Contemporary Approaches to Dissertation ...

Contemporary Approaches to Dissertation Development and Research Methods Valerie A. Storey University of Central Florida, USA Kristina A. Hesbol University of Denver, USA

A volume in the Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2016 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Storey, Valerie Anne, editor. | Hesbol, Kristina A., editor. Title: Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods / Valerie A. Storey and Kristina Hesbol, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016012766| ISBN 9781522504450 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522504467 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Doctor of education degree. | Dissertations, Academic. | Education--Research--Methodology. Classification: LCC LB1742 .C66 2016 | DDC 808.06/6378--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016012766 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) (ISSN: 2326-7607; eISSN: 2326-7615) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

256

Chapter 16

Assessing the Performance of a Cohort-Based Model Using Domestic and International Practices Lou L. Sabina Oklahoma State University, USA

Edward L. Harris Oklahoma State University, USA

Katherine A. Curry Oklahoma State University, USA

Bernita L. Krumm Oklahoma State University, USA

Vallory Vencill Oklahoma State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter discusses the successes, strengths, and lessons learned during a five-year international Ed.D. program, which took place from 2007 to 2012 in Belize through a partnership with the Consortium for Belize Educational Cooperation. The objectives of the chapter are to (1) provide a brief history and explanation of the program including an overview of the Belize educational system, (2) explain how the program filled a need for both our institution and the country of Belize, (3) discuss the strengths and lessons learned in this cohort model for international educators, (4) offer a framework for other educational leadership preparation programs that might attempt international cohort-model doctoral programs, and (5) suggest implications for improving domestic practices through faculty and student participation in an international doctoral program.

INTRODUCTION Beginning in 1994, Oklahoma State University’s School of Education began participating in outreach efforts to recruit international graduate students. Outreach work focused on recruiting students who offered potential for success in graduate programs in the United States; these efforts included targeted partnerships with institutions in Indonesia, England, Thailand, and Belize. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0445-0.ch016

Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Assessing the Performance of a Cohort-Based Model Using Domestic and International Practices

While Oklahoma State University (OSU) was completing outreach work in Belize in the early 2000s, the Belizean Ministry of Education proposed a partnership with the university to potentially offer an OSU doctoral program based in Belize. After years of cooperative work between OSU and the Ministry of Education in Belize, administrators conceptualized a doctoral program scheduled to begin Summer 2007. The program included three years of coursework in Belize taught by domestic faculty who would travel to Belize, and three weeks of summer coursework to be conducted on the OSU campus. Belizean students would be required to travel to Oklahoma each summer to complete summer courses. Following completion of coursework, students would have from Summer 2010 through Spring 2011 to complete their dissertations. Support for dissertation work would be provided remotely. This program proved to be highly successful. Faculty and students who participated in this endeavor experienced a rich culture exchange as well as professional accomplishment. Of the seventeen students who began the program, thirteen (76%) completed coursework and dissertations and graduated with a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree in School Administration from Oklahoma State University. Designing and developing this program through Oklahoma State University’s Outreach Department required collaborative planning and preparation by many different stakeholders, both domestically and abroad.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF BELIZEAN EDUCATION The historical foundations of education in Belize can help to provide an understanding of the importance of strategic partnerships for developing an identity of this country’s education system. In many ways, the education system in Belize, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary, reflects a strong European and American influence. In colonial Belize, the education system was modeled almost identically to England’s education system, focusing on preparing children “for the values acceptable to Europeans and North Americans” (Lewis, 2000, p. 12). Children of colonial Belize were sent to England for education; those who remained in Belize were privately educated. Many different religious denominations participated in the initial schooling efforts in Belize, including Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. The disparate religious denominations sought to instill their own individualized standards and expectations based around their specific dogma; consequently, consistent educational expectations were not integrated throughout the country. According to Hitchen (2000), education was “organized randomly by the various denominations in British Honduras replicating the degree of autonomy found among the clergy in the Colony” (p. 197). The first formal school in Belize was founded and supported by the Church of England. Established in 1816 to provide primary education for impoverished children, this school was known as the Honduras Free School (Lewis, 2000). Education became compulsory in Belize in 1915; however, formal education was required for only the primary grades, ranging from ages 5-14 (Mullens, Murnane, & Willet, 1996; Perriott, 2003; UNESCO, 2011). Secondary and post-secondary education remained a privilege to those with the academic abilities deemed acceptable by British standards or those who could afford it. Lewis (2000) noted, “The government did not see a need for compulsory schooling because of the lack of motivation by the ‘subjects.’ … Secondary school was not an option for most children; exams had to be taken to enter a secondary institution” (p. 12). Secondary schooling examinations were heavily biased toward European education. Belizean children learned British history to better prepare them for secondary entrance exams constructed by the British Ministry of Education. European history was emphasized over Belize history in all aspects of schooling,

257


including holidays, school calendar, formation of schools and classrooms, as well as curriculum and set the tone for the foundation of Belize education (Conklin & Fletcher, 1999). Heusner (1987) explained, “The way in which people learned about the history of Belize was mainly through the stories told by the older generations” (p. 6). The strong European influence is palpably evident in that Belize is the only officially English-speaking nation in Central America (Bonner, 2001). Because of this, institutions of higher education in Belize use English as their primary language of instruction. This congruence of language provides opportunities for partnerships with English-speaking institutions of higher education.

PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR AN INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP While previously established relationships with Belize opened opportunities for collaborative endeavors, the process of formally establishing this specific program took time, energy, and commitment from a multitude of individuals.1 Many stakeholders, including administrators, faculty, and students at Oklahoma State University, administrators, department chairs, and faculty in multiple higher education institutions in Belize, individuals serving in the Belize Ministry of Education, and perhaps most importantly, potential students contributed to the creation, establishment, and implementation of a formal program. As part of the established relationship with OSU, the common practice for administrators was to attend a yearly meeting of the Council on Belizean Education Consortium (COBEC). During COBEC, representatives from Belizean colleges and universities meet with outside stakeholders to discuss their program needs and areas for improvement. Three faculty members and one program administrator from OSU visited and attended COBEC in 2005 to discuss a potential opportunity for collaboration. The initial purpose of OSU attending the meeting was to promote a potential master’s degree program that would have met entirely abroad over a 24-month period. However, at one COBEC meeting, Belizean stakeholders expressed a strong desire for terminal certification in the form of a doctoral program. OSU administrators recognized that a doctoral program would require a greater investment of time and more commitment from the University and relevant stakeholders than the originally proposed master’s degree model. Although this program was not OSU’s intention at that time, the relationship and trust that had been built between institutions motivated stakeholders to consider the feasibility of a doctoral program. During the year 2005, faculty members brainstormed different approaches to determine how to best fulfill the needs of both OSU and the Belizean education system. This understanding required a great deal of input from numerous individuals, and the proposed program model was revised countless times. However, these revisions were not unexpected. In their work on international partnerships, Hickey, Achtem, and Nuner (2012) noted, “Development of a cooperative environment with shared expectations among local leaders and international partners requires consistent communication. Even minor program changes can create problems with effective administration of partnership initiatives” (p. 48). Many different stakeholders held interest in the success of the program, and provided their input when necessary. As the program was being conceptualized, another Belizean university was brought in to assist with government relations from the Ministry of Education. The inclusion of an additional partner required even more communication as another layer of complexity was added to the program. Finally in 2006, one year prior to the start of the program, representatives from the OSU College of Education visited Belize to meet with potential students and to discuss logistics for the program. Courses in the program were designed to meet over two, four-day periods, with faculty members traveling abroad

258


once at the beginning of the semester and once at the end of the semester. Also, a course was created, EDLE 6143 – Resources for the Study of Educational Leadership, which was designed to acclimate students to the challenges of doctoral studies and the expectations of the program. Program planners determined that after the first year of studies, Belizean students would travel to Stillwater, Oklahoma, for three weeks each of the next two summers to take classes on OSU’s campus. Travelling to the campus in Oklahoma would provide an opportunity for cultural exchange and for interactions between Belizean students and domestic doctoral candidates.

DELIBERATION OF A COHORT-BASED MODEL AND AN ED.D. VS. PH.D. DEGREE At the time of program design, OSU’s school leadership program employed a cohort model that accommodated learners on campuses in Stillwater and Tulsa. The Educational leadership (EDLE) programs at OSU were primarily structured for students to obtain an Ed.D. with options in School Administration or Higher Education. Most domestic students enrolled in the existing programs were school practitioners. The Ed.D. is geared primarily, but not exclusively, for those students who seek expertise in educational practice. Planners for this cohort model utilized a research based framework. . In their work on evaluating cohort-based practices in learning, Browne-Ferrigno and Muth (2012) found the following practices worked best with adult learner-practitioners in higher education cohort models: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Focusing on learner-centered instructional strategies, Helping students assume responsibility for learning, Building readiness for collaborative projects, and Utilizing learner-centered instructional strategies. These four characteristics reflect the emphasis of the OSU Ed.D. program.

Another characteristic that facilitated the success of the program in Belize is that the Ed.D. program is designed to serve students who work full time. Specifically, the schedule is built to minimize conflict with the daily aspects of the candidate’s career. Belizean representatives conveyed a sense of urgency stressing that candidates needed to remain in their current positions. Belizean partners desired a program that would work around candidates’ schedules to help them obtain terminal certification. Additionally, because of the distance and lack of traditional support conceived in this iteration of the doctoral program, the only way for this program to effectively function was that it be conducted part-time. Students were ensured that courses would be offered one specific day a week, during three semesters each year, and that coursework could be completed within four years. Table 1 presents the course rotation sequence agreed upon by administration at OSU and the Ministry of Education of Belize.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ED.D. PROGRAM IN BELIZE The program officially began in Summer 2007 when two faculty members traveled to Belize for instructional delivery of the first two courses. Because the program was not sponsored by a Belizean university,

259


Table 1. Schedule of courses for Oklahoma state university doctoral program with Belize Semester and Location

Course Number

Course Name

Credits

Summer 2007 – Belize

EDLE 6143

Resources for the Study of Educational Leadership

3


EDLE 6803

Administration in Higher Education

3

Fall 2007 – Belize

EDLE 6823

Educational Leadership

3


EDLE 6853

Research Traditions in Educational Leadership

3

Spring 2008 – Belize

EDLE 6733

Planning and Educational Change

3


EDLE 6683

The Community Junior College

3


EDLE 6753

Historical Development of Higher Education

3

Summer 2008 - Stillwater

EDLE 6603

Organizational Theory in Education

3

Summer 2008 – Stillwater

REMS 5953

Statistical Methods in Education

3


EDLE 6233

Critical Issues in Higher Education

3


EDLE 6583

The Impact of College on Students and Society

3


EDLE 6713

Effective Teaching in Colleges and Universities

3


EDLE -----

Elective

3


REMS 6003

Analysis of Variance

3


SCFD 6123

Qualitative Research I

3


EDLE -----

Elective

3


EDLE -----

Elective

3


EDLE -----

Elective

3


EDLE 6000

Dissertation

3


EDLE 6000

Dissertation

4


EDLE 6000

Dissertation

3

these initial courses were taught in a hotel conference room. In subsequent semesters, however, a public facility owned and operated by the Ministry of Education was provided. The distance involved in this international partnership was mitigated by faculty members travelling to Belize to deliver coursework for one to two weeks a semester. Course material was supplemented through distance technology and online learning platforms. The first domestic courses for this cohort were held during Summer 2008. In preparation, students completed three courses during the previous spring semester (a total of nine credits), an additional three hours above what had been expected in previous semesters. The rationale for this decision was that if students were successful and had completed over a third of their coursework, they were more likely to be comfortable traveling to the United States for a significant period of time during the summer. Prior to their arrival at OSU-Stillwater, students were expected to complete readings and mini-research projects before the first physical meeting of their summer courses. These courses were delivered to students at the end of the semester in Spring 2008 in order to avoid a typical two-month waiting period between spring and summer courses. The faculty determined that students would benefit from remaining engaged without a long intercession before summer coursework began.

260


Before the Belizean students came to the United States for their summer courses, faculty provided textbooks, syllabi, and sample assignments to introduce them to the reading and writing process that would be required in the summer. Preliminary exercises were supplemented with distance technology and online learning platforms such as D2L. While in the United States, Belizean students met for three weeks, four times each week, for approximately 3.5 hours a day per course. As the cohort progressed through the program, the course schedule was modified based on faculty availability. Faculty attrition occurred, and faculty motivation fluctuated from the planning stage through the implementation stages of the program. Adjustments were necessary as new faculty were hired and introduced to the program. Additional adjustments were made based on evolving needs in Belize. For instance, Belize was, and currently is, going through dramatic education reform; therefore, the Ministry of Education requested the inclusion of a specific Program Evaluation course. Provision of this course was not in the original plans, and, because of scheduling conflicts and prior commitments, faculty in the College of Education were not available to teach a course on program evaluation. Thus, we had to look at other campus programs for an appropriate and pertinent course. In the search, we found the perfect course and a willing faculty member who teaches Program Evaluation in Agricultural Education. This faculty member willingly became part of the faculty team that worked cooperatively to meet student needs. During the last semester of coursework, faculty members traveled to Belize to begin the process of assisting with proposal development and preparation for the overview leading to the dissertation. Proposal work began in Spring 2010, concurrent with the final two courses that students were taking in Belize. During this time, faculty members determined that it would be highly beneficial for Belizean students to return to the United States for a third summer to receive additional support and guidance on their overview, dissertation, and the academic writing process. As students completed their dissertation research and writing, they remained in Belize. Each advisor traveled to Belize at least one time during the process to assist when necessary. Also, by 2010, Skype was more developed and Internet infrastructure in Belize was more advanced, allowing students to connect with their advisors on a regular basis for support through the dissertation process.

STUDENT PROFILES Seventeen students were admitted into the doctoral cohort. Table 2 presents information on the thirteen program completers, including degree prior to cohort admission, career position prior to the cohort, position directly after degree completion, and current position at the time of the publication of this chapter. Generalizations (such as “dean,” “assistant professor,” and “ministry of education leadership”) were used to protect the anonymity of the participants. In examining the degree earned prior to the beginning of the Ed.D. program, one must note that 10 of the 13 students possessed a Masters in Educational Leadership. This meant that most of the cohort students had a preliminary foundation for advanced study in educational leadership and policy studies. Six of the 13 students advanced into new positions after completing their degrees, and an additional 3 students (for a total of 9 of 13) eventually advanced to their current, more influential positions. These students occupy positions of influence, and many serve as key “decision makers” in the educational system in Belize.

261


Table 2. Student profiles with education and career trajectories Student

Degree Prior to Finishing Ed.D.

Position Prior to Beginning Ed.D.

Position After Completion of Ed.D.

Current Position as of April 2015

1

Masters – Educational Leadership

Primary School Teacher

Education Officer – Ministry of Education

Director – Ministry of Education

2


National Coordinator for Adult Education in Belize



3

Masters – Secondary Education – TESL

High School English Teacher and Department Chair

Assistant Professor in Belize

Assistant Professor in Belize

4

Masters – Secondary Education – School Counseling

High School Assistant Principal

Chief Inspector of Schools – Ministry of Education

Chief Inspector of Schools – Ministry of Education

5


High School Principal



6


High School Languages Teacher and Department Chair

School District Education Manager (Superintendent)

School District Education Manager (Superintendent)

7


Ministry of Education Officer



8


Assistant Dean at a Junior College

Assistant Dean at a Junior College

Dean of a Junior College

9

Masters – Secondary Education


Chief Deputy Officer Ministry of Education

Chief Deputy Officer Ministry of Education

10


High School Vice Principal

High School Vice Principal

Program Director – Ministry of Education

11

Masters – Secondary Education and Masters – Educational Leadership

Senior English Teacher

High School Vice Principal of Academics

High School Vice Principal of Academics

12

Masters – Reading and Masters – Educational Leadership

Director of Literacy Unit

Director of Literacy Unit

Full-Time University Instructor in Belize

13





STRENGTHS AND UNIQUENESS OF THE PROGRAM The success of the program relied on sound financial decisions to promote success for both students and the university. First, through working with our institution’s International Education and Outreach division, we were able to obtain approval for the equivalent of in-state tuition for Belizean students. The college also provided university housing for students to attend classes each summer. These financial commitments provided Belizean students with a financial arrangement that was within their ability to sustain. The college also provided books for students each semester. Surprisingly, the cost of book shipment to Belize was significant to the extent that shipment costs were equivalent or higher than the price of many of the books. After one semester of courses, our instructors determined it would be much less expensive for each instructor to transport texts when the instructor travelled to Belize to teach. Instructors would then distribute books to students during the first class meeting each semester. This model, learned through experience, was a model that we would later continue with other outreach programs.

262


This program also provided many of our faculty members access to schools internationally. Finally, through service learning travel courses offered every year by our college, students have the opportunity to participate in outreach in Belize, an opportunity that has also continued to strengthen our partnership and relationship. Also, faculty noted that traveling to and from Belize allowed them to understand Belizean culture and helped cohort members to adapt theory into practice in their country. Because the model selected was an Ed.D. program, it was important to align dissertations to practical experiences that were specific to the organizational structure in Belizean schools. The cohort model served as a means to facilitate cultural understandings that would not have happened if coursework had been offered entirely online; relationships were developed that continue to benefit both OSU and the Belizean education system.

PROGRAM CHALLENGES: LOGISTICS AND INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY Perhaps the most significant challenge in program delivery for the Belize cohort was an overarching one: the differences in time and space. In the State of Oklahoma, the standard for time is Central Standard Time. For Belize, the time stays the same all year round. Because of daylight savings time, during half of the year, the time in Belize is exactly the same as in Oklahoma; the other half of the year, Belize is an hour behind. Despite this time difference, it was not the clock that proved to be a challenge; rather, it was the culture of the country and an understanding of the meaning of time. Belizean culture is a product of its history, geography, and political system. Because of its unique location, Belize culture reflects what is commonly known as “island time.” Island time culture is quite different than culture in the United States. While Westerners are consumed with punctuality, timeliness, and efficiency, people from the Caribbean do not always hold the same perceptions about time. Faculty from OSU quickly recognized the need for mutual adjustment of important classroom practices such as class attendance, start time and end time of class, and due dates. This adjustment was, initially, a challenge for faculty at Oklahoma State who had never taught abroad. An adjustment period for the faculty to understand that not everyone views time the same way as the Western world was necessary. Common understanding required explanation and patience until both sides were able to understand the other’s perspective. Another cultural phenomenon that influenced implementation of the program concerned similarities and differences in language. Although in both countries, English is the first language, throughout Belizean history, language has been influenced by a profusion of subcultures including Kriol, Maya, Garifuna, Mestizo, and Native American. Each subculture has introduced its own nuances in the English communication process. For example, in written work, there existed a variety of spellings of the word “organization.” Some Belizean students used the British spelling of “organisation” instead of the traditional US spelling of “organization.” Also, in sentences, students sometimes misplaced adjectives and adverbs by US standards. Lack of access to resources was another distinct challenge faced by Belizean students. Not only was the cost to ship textbooks a challenge, the transfer of the textbook through customs was a challenge as well. Faculty members were questioned about selling books as a business venture, and faculty regularly reported having to explain the point and purpose of bringing a full class set of textbooks to Belize. An additional challenge occurred due to the lack of an academic library in Belize. This problem was not something that initially was considered; however, by the time students were at the dissertation stage, they lacked ready access to the academic resources they needed to be effective in writing their dissertations.

263


Although they could use the OSU online library, the instability of internet access consistently thwarted their efforts in using that resource. Thus, many of the students relied on the resources that were made available to them through their course textbooks in order to formulate both the methodologies and the theoretical frameworks for their study. Another barrier that existed was the wording of the courses and the meaning of “college.” As noted in the literature section, Belize’s compulsory education system goes only to age 14. The United States has a primary, secondary, and post-secondary rotation. However, in Belize, the only educational opportunities for students are primary and tertiary. Because of this difference, the wording of the courses was structured to “sound” like higher education (similar to the United States college system); however, higher education in Belize begins with the equivalence of the American High School. Therefore, although the titles of the courses reflect “higher education” United States course titles, they were designed with an educational leadership perspective with P-12 school administrators and program coordinators in mind. From a management perspective, while three years of planning and preparation were necessary to conceptualize this program, challenges and difficulties were evident. For example, at the conception of the program, Educational Leadership faculty were optimistic and supportive of the program. New faculty hires, however, were not involved in activities that generated knowledge and commitment, resulting in mixed perceptions and cautious commitment to the program. Faculty members from supporting programs, including the research sequence and electives, also varied in levels of support and commitment. Although the cohort model design provided assurance of the necessary number of students for course delivery, securing faculty for the four elective courses and three research courses outside of the Educational Leadership program was problematic. Some outside faculty were very interested in creating and developing appropriate elective courses; others had little interest. These differences caused faculty tension that resulted in questioning of whether or not the program was truly worth the time and effort to sustain. Finally, it should be noted that faculty were not compensated for the final travel period to Belize and any additional time spent working toward dissertation completion. This was not budgeted for in the initial program estimate, and faculty responsible for serving on student committees were not compensated for the necessary effort to assist students. Faculty indicated that in some instances, this took more time and energy than preparing courses for instruction, and noted this would be an area that may need compensation should future cohorts run internationally.

PROGRAM COMPLETION RESULTS AND STATISTICS Of the 17 initial participants in the doctoral cohort, 13 (76.5%) successfully completed their coursework and defended their dissertations. Four students left the program at various times, one after the first set of courses, two after the second year of courses, and one student left after completing the overview and all coursework, never having finished the dissertation. For the student who was unable to complete the dissertation, the lack of direct support in Belize may have been a barrier to completion. The research topics studied by participants varied both in methodology and theoretical frameworks used. Table 3 presents information related to the topics, methodology, and theoretical framework for the completed dissertations. In order to protect the anonymity of participants, dissertation topics were generalized and names of students were changed to numbers. The student numbers (1-13) correlate with the table provided in student profiles also listed 1-13.

264


Table 3. Dissertation topics, methodologies, and conceptual/theoretical frameworks used by students Student

Dissertation Topic

Methodology

Theoretical and/or Conceptual Framework

1

Teachers’ Understanding of Assessment Practices and Data Use in Primary Schools

Quantitative – ANOVA and Descriptive Statistics

Data-Driven Decision Making (Mandinach, Honey, & Light, 2006)

2

Teacher Induction Programs

Mixed Method – Focus Groups; Descriptive Statistics

Building Schools as Communities (Sergiovanni, 1994)

3

Inclusive Education in Primary Schools

Quantitative - ANOVA

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1989)

4

Organizational Climate and Student Achievement in Secondary Schools

Quantitative – Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Descriptive Statistics

School Climate Index (TschannenMoran, Parish, & Dipaola, 2006)

5

Classroom Climate and High School Math Achievement

Quantitative – ANOVA and Pearson Product Moment Correlation

Behaviorism (Watson, 1930)

6

Teacher Self-Efficacy in Mathematics in English Language Schools


Self-Efficacy for Student Achievement (Bandura, 1986)

7

Teacher Certification Effect on Student Achievement in Primary Schools


Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Angeli & Valanides, 2009)

8

Student Persistence at a Community College

Quantitative – Descriptive Statistics and Regression Analysis

Synthesized Model of Student Departure Studies (Chen, 2008)

9

Instructional Leadership in Elementary Schools

Mixed Methods – Observations and Reflections; Repeated Measures Design and Descriptive Statistics

Behavioral Theory (Yukl, 1999); Situational Theory (Hersey and Blanchard, 1979)

10

Instructional Leadership in Secondary Schools

Quantitative - ANOVA

Leadership Theory (Northouse, 2007)

11

High School Drop-Out Factors

Qualitative – Document Analysis, Interviews, Observations

Grid and Group Typology of School Culture (Harris, 2006)

12

Professional Development for Content Knowledge among Literacy Teachers

Quantitative – ANOVA

Communities of Practice in Social Learning (Wenger, 2000)

13

Emotional Intelligence in Primary Schools

Quantitative – ANOVA

Communities of Practice in Social Learning (Wenger, 2000)

The topics each of the cohort participants researched related to practical educational or social problems in Belize and included emotional intelligence, professional development, drop-outs and attrition, educational leadership, special education, and certification and licensure as well as issues dealing with climate and culture. The methodology and theoretical frameworks used reflected those addressed in their course instruction. Although a majority of students in our domestic programs conduct qualitative research studies, many in the Belize cohort used quantitative strategies to address their specific research questions. The students presented their studies at the inaugural research symposium planned by Belize students, OSU faculty advisors, and the ministry of education, and directed and executed by the Belize graduates. At this symposium held in Belize City, over 550 educators representing all the Belize districts convened to hear and discuss the graduates’ research and the relationship to Belizean educational practice.

265


SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For this chapter to have significance and meaning for readers from other institutions, our experience must be presented in a manner that presents a framework that can be adjusted and augmented based on organizational structure, human capital, and financial resources. Our managerial takeaways were that having dedicated, full-time faculty to engage in the initial stages of recruitment of students in Belize was the most significant factor in the program’s success. Also, having university governance willing to engage with the Ministry of Education in Belize helped us understand their mission and adjust our program around the needs of their country’s education system. Next was the willingness to make adjustments as the program went on. This came in the form of the international book transfer from domestic faculty to international students and the importance of faculty presence over the summer months to support international students who are in the United States for a limited time. Finally, the area that might end up having the most impact for our institution long-term is if we are able to use our Ed.D. graduates to teach with and for us as part of a new graduate program. This will be our first attempt at utilizing our graduates as international college instructors, but this will also enable us to continue our partnership with their ministry of education and collaborate on research and practice. Our final thoughts, provided in list form in Figure 1, are of our seven most important learning experiences from our experiences in the program. These are the main takeaway messages that can be transferred to other graduate institutions considering establishing international partnerships. Figure 1. Key takeaway messages for other institutions and their doctoral programs

266


Lesson #1: Cultural understanding and theory application. Faculty found that the most important learning experience related to the importance of understanding Belize culture and helping students apply theories and principles to their specific contexts. Most of the theories that faculty in school leadership encounter have been developed, tested, and refined in the United States. Application of those theories to other cultures implies a broad conception of educational context, taking into consideration work environment, facilities, and space as well as the interpersonal, social, and organizational settings in which educational practice occurs. Faculty teaching abroad must recognize and understand the importance of cultural application in order to understand ways to relate theories established domestically to a different context abroad. Lesson #2: Importance of faculty member influence. One of the things to consider in creating an outreach program overseas is the faculty members who will inevitably teach the courses. In reviewing the theoretical frameworks and the methodologies used for each dissertation, we found that 11 out of 13 dissertations utilized quantitative methods such as descriptive statistics, regression, and ANOVA as the primary methodology. This possibly is because the faculty member responsible for teaching the methodology courses was OSU’s primary statistics teacher. Sequencing of coursework and faculty may also have influenced student research decisions. One of the educational leadership faculty members who taught the initial courses in the program has a research focus of school and organizational culture; 3 of the 13 dissertations used his framework for their methodology. In this case, because the students did not have much “choice” in who their instructors were, they were bound to the methodology and theoretical frameworks used by the faculty members who were willing to teach and work with them. A takeaway message from this experience is that when developing a cohort abroad, program coordinators should do the best they can not only to involve as many faculty as possible, but also to provide international students with a broad base of methodological and theoretical frameworks to allow them to have choice. This is a limitation of international cohort models, as this may not necessarily be feasible based on scheduling, time commitment, or faculty willingness to participate. Also important to note is that student perceptions of their instructors can impact their research choices as well. Students may form a working relationship with or affinity for a faculty member; this could influence choices of research topic and/or methodology. Lesson #3: “Not in Oklahoma anymore”. Despite the fact that the faculty in the program possess terminal degrees and were considered “experts” in their respective fields in both teaching and research, faculty “were not in Oklahoma anymore.” This meant that although faculty members were considered authorities on their subject matter; they had to adjust to being visitors in a foreign land. Some faculty indicated spending time researching the culture and customs of Belize prior to visiting; others preferred cultural immersion without prior research to maximizing their initial experience. Sometimes, entering a new country without any prior dispositions can allow for travelers to form their own judgments, not rely on ones heavily influenced by the media or others.

267


In terms of teaching internationally, to be “not in Oklahoma anymore” can require a tremendous adjustment period. The first time traveling to teach abroad, faculty members must be cognizant of the culture surrounding them and do their best to understand it to better serve their student population. Technology may be different; campus infrastructure may be different; something as simple as restroom access can be different; however, faculty must remember that the number one goal of the experience abroad is to teach. Because instructional space was not discussed prior to arrival, our faculty taught the first set of courses in a hotel conference room; this added complexity to faculty members’ adjustment to the challenges of being in a different country and teaching a different population of students. Partnership with the Ministry of Education rather than a particular university meant the Ministry had to assume responsibility for supplying classroom space and necessary resources. This took an additional semester to finally come to fruition. Lesson #4: Human capital/resources/energy. The importance of human capital to develop programs overseas cannot be understated. In order for the program to be successful, support must be provided from both the domestic institution and the host institution abroad. This includes, but is not limited to the following: • • • • • • •

Accommodations for faculty when traveling internationally. Accommodations for students traveling to the host institution in the United States. Financial support from leadership at both the host and supporting institution. Recruitment of students to participate in the program. Dedicated staff to arrange flights and ensure safety while abroad. Consistency among faculty and staff in the program to ensure sustainability should organizational turnover occur. Course release time while traveling abroad, which causes limited access to faculty for domestic students.

All seven of the above-mentioned bullets have three things in common: time, people, and money. For an institution to embark on an international partnership, time, people, and money must work in conjunction with each other. Failure in one of the three domains will cause the partnership to fail from the beginning. In the case of our partnership, the period between its inception and completion included two new deans for the college, multiple changes in faculty members, and structural changes to the college in general that could have impacted the end results of the partnership. A capital commitment must be made up front and promises must be made from both parties to honor that commitment until the intended completion date. Lesson #5: Consider elective courses carefully. The course rotation used for the program was nearly perfect. With the exception of the Ministry of Education requiring a program evaluation course after the course sequence had been finalized, the selected courses perfectly aligned with the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program. However, the major challenge in this partnership came in the form of elective coursework. Because faculty were traveling abroad to teach the students, this required faculty to travel abroad to teach elective coursework

268


as well. Students had the option of distance-learning and online coursework; however, many preferred to take courses with their cohort throughout the program. For institutions pursuing a potential strategic partnership, this is a tremendous takeaway. Elective courses abroad may be limited to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The faculty willing to travel abroad to teach them, The topics that the willing faculty want to teach, Access to online and distance learning mediums, and Dedication level of traveling faculty.

Lesson #6: Impact of international travel. Much like transcultural application is important to make adaptations and accommodations to popular theory, international travel can have a direct impact on how faculty resume their domestic appointments. Understanding the approaches to education in other countries can allow for comparative research in education, increased opportunities for collaboration between institutions, and non-idealized perspectives on domestic education. Much has been written on the globalization of education over the last two decades, and experiences such as this allow faculty members to become more global and institute those practices in their courses. There can be challenges with international travel as well; problems such as jet lag, food poisoning, and difficulties with customs such as those experienced both by Belizean students traveling to OSU and faculty traveling abroad. The use of a cohort model in this circumstance was a tremendous source of support. Our Belize students had peers who were able to help them with the travel and adjustment period, and faculty built relationships with one another that provided them with support as well. Lesson #7: Succession planning. Perhaps the most important application to long-term sustainability of an international cohort is in creating viable opportunities for succession planning. A deliberate effort to build relationships internationally can lead to: 1. Faculty who are able to teach courses in a program, 2. Faculty who are able to serve on future dissertation committees, and 3. Faculty who are able to recruit students to participate in future cohorts. As this chapter is included in a book focused on the use of a cohort model in graduate studies, the model itself may be the most pertinent concept for faculty members at other institutions. Economically, educating the students to be educators themselves will reduce overhead at the institutional level both domestic and abroad and allow for support consistent with the domestic organization’s mission and vision to be available to students abroad. This of course requires the international faculty to be talented and capable scholars, not just program graduates. Students with “high potential” can be utilized to teach in forthcoming graduate programs in Belize. Once the program begins, two or three of the program graduates will be asked to teach a course or two in the program, which should only help with transcultural application for future students.

269


CONCLUSION The model employed by OSU’s School Leadership program is one that can be followed and built upon by other programs planning for a cohort-based model for graduate studies. Relationships with stakeholders are vital in the formation and start of any program. Many different stakeholders shared their opinions with OSU administration and faculty. The information they shared was considered prior to arriving at a final model suitable for students. Because of the layers of relationships formed, partnership agreements (especially internationally) do take time to conceptualize, outline, revise, and initiate. This process occurred two-to-three years before the first course began, with the year prior being many last-minute changes in order to recruit additional students and meet the needs set forth by representatives from the university in Belize and their Ministry of Education. Also, faculty members must be amendable to change in designing a program of this nature. Of the initial faculty members who were slated to teach in the program, more than half did not teach the courses they were designated to teach when the course rotation was designed in 2006. OSU needed faculty members who were flexible and able to adapt to changes as well as teach on very short notice to meet the needs of the students. Overall, while the program was successful and can be a model for future programs, universities must know in advance the time commitment, personal commitment, and financial commitment to implement an international graduate program.

REFERENCES Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined community in anticolonial nationalism. In A. Conklin & I. Fletcher (Eds.), European imperialism: 1830-1930 (pp. 205-212). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1999. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006 Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 PMID:2782727 Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. (2003). Doctoral education in education: Summary of issues, recommendations, annotated bibliography. Author. Chen, R. (2008). Financial aid and student dropout in higher education: A heterogeneous research approach. In Higher Education (pp. 209–239). Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6959-8_7 Conklin, A., & Fletcher, I. (1999). European imperialism: 1830-1930. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company. Harris, E. L. (2006). Mary Douglas’s typology of grid and group. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research, 129-154. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4(4), 418–428. doi:10.1177/105960117900400404

270


Heusner, K. (1987). Belizean nationalism: The emergence of a new identity. Belizean Studies, 15(2), 3–24. Hickey, W., Achtem, J. M., & Nuner, J. (2012). International Partnerships: A model for educational organizations. School Leadership, 47. Hitchen, P. (2000). State and church in British Honduran education, 1931-1939: A British colonial perspective. History of Education, 29(3), 195–211. doi:10.1080/004676000284328 Lewis, K. (2000). Colonial education: A history of education in Belize. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Mandinach, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven decision making. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Mullens, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (1996). The contribution of training and subject matter knowledge to teaching effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 139–157. doi:10.1086/447369 Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Perriott, L. (2003). Child Labour And Education In Belize. A Situational Assessment. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. (2007). Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 560–562. doi:10.3102/0013189X07313150 Tschannen-Moran, M., Parish, J., & DiPaola, M. (2006). School climate: The interplay between interpersonal relationships and student achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 16(4), 386. UNESCO. (2011). Belize: World data on education. Retrieved April 24th, 2015 from http://www.ibe. unesco.org/en/services/online-materials/world-data-on-education/seventh-edition-2010-11.html Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002 Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Belize: A country on the Eastern Coast of Central America; of note, Belize is the only country in Central America with English as the official national spoken language. Cohort: A group of people working together to complete common goals; in this case, a group of doctoral students taking the same courses at the same time in an effort to complete their doctoral requirements together.

271


Ed.D.: Doctorate of Education; a terminal doctoral degree primarily obtained by practitioners of education vs. researchers. Hybrid Course Delivery: A mode of course delivery where part of the coursework is done face-toface through traditional course delivery and the other part of the coursework is conducted virtually online. Qualitative Methodology: Using interviews, field work, case studies, or observational techniques to complete research. Quantitative Methodology: Using mathematical, statistical, or computational techniques to complete research. Succession Planning: The act of preparing internal people for future leadership positions through training and professional development; in this case, preparing future college educators through their performance as students in the doctoral program.

ENDNOTE

1

272

The authors wish to acknowledge those who played vital role in ensuring this cohort program was successful. These important individuals (alphabetical order) included Kathryn Castle, Minister of Education Patrick Faber (Belize), Adrienne Hyle, Jesse Mendez, Marumba Mwavita, Ken Stern, Steve Wanger, Qiuying (Lydia) Wang.