The weekend before I went to Tuscaloosa for my second meeting with Dr. Major (Tuesday, July 8), I searched for more relevant theories, theoretical frameworks on student engagement to apply in my research. I took her blogged advice to use ERIC in a certain way by using the advanced search. I found more theories, but I still unconvinced that I found THAT theoretical framework.
I could not exactly describe how I felt on the drive to T-town, I was mentally still trying to find that perfect theoretical framework. I did not want to show up unprepared or empty-handed. Never mind that I did type up a page or two of questions to go over in the meeting, I still did not have a theoretical framework.
Once I settled in for the meeting in her office, I started by declaring I needed help figuring out which framework to use. I pulled out several options (from articles printed out). Dr. Major encouraged me to talk it out, to figure out what is this ONE thing I want to know. In response to my indecision due to wanting to do multiple angles of doing my research, she said that I can always do others in future research. I conceded with that and moved on to convey my feelings of how I really want for the students to see the value of writing, to see how writing helps them learn. We went back and forth about this, between student engagement, active learning, motivation, and so on.
She brought up one of the theories I mentioned in our earlier correspondence, Fink's taxonomy on learning. Initially she disregarded that because it was not about student engagement. But during this meeting, the more I talked about student learning from writing, I felt a sense of "excitement" or "recognition" when she did confirm that Fink's taxonomy would be ideal. And also she recommended Barkley's double helix on student engagement with motivation and active learning. Then she went back to Fink's taxonomy on significant learning.
The more we centered our agreement on how Fink's taxonomy on significant learning fit with what I have in mind for my research, the more peace I felt. It was not exactly a thundering boom of "this is it!" but I did feel peace and a sense of rightness for finally having a theoretical framework to go with. Dr. Major agreed that it was time for me to move forward in my dissertation progress and Fink's taxonomy was a good choice (to allay my concerns that Fink's taxonomy was too easy, too typical to go with).
Now I needed to change the research topic from "Exploring first year students' perceptions on writing pedagogy as a student engagement tool" to "Exploring first year students' perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning."
Now having established my theoretical framework decision, I then asked her about how to get my committee together, to get the IRB approval quickly, and the timeline to get my dissertation done.
I had wanted to get the IRB approval before I begin teaching for Fall 2014, yet after discussing my "pre-plans" with Dr. Major, I could not simply begin my data collection without having the proposal approved by the committee before submitting the IRB form for approval. None of the pre-dissertation data would be admitted, but I could use some quotes and experience as personal communication only.
After an hour and half, the meeting was productive and encouraging. I was glad to have some details and plans ironed out. Upon my return home, I immediately emailed the prospective committee members to ask for their commitment to be with me on my dissertation journey, Jean Reed for getting me two Orientation courses in Spring 2014, and Beth Yarbrough of grad school to verify the timeline of my Ed.D. program of which term I am to graduate by. Then I went on Amazon to order the latest edition of Fink's taxonomy of significant learning, along with Johnny Saldana's The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers and few other books on significant learning and writing.
Jean Reed (and Cindy Mullinax) responded that they would work with me for Spring 2014. Beth Yarbrough emailed to inform me that I am to graduate by Spring 2016 (since I was classified as a non-degree student in Spring 2009, I did not officially begin the Ed.D. program until Summer 2009)......which means a GREAT DEAL, because I really wanted to do data collection in the fall, rather than spring due to the "quality and cooperation" of students (more students take Orientation in the fall and more likely to be engaged).
The prospective committee members all emailed me back, agreeing to commit being on my committee. Now the committee is established, I can share who are the members:
- Dr. Claire Major - Chair, AHE
- Dr. David Hardy - AHE (had helped me see the potential in "writing" as my dissertation topic, from College Teaching class)
- Dr. Karri Holley - AHE
- Dr. Alan Webb - qualitative methodology
- Dr. Erin Gilchrist - qualitative theory
The feeling of how things are falling into right places is what I am experiencing as of this moment. Glad I have my theoretical framework (Fink's taxonomy on significant learning), committee, and good "timeline" for data collection/analysis and also to complete my dissertation.