phdchat – Page 5 – techKNOWtools

#phdchat, ATPI, Learning Technologies, LPQ, Reflections

LT Forum Interview – About My PhD Experience So Far…

September 16, 2012August 12, 2019 Laura Pasquini

The LT Forum is a place for students, staff and faculty in the Department of Learning Technologies at the University of North Texas to share news, announcements and updates. Here is an interview I did for them over the summer, that I forgot to cross-post here. Thanks to for inviting me to share my thoughts Jenny Wakefield.

Interview: Laura Pasquini – PhD Learner in the ATPI

« on: June 02, 2012, 01:24:32 PM »

We have many talented doctoral students in The Department of Learning Technologies. Our hope is to be able to interview and showcase these PhD learners here in the LT Forum as each reaches milestones through-out their journey towards their graduation. Reading about other students’ successes may boost that extra energy needed for others to push themselves forward and learning about challenges may help guide others. We also want to spotlight our students so that new learners come join our team and travel with us in the Learning Technologies – a great place to be! [Jenny Wakefield.]Our third interview is with Laura Pasquini, Doctoral Student in the APTI program:

Laura Pasquini – PhD Learner in ATPI

JW: Tell me a little bit about what made you decide to enroll in the ATPI program and pursue a PhD/EdD. (When did you enroll? How long have you been working towards your exam and course completion?)

LP: In looking for a graduate program that suited my scholar-practitioner interests in higher education, I thought that the Department of Learning Technologies at UNT was best suited for my talents and interests. After completing a course in Fall 2009. I decided to join the ATPI program in Spring 2010, as I liked the interdisciplinary approach and learning model that was built into the curriculum. As an ATPI doctoral student approaching completion, I appreciate the ability to study in the field of applied technology, human resource management, organizational change/theory, and educational research while connecting with faculty and leaders in the field. The end of 2012 marks the end of my course work and movement into being a PhD candidate. I am fortunate to be one of the first ATPI doctoral students to complete the NEW ATPI portfolio (instead of the comprehensive exam) by November, and after my last ATTD class with Dr. Nimon this Fall I will be ready to propose my doctoral dissertation and move on to being a doctoral candidate. The tentative plan is to be complete the ATPI doctoral program and graduate around May 2014.

JW: Who is your major professor?

LP: Dr. Jeff Allen is my major professor. It has been great collaborating and learning from one another. I appreciate the ability to work with and contribute to research, publications, and opportunities in the LT department. He has been a great faculty advisor who knows how to challenge and support my professional/academic needs.

JW: What has been the most challenging parts of your studies so far?

LP: Balance. I am a student, staff, and instructor at the University of North Texas. My role as an Academic Counselor/Instructor with the Office for Exploring Majors, Undergraduate Studies supports undecided students with their major/career choices and academic journey; whereas I am often found on campus, late in class, or researching/writing for another project. Besides working on courses, I have found great values in collaborating with other authors on publications, connecting in the field with other educators, and meeting corporate leaders. Besides working on courses, I have been busy with contributing to professional associations and journals with research, publications, and presentations. This year I have taken on the role as the editor for the Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) which is a student-led, blind peer-review open-access online journal. We just published our first issue on May 22, 2012 and I’m looking forward to working with our reviewers and editors on the second issue over the summer.

JW: Tell us a little bit about your journey so far. What are challenges you’ve had to overcome? Have you had any pleasant surprises, aha-moments you’d like to share?

LP: I am originally from Toronto/Niagara Falls, Canada, so it took me a little while to adjust to the climate and the ways of Texas. I have been fortunate to meet some hospitable friends and colleagues who have helped my transition to the Lone Star state. So far I have really enjoyed my PhD journey. I have appreciated the projects, classes, discussions, and, most importantly, the connections with peers from UNT and in the learning technology field. I think that learning is an ongoing process, and developing as a researcher and academic is a continual experience. I have learned to celebrate the accomplishments and milestones along the way, and to be open to any feedback and new ideas I am exposed to along the way.

JW: What presentations have you attended/presented at? Tell us a little bit about one of them. Anything in particular that comes to mind? Advice for others?

LP: I have been fortunate to present research, papers, and theoretical sessions at a variety of professional associations and conferences over the last few years. Some have been collaborative and others have been a great learning experience where I have engaged with participants in meaningful discussions about shared research experiences.

LP: Over the last year I have been fortunate to be asked to share ideas and thoughts around connected learning and social practices for professionals as an invited speaker a few conferences/meetings. Last fall I was invited to talk to the University of Hawaii System Advising group at their annual workshop in Honolulu, HI about “Why Advising Networks Matter” and how holistic, community models of connected advising practices best support our learners. I just returned from Helena, MT where I was invited to be the opening keynote speaker for the Mountain MoodleMoot. During this talk I shared strategies for developing learning curriculum and ideas to support social learning with Digital Pedagogy to Engage. Both talks offered me opportunities to share my research ideas and practical experiences with social, connected learning; but more importantly it allowed me to connect with colleagues to discuss how these ideas can be applied to provide solutions for issues in education.

JW: What publications and/or creative works have you published?

LP: In collaborating with a few authors from our campus and other locations in the US, I have experience publishing book chapters, monograph chapters, and conference proceedings around topics in technology for advising, collaborative learning, and innovative practices for performance and learning. I am currently working on a few manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals. If you want to see my publications, I have current publications shared on my Mendeley account. Besides formal publications, I am often reflecting and sharing thoughts about my research on my blog or podcasting with the BreakDrink.com Student Affairs and Higher Education community on the Campus Technology Connection podcast.

JW: Have you decided on your dissertation topic and if so what was it? If so, what made you decide on this topic?

LP: I am currently culling through my literature review and narrowing my dissertation topic – which should be finalized over the break in coursework this summer. My current research thread and interests are in the areas of collaborative learning environments and personal learning networks, specifically how these networks and environments impact learning, training, and development in organizations. What interested me in these topics was personal experience connecting and learning in both formal and informal learning networks – specifically with peer-to-peer learning and mentoring in professional organizations. I hope to share some insights and values to how alternative forms of learning, training, and mentoring can impact professional development and career growth.

JW: Have you been studying full-time or also been working? How do you feel about combining PhD studies and working full-time (if you did)? What are things to potentially keep in mind?

LP: As I shared above, I have been working full-time as well as working on my doctoral studies, research, and publications. I will say that it is quite busy and challenging; however with some effective time management and organization it is not impossible to accomplish your academic goals. I am grateful to have supportive peers, colleagues, faculty, and family who continue to motivate and push me along my PhD journey. Although it is not impossible, I will say that it takes a great amount of energy, effort, and time to commit to doctoral research and academic professional development.

JW: Any recommendations you would like to share with the rest of us on the journey towards a PhD/Ed.D?

LP: Stay the course. It seems like a long journey to the end of the PhD/Ed.D, but I think that there are some valuable experiences and rewards along the way. Embrace the challenges and opportunities that you have as a doctoral student beyond the course/program requirements. You can help shape your degree and academic experience, so be sure to make the most of it by getting involved, getting connected, and embrace new learning experiences that you stumble upon along the way.

JW: Anything else you would like to add?

LP: Thanks for asking me to share my thoughts about the Learning Technologies department and ATPI doctoral program. For those of you who want to follow along my PhD journey, I can often be found tweeting or reflecting on my blog. Get connected and share your experiences with me: http://about.me/laurapasquini

#phdchat, ATPI

What’s Your Research Methods Worldview?

September 8, 2012September 8, 2012 Laura Pasquini

This is the question we tackled in my Friday night class (Yes. It’s on Friday night from 5:30-8:20 pm = Awesome). #ATTD6480: Research Methods is one of my final courses in my doctoral program designed to help graduate students create an empirical research article and/or develop our dissertation proposal. I am looking forward to it – so far we started to talk about our preferred research methods and potential topics for the semester.

Cartoon image c/o Sheldon Comics

This was our opening activity. We had to read this cartoon and respond to this question: Are you more drawn to qualitative or quantitative research? Why?

My response is that I dabble in both areas. For areas of study and research, I really do need to take a mixed method approach. In class, I identified with the pragmatism and constructivism worldview philosophy for research. In looking around the table, I am fortunate to be the only one applying mixed methods based on my experiences in research, work and collaborating with some great authors. As a researcher, I seek to understand rather than test a theory (postpositivism), and I am usually looking to generate practical, real-world solutions with my research. Here is a quick breakdown of four world views of research from Creswell (2009, p. 6):

Postpositivism Determinism Reductionism Empirical observation and measurement Theory verification	Constructivism Understanding Multiple participant meaning Social and historical construction Theory generation
Advocacy/Participatory Political Empowerment Issue-oriented Collaborative Change-orientated	Pragmatism Consequences of actions Problem-centered Pluralistic Realist-world practice oriented

Where in the world does your research lie? What sort of research methods do you prefer? What strategies of inquiry do you apply for your qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach? I will continue to share ideas from this class and my first official qualitative class (#ANTH 5031: Ethnographic & Qualitative Methods) over the course of the semester. I welcome your research methods, applications and resources.

Reference:

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Islands, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

PhD, Virtual Communities

Actor-Network Theory in Education

August 30, 2012March 29, 2014 Laura Pasquini

Actor-Network Theory has recently been referred to by Law (2007, p. 595) as the ‘diaspora’ of

“tools sensibilities and methods of analysis that treat everything in the social and natural worlds as a continuous generated effect of the webs of relations within which they are located. It assumes that nothing has reality or for outside the enactment of those relations.”

Further research in this theory helps scholars and researchers discover new approaches to a number of educational issues. In considering educational research, with regards to schools, universities/colleges, community agencies, corporate training organizations, and professional affiliations, ANT merges knowledge as situated, embodied and distributed.

Fenwick and Edward (2010) share how ANT challenges a number of assumptions that lie in educational conceptions of development, learning , agency, identity, knowledge and teaching. ANT identifies rich interconnections in both social and cognitive activity. As shared in the book, Neyland (2006, p. 45) has the ability to contribute to educational understanding of:

“mundane masses (the everyday and the humdrum that are frequently overlooked), assemblages (descriptions of things holding together), materiality (that which does or does not endure), heterogeneity (achieved diversity within assemblage), and flows/fluidity (movement without necessary stability).”

For those interested in reading the book in more detail, you will appreciate how Fenwick and Edward (2010) utilize ANT in education as a source of research practices, to consider:

Concepts, approaches, and debates around ANT as a resource for educational research.
Showcase studies in education that have employed ANT methods and comparing ANT approaches in other disciplines/fields.
After ANT developments that challenges presumptions and limitations of ANT research.

Reference:

Fenwick, T. & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Law, J. (2007). Making a mess with method, in W. Outhwaite & S.P. Turner (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 595-606.

Neyland, D. (2006). Dismissed content and discontent: an analysis of the strategic aspects of actor-network theory, Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(1); 29-51.

#AcWri, #phdchat, Professional Development

A @PhD2Published Post: A Book Review is #AcWri Too

June 20, 2012August 19, 2012 Laura Pasquini

This blog post is cross-posted at http://www.phd2published.com/. Thanks for the invite to write, @dratarrant.

For graduate students and junior faculty, book reviews can be a way to dip your toes in the publishing realm of academic journals. Although peer-reviewed articles are the pinnacle for publishing and tenure, I do not think academic book reviews should be scoffed at. A book review is a great way to engage, comment, and contribute on a colleague’s work in the field. More importantly, a refereed journal publication review can be a fun piece to hone your writing, develop your analytic reading skills, and provide interesting insights for your fellow researchers to read.

Image c/o EricLanke

The process of writing a book review encourages academic researchers to engage in the literature. Often, the practices of summarizing chapters and restating ideas provides the book reviewer how to read a book to understand the author’s key points. A great book review will weave the text into the current academic subject.

Here are some general guidelines for book reviews I have seen in academic journals and suggested practices from those who are writing #acwri book reviews:

Read – Check out book reviews in journals that you might be interested in publishing in 1st. See what books are being selected for review & check out the format/style.
Good Publications to Review – Find a book that highlights issues or resources relevant to the field and/or subject of the academic journal you are submitting to
Describe & evaluate– focus on the book’s purpose, contents, format, and authority
Not Just a Summary – Positions and opinions should be supported with a logical argument and review the pertinent literature. Highlight strengths and weaknesses of the publication, and why this book is interesting and/or useful.
Be constructive with your criticism. Remember to be kind and respectful to the author(s). A great deal of effort on the author, editorial board, blind review, etc. has been put into this text. Choose to be constructive with your criticism.
Provide your thoughts on the book – use quotes sparingly. Readers will be interested in what YOU have to say.
Share key ideas. What is the main idea of the work? What does this publication contribute to the field?
Review Your Review – try to read from the vantage point of your audience. Is there too much/enough summary? Does your argument or key thoughts about the text make sense?

Typically academic journals will accept book reviews for publications that have been released within the year that highlights issues or resources relevant to that journal topic, genre, or field. If you are lucky, some journals might even purchase the book for you to review. It would be important to select a text that would offer solutions or directions to the field, and it would be helpful to verify with the editor if the publication would be appropriate to review. Sometimes, journals will give preference in the review process to book review essays that comment on two or more related books

In thinking about the book review requirements for the Learning and Performance Quarterly journal, I took a gander at a number of scholarly sources that published book reviews. Here are some of the common technical requirements* for academic book reviews:

Reviews of publications within the recent year, i.e. 2011 or later would be acceptable now
Include the title, author(s), year, publisher, publisher location, ISBN, cost, book format, and page numbers of the book(s) under review.
Keep it simple. Typically book reviews are between 600 to 2000 words (unless you are reviewing a period or series of books).
An abstract of 150 words or less might be required to accompany the book review.
Draft a short biography and/or contact information to be included at the end of your book review.
*Follow ANY and ALL other book review requirements for your specific journal of choice.

Happy #acwri reading & reviewing!

#phdchat, PhD, Professional Development, Reflections

What They Didn’t Teach You In Graduate School… The #phdchat Edition

June 10, 2012August 12, 2019 Laura Pasquini

I finally wrapped up reading What They Didn’t Teach You in Graduate School during my #summerreading stint. This is the first edition and there is now a 2.0 update. This book is geared towards American doctoral students and academics; however PhD’s outside of the US might find value with these 199 academic hints.

There are a few good hints scattered throughout the book for budding academics and PhD students. Here are a few snippets from Gray and Drew (2008) geared for myself and other #phdchat comrades:

The PhD

Finish your PhD as early as possible.
You must finish your PhD to move up the academic ladder. The world is full of A.B.D.’s.
Be aware that the key danger point in any doctoral program is the one where you leave highly structure coursework and enter into the unstructured world of the qualification examination and the dissertation.

On Writing

Learn how to write clearly.
Limit self-plagiarism.
One of the most useful things you can develop is a pool of research references stored in your computer [or an online storage space of choice].

On Publishing

Submit your papers (other than those you know are stinkers) first to the best journals in the field.
Write most of your articles for refereed journals [not for conferences, meetings, etc.]
As they say in Chicago, publish early and often.
Include single-author papers in your portfolio.
Recognize the delays in publishing.

Appendix A – The Dissertation

Don’t assume that if you are having trouble defining a dissertation topic that the entire dissertation process will be that arduous.
Put a lot of effort into writing your dissertation proposal.
Be skillful in whom you select for your dissertation advisory committee.
In doing a literature search, use the “chain of references.” Begin with one or two recent articles (a survey article helps!). Look at the references that are cited.

Obviously Appendix A, The Dissertation, is on the forefront of my research this summer as I finish the last of my coursework this Fall. Reading this book provided some great insights and motivation to continue to push through. The book was bluntly written and I found it pretty helpful to read honest advice and expertise from other academics in the field. This book reminded me of previous conversations I have had with my own faculty advisor. For those of you who do not have a faculty advisor or another academic mentor in your life, you should read this… and probably find an academic mentor. Doctoral students need an advisor/mentor (or two) who will give us both a reality check and support as we embark on our academic life. Good luck with your journey!

Reference:

Gray, P. & Drew, D.E. (2008). What They Didn’t Teach You in Graduate School: 199 Helpful Hints for Success in Your Academic Career. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.