Are you on the right path?

How do you know if you are on the right path in getting a PhD? How do you know if your study or your dissertation is "good"? The reality is that you don't know- all that you can do is keep going, one step at a time. You will get a lot of feedback and advice along the way to your PhD, some you will be required to take to continue, other advice you will have to make your own decision about whether to use it or continue in the same direction. Don't let the decision making lead to a fear of movement, rarely is any decision fatal or unresolvable. One step at a time… keep going.

 There is a tendency for many people to become paralyzed in the dissertation process because they look at the big picture and have a hard time seeing themselves making that trip to the end. Focus on the next step, if that seems too big break it down even further. Is writing that first chapter the obstacle? Start with an outline of all the topics you see as being related to the topic. Pick one and start reading and taking notes. Is the data analysis freaking you out? What is the first step that needs to be done? Entering the information in SPSS? Maybe transcribing the interviews? Take the first step.

For many students the freezing in the headlight moment comes when they get the URR review and yet more changes are required. I recommend reading the review then setting it aside for a day. Resist the temptation to start criticizing yourself, everyone has revisions this is just another hoop to jump through. Instead, think of it as a problem to solve. Lay out how you will approach it, and take the comments one at a time and address them. No, you do not have to take every suggestion or comment – but you do have address them. So if you disagree, use track changes and respond to the reviewer why you have chosen to not change the item. Also, realize that the URR may disagree with you and insist on the changes. Is this thing really worth holding up your progress? If you answer that no, then change it, and move on.

Some students get hung up on the idea that their dissertation is "theirs" and they do not want anyone else's advice and refuse to make changes. PLEASE, give up on this idea. It is not "yours" it is your dissertation committee's paper and you are just a member of that committee. Your committee's names will be on the paper as well as yours (check out the Walden library's dissertation database, if you want to see). Their job is to make sure that your paper will get through the process, don’t waste time with ownership issues, move on.

 Trust that you are on the right path, trust your mentors, and keep taking one more step to your goal.

 Lee Stadtlander

Thoughts on writing

For the past few weeks, I have been spending a lot of time writing both article drafts and grant proposals. A few things have occurred to me and I thought I would share them with you. First, the similarities and differences between writing a dissertation and writing professional papers keep coming to the forefront. In a dissertation, thoroughness is a key element, knowing all of the literature and relating it to the project is important. While you need to detail your proposed project, it is expected that you are new to the field and others will catch your errors.

In professional writing, the emphasis is much more on conciseness. While you review the literature, it should be just the essential studies. You want to create for the reader, an understanding of the need for your study. With grant writing, the proposed study has center stage. You must show your expertise by developing a clear description of the research method you will use, and articulate how and why this method will let you examine your research questions. You need to create a sense of curiosity in the reader, and show this is an interesting area that needs to be explored.

One of the most important points in writing a grant is to follow directions. Carefully read the descriptions provided by the granting agency. They will clearly state the areas in which they are interested. It makes no sense to waste your time applying to an agency only interested in children, if your topic is the elderly. Again, follow the directions carefully! If they say no more than 200 words in an area, don't make it longer. Pay attention to your style, it should be professional yet clear to non-scientists. They will not fund what they do not understand.

When you write for a granting agency or a journal article, keep in the back of your mind that you are, in a sense, asking them to hire you. In either case, they have limited resources (whether it is funding or space in a journal); you need to show you deserve to be hired. This means making a good impression, by using correct grammar and format, making your presentation clear and professional. Would you want to give money to someone who submits a messy proposal, with poor spelling and grammar, and does not follow directions? No, because you will be concerned whether they can follow through on the project you are hiring them to do.

Allow enough time with professional writing to put the paper aside for a few days, and come back to it with critical fresh eyes. Pretend that you are the reviewer and look for problems in logic, grammar, etc. Print out the paper and read it, often you will see issues that you missed on the computer screen. Have someone else read it and critique it for you (isn’t that what a spouse and friends are for?). Ask them to look for things that are not clear, incorrect spelling or grammar. Thank them – don’t get defensive, they are trying to help, if they don’t get it – probably others won’t either.

These issues are also in a dissertation: be professional but write for the non-scientist (no jargon), create a sense of curiosity in the reader, follow directions, allow enough time for drafts to let you edit and reedit. Remind yourself that you are becoming a professional; learn the skills now because you (hopefully) will use them forever.

Lee Stadtlander

An Update

It has been quite a while since we posted here, so I thought I would give you an update. We have been busy. We now have a paper from our oldest old study in review:

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: A Mixed Method Examination of the Influence of Patient Personality Characteristics. Journal of Applied Gerontology.

And a paper in review on the lab:

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M. & Sickel, A. (In review).  Research Efficacy, Research Knowledge, and the Student Experience: Three Quarters in a Virtual Lab. The American Journal of Distance Education

We presented posters on the lab at conferences in August:
 

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.

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M. & Sickel, A. (2012, August 10). Graduate student researchers' knowledge/efficacy: Results from a virtual lab. 28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, Wisconsin

I have been thinking about research in general. I recently started working with a colleague on a grant proposal and I realized how integrated research is into my thinking. It felt very natural (and actually fun) to think about a new project in a totally new area. It was exciting to consider the various ways the project could be done and what variables would be interesting to play with.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to make to new researchers. Learning to do research is a new skill, it is something that takes years to develop, you would not expect to learn the piano by reading about it, why would you expect that you could learn to do research by just reading about it? Be patient with yourself, it is going to take time and energy to learn this skill. But it is worth it, if you want to be researcher or an academic; it will eventually be second nature to you and feel like it is part of who you are. And yes, someday it will actually be fun!

Lee Stadtlander

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