EDER 708.01 Collaboratory of Practice II: Post-Secondary Leadership

February 15, 2017

U of C logo - 2015I usually post copies of my course outlines here on the blog, both for current students and for future ones. I realized that I forgot to post this earlier, so I am adding it now. This winter I have the pleasure to work with an awesome cohort of students specializing in post-secondary leadership. Here’s what the course is about:

Course Description:

Collaboratories of Practice represent a fusion of two important developments in contemporary research: communities of practice and collaboratories.  A collaboratory is a new-networked organizational form involving structured experiences of authentic, real-world practice that serve as sources of active inquiry and professional learning.  Using a studio or “collaborative laboratory” learning design, this course facilitates the application of knowledge in real world settings and to investigate and learn from inquiry in the field.

The goal of this second collaboratory is to promote critical inquiry that addresses high-leverage problems of practice related to teaching, learning, and leading in order that service and collaboration among colleagues and the professional communities can be enhanced.  It will provide students the opportunity to critically apply theoretical and technical knowledge, to develop and refine professional skills, and to integrate theoretical, research, and practical knowledge through a focus on data collection and analysis.

Learner Outcomes:

By the conclusion of this course each learner will:

  1. evaluate and select a research methodology to address the research questions.
  1. determine a setting, sample and data sources applicable to the research problem and purpose.
  2. develop methods of data collection and data analysis to address the research problem and purpose within the ethical requirements of the Research Ethics Board.
  3. write a draft Research Methods and Methodology section for an EdD Research Proposal.

Throughout this course each learner will:

  1. contribute to an online scholarly community;
  2. provide constructive feedback on colleagues’ work in collaboratory (studio) groups and incorporate feedback into one’s own work; and
  3. develop and enhance scholarly writing skills through ongoing cycles of feedback from peers, the instructor and the supervisor.

Here’s a copy of the course outline: eder_708-01_l01_eaton_w2017-final-approved

____________________________________________________

Share this post: Course outline EDER 708 – CoLaboratory of Practice https://goo.gl/m5DH99

This blog has had over 1.4 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!


How to conduct focus groups: Free online resources for researchers

February 6, 2017

I have been putting some resources together for graduate students on how to conduct focus groups. Here are over a dozen freely available online resources on how to plan, implement, record and analyze focus groups:

  1. Dawson, S., Manderson, L., & Tallo, V. L. (1992). The focus group manual. Retrieved from http://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/125-10840.pdf
  2. Education Training Services. (n.d.). Focus Group Planning Checklist. Retrieved from http://www.etr.org/cisp/access-resources/focus-areas/organizational-development/focus-groups-planning-checklist-pdf/
  3. Elliot & Associates. (2005). Guidelines for conducting a focus group. Retrieved from https://assessment.trinity.duke.edu/documents/How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf
  4. Family Health International. (n.d.). Qualitative focus groups: A data collector’s field guide. Retrieved from https://sa-assessment.uoregon.edu/Portals/0/focusgroups1.pdf
  5. Com. (n.d.). Moderator Check List to Conduct Focus Groups or Depth Interviews. Retrieved from http://www.focusgrouptips.com/conduct-focus-groups.html
  6. Harrell, M. C., & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Training manual: Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.mbamedicine.activemoodle.com/mod/resource/view.php?id=486
  7. Jordan Civil Society Program (CSP). (2012). How to engage your stakeholders in designing, monitoring and evaluating your Programs: A step-by-step guide to focus group research for non-governmental organizations Retrieved from http://staff.estem-uc.edu.au/taipham/files/2013/01/A-Step-by-Step-Guide-to-Focus-Group-Research.pdf
  8. Kielman, K., Cataldo, F., & Seeley, J. (2012). Introduction to qualitative research methodology: A training manual. Department for International Development (DfID). Retrieved from https://rbfhealth.org/sites/rbf/files/Introduction%20to%20Qualitative%20Research%20Methodology%20-%20A%20Training%20Manual.pdf
  9. Modesto, T. S. (Ed.) (2013). Preparing your dissertation at a distance: A research guide. Virtual University for the Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Centre for Distanced Education (CDE) – (SADC-CDE). Retrieved from http://www.sadc.int/files/3713/7821/2867/Dissertation_PDF.pdf
  10. Reilly, L. (2013). Training handbook: Organizing and facilitating focus groups. Alexandria: VA. National School Boards Association. Retrieved from https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/05_PET_FocusGroups_Handbook.pdf?cVFz.heuGUiKZnO.caQz8Qjftx7AV9Fk
  11. Shallwani, S., & Mohammed, S. (2007). Community-based participatory research: A training manual for community-based researchers. Retrieved from http://www.livingknowledge.org/fileadmin/Dateien-Living-Knowledge/Dokumente_Dateien/Toolbox/LK_A_Training_manual.pdf
  12. Temple University. (2004). Module III: Qualitative data: Focus group tools. Rapid policy assessment and response. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/phrhcs/rpar/tools/english/Module%20III_tools.pdf.
  13. Temple University. (2004). Module III: Qualitative data: Focus groups: Training materials. Rapid policy assessment and response. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/phrhcs/rpar/tools/english/Module%20III_training.pdf.
  14. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Focus group check list. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/focus_group_checklist.doc

I’ll update this list as I find more resources.

____________________________________________________

Share this post: How to conduct focus groups: Free online resources for researchers http://wp.me/pNAh3-1M5

This blog has had over 1.4 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!


New research project: Student learning in synchronous online classes

January 23, 2017
Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Are you involved with online learner as a student or an educator? Have you ever wondered how effective those real-time synchronous (webinar) sessions are for students?

A couple of colleagues and I were wondering the same thing, so we set up a research project to study it.

The primary research question guiding this inquiry is:

  1. How do online synchronous sessions support student learning in professional graduate programs engaging in research active opportunities for scholarship of the profession?

Secondary research questions include:

  1. To what extent do online synchronous sessions impact student learning in researching authentic problems of practice through distance delivery courses?
  2. How do the online synchronous sessions align with the learning outcomes for research design courses?
  3. What signature pedagogies make for successful learning during online synchronous sessions?

Check out our full research brief here:

Eaton, S. E., Brown, B., & Schroeder, M. (2017). Student learning in synchronous online classes: Research project brief. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51792 doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.29667.55844

We are grateful to the Office of Teaching and Learning, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, who awarded funding for this project under the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grant, 2016-2017.

____________________________________________________

This blog has had over 1,000,000 views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!


Action-Based Research (EDER 701.01)

December 16, 2016

I am thrilled to be teaching a doctoral level course on action research in the Winter 2017 term.

Course Description:                                                                              

This course is an introduction to the rich intellectual and moral traditions, ideas, and approaches of action research, intended to provide participants with knowledge and skills related to the design, implementation, critical reflection, and evaluation of action research. The course will be theoretically grounded as professional action research in educational contexts, considering the contextual and sociopolitical aspects of action research.

Learner Outcomes:

  1. Describe, compare and contrast major ideas in the scholarly literature on action-based research.
  2. Describe, compare and contrast various forms of action-based research.
  3. Engage in critical analysis of the origins, history, epistemological, and ontological underpinnings of action
  4. Examine current trends and issues in the design, implementation, and interpretation of action research in education.
  5. Design praxis-based action-oriented research.
  6. Actively contribute to a knowledge building community.
  7. Offer constructive feedback on colleagues’ work and incorporate feedback into one’s own work.

Required Texts:

Hinchey, P. (2008). Action research primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis.

Additional Recommended Readings:

Hendricks, C. (2016). Improving schools through Action Research: A reflective practice approach (4th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

McNiff, J. (2010). Action research for professional development: concise advice for new action researchers. Poole: September Books.

McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McNiff, J. (2016). You and your action research project (4th. ed.). London: Routledge.

Mertler, C. A. (2013). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Noffke, S. E., & Somekh, B. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. DOI: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.4135/9780857021021

Willis, J. W. (2014). Applied research in education and the social sciences: Action research: Models, methods, and examples. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Check out a full copy of my course outline: eder-701-01-l01-w2017-eaton-approved


English for All: Technology in English at The White House

December 15, 2016

On November 29, 2016 I was one of approximately 30 participants invited to The White House in Washington, D.C. to take part in the English for All Technology in English event. It was an amazing event that brought together thought leaders from academia, government and industry.

Here’s an album of photos taken by an official U.S. Department of State photographer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/exchangesphotos/albums/72157677134648376

You can check out my complete report here: white-house-report


Designing Synchronous Online Interactions and Discussions

May 17, 2016

IDEAS 2016: Designing for InnovationA few weeks ago I co-presented a session at the University of Calgary’s IDEAS 2016 conference. This year the theme was “Designing for Innovation”. My colleagues, Barb Brown and Meadow Schroeder and I presented on how to effectively design synchronous sessions for e-learning.

The three of us are all award-winning educators, and each has her own approach to how we design and deliver real-time sessions via Adobe Connect in our classes. We offered ideas and tips on what we do and how we do it. Our paper has been included in the conference proceedings, which have just been released. Here’s a link to our paper:

Brown, B., Schroeder, M., & Eaton, S.E. (2016, May). Designing Synchronous Online Interactions and Discussions. In M. Takeuchi, A.P. Preciado Babb, & J. Lock. IDEAS 2016: Designing for Innovation Selected Proceedings. Paper presented at IDEAS 2016: Designing for Innovation, Calgary, Canada (pg 51-60). Calgary, Canada: Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51209

___________________________

Here’s a quick link so you can send this post to a friend:

Designing Synchronous Online Interactions and Discussions http://wp.me/pNAh3-1Ks

____________________________________________________

This blog has had over 1,000,000 views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!


12 Phrases to Avoid in Your Academic Research Papers

January 18, 2016
Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of patrisyu at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Over and over again I see these phrases in research papers. Every single time I ask students to consider an alternative. Here are a dozen phrases to eliminate in your academic writing and why:

#1: I hope that…

#2:  I believe that…

#3: I feel that…

#4: In my opinion…

Research is not concerned with what we feel, believe or hope. It is also not concerned with our opinions. Research is about posing a substantive question that merits an in-depth investigation and  providing credible evidence to address that question. These phrases may work in reflection papers or journals, but less so in research writing. Omit these touchy-feely phrases and focus on the business of providing evidence to support your discussion.

#5: Clearly…

#6: As you can clearly see…

#7: As this clearly demonstrates…

This can come across as defensive. It may seem like you are implying the reader is an idiot if he or she do not agree with you. Even if you feel that way, refrain from letting the reader know, as it will undoubtedly annoy him or her.

#8: As stated previously…

#9: As I have already mentioned / pointed out/ stated…

#10: As already noted in a previous section of this paper…

These phrases can sound condescending. I have yet to see a case where these phrases (and the remainder of the sentence that follows) add anything useful to the discussion. Keep your writing precise and pithy. Avoid repeating yourself.

#11: The only conclusion is…

#12 The only logical conclusion is…

This can sound arrogant, defensive or both. The underlying message is that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile. It makes it sound like you flat out reject the possibility that there could possibly be any other conclusion, which is rarely (if ever) a good idea in research. (Remember the Copernican Revolution.)

Instead of using phrases like these that can make you sound arrogant or defensive (even when that is not your intention), focus instead on writing in a pragmatic and straightforward way that lets the evidence speak for itself.

___________________________

Here’s a quick link so you can send this post to a friend:

12 Phrases to Avoid in Your Academic Research Papers

https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/12-phrases-to-avoid-in-your-academic-research-papers

____________________________________________________

This blog has had over 1.4 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!


%d bloggers like this: