter of the lab for a while now.  I wonder if three quarter's are too many to keep up the interest in the project?  In traditional research, there is a shorter turn around between each step: IRB, data collection, analysis, etc.  Does drawing it out through the educational piece make it harder to ensure the enthusiasm?  And yet, without the educational piece would students gain as much?  Would the student research efficacy be enhanced if students simply followed direction and did not have an element of trial and error? 
I am at a point where I want to write about our study, yet I want the students to be able to contribute and feel they had a part in the total process.  I think right now, I want to know what students thought they knew about the process and now know they don't.  Our students have taken courses in research design, analysis, and certainly have gotten feedback about APA style throughout their courses.  Is it different when those things must be used, not for a course, but for a journal article?  Does being in a lab change both the expectation of the investigator and the student?
Again, these are just my thoughts..... As I think about these things, I think of ways to measure, examine, and investigate in the future. And each thought becomes another question.......

It's an iterative process, right?

I am not sure how many times I have heard or said this myself, but research is an iterative process. In fact, I remember the first time my mentor stated that to me. At the time, I interpreted it to mean I had done something wrong and this was his nicer way of letting me down easy. My interpretation was correct (I did need to work at something; my submission was not 'perfect'...whatever that is), however I did come to realize that my doing something wrong or not entirely spot on would be a likely recurring theme in research and that I should get used to submitting and resubmitting. Iterations. True, I don't typically get the *same* things wrong that I did when working back with my mentor, but I still need to do iterations. Recently, in fact, I have been working on my part of an article. A colleague provided me with some feedback on my section and I reviewed it, put it away and just now, went back to review the feedback, again. I realized that part of my 'putting it away' was likely due to my resisting seeing areas in this article upon which I might improve. This realization was humbling for me, as I like to think myself open minded ;-) All of this is to say, that these iterations are part of human nature and therefore part of research. Last week (week six) I asked several (almost all) students to resubmit part of their work. I am still waiting on a few students to do so - but was pleased to see the resubmissions thus far that show learning and even a little gratitude for the feedback.

Great job, students!

AES

Summary Week 6

We had to call a halt to our plans for the rest of the quarter. Our original plan was to have the students write up sections of the paper; we would edit and compile them. Things have not worked out well in that regard. Our revised goal for the quarter is to get a quality draft of the intro, literature review, and maybe methods section completed. The faculty will work alone on the results and discussion. 

Here are the key issues we are seeing in the students' work: 

1) We have found repeated errors in information attributed to different authors. Any statements given must be accurate. It is very possible that a given author may be a reviewer for the paper.

2)     There is a great deal of missing information, poorly written areas, and incorrect grammar.

3) Discussions about specific measures/ constructs must include literature only on the specific measure that we used. For example, you cannot have literature that used a health LOC measure in the discussion on our Levinson measure of LOC

4)   Authors' names must be spelled correctly and all info given in references must be correct. 

As a result we are having students fact-checking each citation and reference n week 7; they will work on editing the literature review the rest of the quarter. 

This was actually a very tough decision; we felt that we had made promises to the students to write the full paper this quarter. But we also felt we had to balance that with having a professional finished product. 

As I have been working on the qualitative data this week I am also coming to realize that we have a lot of really interesting data – with the result that this may be a longer and better work than initially anticipated. While that is great news it also raises the stakes, we have to have a really good draft to send off for review.

Lee Stadtlander

Use of Theory

This week, our students are working on writing up the supporting theory for our article as well as posting our research questions/hypotheses.

The use of theory has often, in my humble experience, been a sticking point with students and here I am thinking about my work with doctoral students in the dissertation, as well as our lab students. As Tesser aptly notes '...few of us have formal training in theory...hypotheses are derivations from a more general theory and are often tied to concrete observations. The line between what is a hypothesis and what is a theory is often fuzzy' (Sternberg, 2000, pp. 58-59).

Another idea Tesser puts forth is that of the theory's impact (Sternberg, 2000, p. 59) or as Tesser defines '...the extent to which people use the theory in explaining relevant phenomena' (Sternberg, 2000, p. 59). I am not certain but think this *may* be where students get tripped up in that sometimes, our hypotheses are a more clear or direct test of the theory than at other times.

For example, the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1966) indicates that certain cognitive factors impact our health behavior; specifically, the model states that perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits and perceived barriers directly influence the likelihood of our engaging in a given health behavior, say - quitting smoking.

A direct test of this model might be a study that measures all four of those cognitive factors along with the given health behavior as outcome in a particular population not previously studied - and voila! We have an obvious test of Rosenstock's theory. We can readily see in this example, how the original theory influenced our choice of variables and measures. In fact, this would likely be a replication of many other studies of the Health Belief Model, depending upon study specifics.

An indirect test of this model might be a study that addresses only part of this model - say perceived susceptibility to rare forms of cancer in smokers relative to quitting behavior. Alternately, an indirect test of this model might be one that instead measures predictors of perceived susceptibility with the predictors being treated as Independent Variables and perceived susceptibility being treated as the outcome or Dependent Variable. In either of these instances, we would not be directly testing the Health Belief Model but rather parts of it. It can therefore be less clear to look at theory as having a high impact (using Tesser's framework) when the study at hand provides an indirect or partial model test.

Another aspect of theory that seems at times confusing for students is the need to present both seminal work when discussing the theory at hand as well as presenting the most current research testing part or all of that theory. Both are needed and often I find students in their zest for presenting the most current literature omit reference to the seminal work of the person who in fact created the theory!

My last comment on the role of theory is that while it/the theory at hand is its own unique entity - our presentation of theory ultimately fits within our Introduction (for an article) or our literature review (for a dissertation). This fact is yet another reminder that our research and the presentation of our research (whether in an article or a dissertation) must align...from social problem to gap in literature to the theory that helps organize our take on that gap to our methods, etc...
So we do not, in an article, typically include theories we are not in any way (direct or indirect) assessing. This would not be in alignment with the rest of our paper. Now, in a dissertation we want to discuss possible theories without testing each one - but the purpose of the dissertation is of course, quite different from that of an article.

Hope this makes sense!

AES

Rosenstock, I.M. (1966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 94-127.

Tesser, A. (2000). Theories and hypotheses. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.). Guide to Publishing in Psychology Journals. (pp. 58-80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Summary Week 5

This has been a busy week! We have quite a few students sick and add to that my husband had surgery this week- which means we are a little behind in the classroom. Students have been working on the methods section of the paper, as Dr. Sickel relayed.

A couple of thoughts that have occurred to me this week: the first came as I worked on some of our qualitative data. It is so important as an interviewer to make sure your interviewee actually answers the question that was asked. A number of times we had a participant give a very long rambling answer, but never addressed the question that we needed answered! It is very frustrating to have blanks in the data set.

The second thought came about from a student question about how to integrate multiple studies into a literature review. It is very difficult to explain this kind of concept – entire books have been written about it. Best I can offer is how I do it. First, I always start with a detailed outline – this is my map of where I am going. Then I go through and write down what I already know about each topic. If I know the results from my study, I also make note of that in general terms- to make sure I look up what has been previously done and found in this area. Next, I start looking at the literature (again, I would have looked at it initially before doing the study) and see if I can find support for the points I have made and if there are other interesting info I can add. An important element I have found is to add in the citations and references to the paper as I go – otherwise, I forget where I found things. I look at as many articles as I can that conducted similar studies to mine – add in their results and how my study differs from theirs. I keep reading and searching the literature – even as I go on to other sections of the paper and add info as I find it. I also keep polishing the writing. I try to always get a draft done several days before it is due and read and polish it every day. What do I polish? I try to eliminate extra words and clean up grammar and punctuation. I often ask others to read the paper and make comments and suggestions. It is particularly useful to have someone unfamiliar with the topic read it- they can point out areas that are unclear or that need more explanation.

An interesting book on writing that I recommend is:

Saltzman, J. (1993). If You Can Talk You Can Write

Lee Stadtlander

Methods Sections

This week, students are working on drafts of the methods section for our paper. As I tell my doctoral students, this section of the dissertation (or journal article) needs to be so precise, another researcher can pick it up and run your study for you. It therefore reads almost like a recipe, covering everything methodologically from A to Z.

For example, it does not help/inform another researcher to read the following:

'Participants included 50 students from a local high school.'

Conversely, the following statement is quite informative:

'A convenience sample of 50 students meeting study inclusion criteria was taken from the local high school best replicating the population. Inclusion criteria were: 1) ---------- 2) -------- and 3) --------. The sample was obtained over the course of two researcher visits to the high school. Upon receiving IRB, School Board, and Principal permission (see Appendix A, for permissions), the researcher presented an overview of the study and the requirements for participation during two after-school sessions identified by Principal and researcher as frequented by the majority of students. See Appendix B for the script used by the researcher in recruiting participants at both of these sessions. The researcher then used a pencil/paper sign up process following each afterschool presentation and next contacted those students expressing an interest in participating via email, to check that students met inclusion criteria and to direct students as to how to proceed with study participation.'

Once again, the devil is in the details ;-)

AES