THE ELEVATOR RIDE: A REFLECTION OF THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM EXPERIENCE

A paper submitted for

Portfolio
at Marshall University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction
by
Jennifer R. Jackson

© 2019
Jennifer R. Jackson
ALL RIGHTSi RESERVED
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

BASEMENT LEVEL - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

FIRST FLOOR – DEVELOPING MY PERSONAL THEORY .................................................... 3

SECOND FLOOR – THE CIRCUITOUS JOURNEY .................................................................. 5

THIRD FLOOR – PERSONAL THEORY AWARENESS ........................................................... 8

FOURTH FLOOR - LEARNING TO WRITE, WRITING TO LEARN ..................................... 10

FIFTH FLOOR – REFLECTING, RESONATING, AND CRITICAL THINKING ................... 13

SIXTH FLOOR – AREA OF EMPHASIS ................................................................................... 14

SEVENTH FLOOR – APPLIED LEARNING ............................................................................ 18

EIGHTH FLOOR – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 20

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 22

ii
 BASEMENT LEVEL - INTRODUCTION

From an elementary classroom teacher to the higher education institution, I have had

multiple experiences that influenced my drive and dedication to earning a doctoral degree. Early

on in the undergraduate teacher education program at East Tennessee State University, I met Dr.

Rebecca Isbell. Unbeknown to Dr. Isbell, she was my first inspiration for wanting to teach in

higher education. She was a passionate professor who created a climate of anticipation for what

she would say or do next to motivate students to learn. Her riveting personality stands out today

some 20 years later. I thoroughly enjoyed her classes and have continually strived to model my

teaching style and interaction with students after her. I aspire to be a college professor that

encourages students to learn and be dedicated to the field of teaching.

I faced a few obstacles along the way as I weaved through doctoral courses. Along with

an extensive drive, figuring out my daughters’ extracurricular schedules, and a rigorous teaching

load, I figured out how to add being a doctoral student on top of an already busy and imperfect

routine. I learned how to use Blackboard for teaching, how to be an advisor, how to serve on

specific committees, and also became accustomed to anticipating unexpected requests that

dropped in my lap. On top of it all, the trickiest time came when my husband moved to Radford,

Virginia for work, leaving me to continue to juggle the perpetually falling balls.

Reflecting on the doctoral coursework experience, I thoughtfully considered a theme for

my paper that would tell my personal story of hardships and achievements. While preparing to

develop this portfolio, my greatest encouragement came from my daughter, Kendall, whom

frequently said, “You’re almost there, Mom!” In support of my mission to complete this

portfolio project, she played the theme song from, The Princess and The Frog, “Almost There”.

That is the tune that stays with me when I feel defeated. However, for the sake of a theme that is
1
most fitting to my current life situation I have chosen to best describe my doctoral experience

using a metaphor approach. Considering the impending move to another state while remodeling a

home to put on the market, becoming caregivers to in-laws, adjunct teaching and continuing with

doctoral work, I related the total experience as an elevator ride. Some elevators move at a faster

speed than others and there are times elevators get stuck between floors or even take you to the

wrong floor. Many times, I have had to get back on an elevator because I pushed the wrong

button. I will connect the process of learning and integrating knowledge with that of an elevator

ride; you never know where it may take you or how long until you get there. I have never been

on this elevator ride alone. Many professors, colleagues, supportive husband and daughters have

been with me on this elevator ride. Occasionally, the elevator ride was smooth and moved right

along, taking me to my destination fairly quickly and with ease. Other times, the ride became

problematic and even disconcerting causing the elevator to get stuck.

This paper is a descriptive reflection with supportive evidence of my experience with

doctoral coursework. While I will not discuss each moment of every course and task, I invite you

to read about some of the experiences that have had the greatest impact on my professional

career. The elevator ride begins at the basement level where I embarked on the doctoral program.

Stepping onto the elevator, I brought with me a knowledge base from various educational

opportunities including classroom teaching, literacy coach, and program director. The basement

level is the foundation for where I began evolving in a more scholastic manner. The elevator

doors have opened so please ride along with me to the first floor, personal theory.

2
 FIRST FLOOR – DEVELOPING MY PERSONAL THEORY

Developing a personal theory of curriculum was a multifaceted task that required

consideration of many renowned theorists’ work and dedication to the field of curriculum theory,

as well as a thorough examination of professional practices and beliefs. This is an ongoing

process for me as I continue to review academic literature and practice personal reflections as a

student, learner, and teacher. Although not well published, Gail McCutcheon authored an article

that I referenced a few times when developing personal theories of curriculum for coursework.

McCutcheon (1982) considers a set of qualifiers teachers must deem important when developing

personal theories. McCutcheon notes that “personalities, beliefs, values, and unique situations”

are important elements to reflect upon when identifying which theory will define our goals (p.

18). I identify with this quote as I reflect on my approach to define a personal theory.

There were elements in each doctoral course that either sparked a new interest or

transformed my view of curriculum. I specifically considered three courses, CI 701, CI 702, and

CI 703, which influenced my personal theory of teaching and curriculum. I gained a deeper

insight to the significance of understanding the difference between curriculum and curriculum

development. My credibility as a professor relies on my understanding of this concept as well as

my ability to transfer this understanding to students. CI 703, Theories, Models, and Research of

Teaching, was a course I took early in the program. The professor of the course, Dr. Childress,

supported activities that required thinking more deeply about models of teaching. Prior to

the course I had an assumption that I should already be fully aware of these models since I was

responsible for teaching in higher education and have experience in other various academic

positions. However, through reading course texts, writing research papers, and participating in a

collaborative teaching assignment, I recognized the influence these tasks had on my personal
3
theories and beliefs about teaching styles and approaches. According to Stornes and others

(2008), schools are social constructs where teachers and students work closely together,

promoting motivation and engagement in learning outcomes. Teachers that understand this are

better equipped to deliver instruction that both motivates and engages students in the learning

process. From this, I learned that when teachers collaborate and engage in conversations with

students, they are better prepared to develop instructional lessons that promote student

motivation and engagement. Through the reading of the course texts and structured professor

activities, I became more aware of my personal approaches to teaching. I considered what drives

me to even want to teach and how that influences what I teach and in the manner I choose to

teach it. I learned to focus on the importance of understanding the curriculum I was committed to

teaching in conjunction with using best methods for delivering content to support student

learning. This also caused me to consider why and how key players such as politicians make

educational decisions that dictate curriculum development.

In CI 702, Curriculum Theories, I was tasked with looking deeply at the curriculum I was

teaching at Marshall and questioning why students even needed specific courses. In the article,

Pragmatising the Curriculum (Biesta, 2014), which is an exploration of the role of knowledge in

curriculum, I found that differentiating between the concepts of what I found my students to

understand and the possibility of enriching the curriculum I taught, I could better reason with

why questions of knowledge in curriculum are important to consider for matching pedagogy with

learners. This was frustrating because I continually analyzed my knowledge, teaching

approaches, student content interest, student motivation to learn, and student preparedness.

However, as frustrated and annoyed with myself as I became, I recognized this was actually a

pivotal time in my academic progress. This idea is further supported by Paul Ashwin (2014) who
4
noted that “Knowledge is at the centre of students’ engagement with higher education” (p. 123).

The more I read and learned about curriculum theory the more I considered the importance of

students’ essential need to understand the purpose of their education courses. This idea led me to

think about the correlation between theory and development as supported by Ralph Tyler and his

work with curriculum development. He was interested in shaping the curriculum, which led him

to focus on essential issues that concerned educational purposes, experiences, and assessments.

Tyler (1957) was dedicated to the work that led him to ascertain that, “Curriculum is all of the

experiences that individual learners have in a program of education whose purpose is to achieve

broad goals and related specific objectives, which is planned in terms of framework of theory

and research or past or present professional practices” (p. 79).

The elevator ride continued upward as I used this knowledge to support collaborative

teaching assignments, affording my students opportunities to work together in developing

research based lessons to teach to their peers in the education class. Modeled after Dr. Childress’

collaborative teaching project in CI 703, the collaboration assignment allowed the opportunity

for me to observe preservice teachers demonstrate content knowledge using pedagogical

methods. This assignment supported the direction and evolution of my personal theory, which is

at the heart of understanding instructional practices and student readiness.

SECOND FLOOR – THE CIRCUITOUS JOURNEY

The newfound awareness of the development and shaping of curriculum resulted in a

circuitous journey guided by reflective practice and questioning leading me to uncover a deeper

truth about my personal theory of curriculum for the CI 702 course, Curriculum Theories. I felt

like Dr. Campbell held my hand on my journey to discover the complexities of curriculum
5
theory. I purposely reflected on daily instructional practices to gain a sense of my beliefs, and

more specifically, where those beliefs originated. Prior to studying curriculum theory, I

considered curriculum development the core of educational practice. Ascertaining the theoretical

underpinnings of curriculum led me to recognize the importance of identifying key elements in

curriculum theory development. Joseph et al (2011) notes that, “Educators who understand the

moral purposes of their work think about curriculum as dynamic” (p. 37). This statement

supported the cause for my divergent thinking when considering personal beliefs. The elevator

ride began to slow down at this point as I struggled to identify one theorist or one theory that

described me as an educator. This self-imposed conflict generated from an array of educational

experiences that have been the foundation from which I began the journey to identify my

personal theory.

Diverse experiences of a practicing classroom teacher, literacy coach, program director,

assistant professor, and my current role as an adjunct professor have been the basis for my

developing revelation to approach each experience differently. A critical thinking activity, led by

Dr. Campbell, rendered me to consider who I am as an educator. More than reading chapters and

articles and writing up a reader’s response, I had to now demonstrate in some creative way what

I stand for and what theory and/or theorists I am most like. Considering the personal conflict I

endured when reflecting on personal theories, I believe I spent more time thinking about this

project than I did on writing some formal papers. How do I prepare for such a project that I

cannot clearly define? The elevator ride came to a screeching halt allowing for maintenance in an

effort to figure out the problem.

While waiting for the elevator ride to begin again, I took great measures to consider my

educator identity. I was perplexed by the amount of curriculum development understanding I had
6
acquired from CI 701, Curriculum Development, and the great difficulty I had articulating it to

adequately define me. Questioning what I thought I knew about my curriculum practice

compared to the reality of what I knew became somewhat distressing. J.J. Beishuizen et al.

(2001) stated that “Misunderstandings about mutual views of teachers and students may harm the

efficacy and efficiency of teaching and learning, e.g., when students expect teachers to provide

clear directions about the completion of assignments and teachers prefer to focus on establishing

warm relationships with students” (p. 186). The author further laments the importance of student

voice regarding perceptions of good teaching. Subsequently, I invited my students to help me

with this vexing task. I asked two groups of students enrolled in one of my courses to consider

the kind of educator they perceived me to be, taking into account every aspect of the time they

had gotten to know me as a teacher. I was optimistic this task would help the elevator to begin

moving once again.

Author Cook-Sather (2014) found that “Engaging students and academic staff in

partnership to explore pedagogical practice” can be representative as “a way of understanding, or

interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress” (p. 186). Using an

affinity chart technique, students were given post-it notes to jot multiple ideas about their

perception of me as an educator. A couple of volunteers collected the anonymous post-its and

categorized them into three columns constructed on ideas of likenesses. From the EDF 625

course, Qualitative Research in Education, I learned from Dr. Spatig to examine activities and

documents for emerging themes.

Meyer and Land (2003) supports a partnership as it ‘represents a transformed way of

understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress’

(p. 1). I was able to use this opportunity to practice the activity of finding emerging themes to
7
gain a better understanding of my educator identity. Examining the activity with the class, three

themes emerged from this task: hands-on teacher, guide on the side, and practical. As we came

together for a group discussion about the activity, I showed the definitions of some popular

theories and theorists. This discussion led to the idea that depending on the lesson, need, and

situation I modeled after the constructivist, behaviorists, and pragmatist at any time during class.

This outcome perturbed me because I was hopeful I would be categorized under one theorist or

theory. In an effort to get the elevator moving again, I had to examine the meaning of the activity

results and proceed to find a label that best suits me. This process led to a discovery of beginning

to identify my beliefs of personal theories.

THIRD FLOOR – PERSONAL THEORY AWARENESS

My moment finally happened while preparing for the final course presentation. With

creative freedom to best represent my perspective, I demonstrated by making a fruit salad to

serve as a metaphorical means. I viewed the making of a fruit salad as the definition of who I am

as a learner and teacher, allowing for each piece of fruit to be a symbolic representation of my

personal theory of learning. I found that I am a constructivist and pragmatist, but acknowledge

other theories play a part in my daily journey. I believe there cannot be one theory or model to

base all learning. The issue lies in how knowledge is acquired and internalized. This becomes a

cycle of a continual learning process and I am on my way to a deeper understanding of my

evolving personal theory. Although I cannot be pigeon holed in following one theory or theorist,

I identify best with an adaptation of elements taken from Dewey, Bobbitt, and Eisner as well as

other well-known curriculum theorists. Larrivee (2008) offered insight into the importance of

critical reflection by noting that teachers have an opportunity to “reflect on the moral and ethical
8
implications and consequences of their classroom practices” (p. 90). This idea leads me to further

accept my personal theory as one that is shaped by understanding and reflection.

I wholeheartedly believe I have represented this learning process with supportive

evidence of both knowledge and academic growth.

Another example indicative of supporting my level of curriculum awareness is through a

collaborative project with a student in CI 345, Critical Reading, Writing, and Thinking. I had a

fortunate opportunity to put perspective of curriculum and curriculum development into practice.

A student of CI 345 was interested in understanding why English majors were required to take

the CI 345 course along with all secondary education majors. The student informed me that the

other majors, especially math majors, were bringing her level of class participation up because

she believed she made better connections with the course content and her major than they did.

However, her interest in the course dropped because of this assumption. Allowing the

demographics of the class to get in the way of her successfully completing the class, the student

is currently enrolled in the course for the third time while student teaching.

I developed a good rapport with this particular student and listened to her criticism of the

course. We discussed the state requirement for CI 345 as part of the curriculum for secondary

education majors. She proposed two different sections of CI 345; one for English majors only

and one for all other secondary education majors. After several semesters of teaching this course

I agree that the nature of curriculum work for English majors coincides with the course outline

for CI 345; however, this is not the case for all other majors. I have charged the student, as an

alternative project to meet course requirements, with making this recommendation to key players

in the development of the curriculum for secondary education majors. The first step in the

process is researching whom to reach out to at the West Virginia Department of Education in
9
regards to curriculum policy making for secondary higher education majors. From policy

making, planning, and development it is important for her to understand the reason behind this

course requirement. Although the College of Education and Professional Development has the

academic freedom in the design of courses, I feel the student needs to research the initial source

and purpose of the requirement. I am eager to find out the results of her research and to see how

far she is willing to see this mission through. In support of her argument, I too would like to

advocate for two different sections of the CI 345 course.

The elevator is up and running full speed once again so let us continue the trip to the

fourth floor where I strived to become a prolific writer.

FOURTH FLOOR - LEARNING TO WRITE, WRITING TO LEARN

Prior to the doctoral program, I considered myself to be a descent writer for writing

essays and research papers in both undergraduate and graduate school. However, that confidence

was challenged in the doctoral program with each course demanding various types of scholarly

writing. These writing tasks were what slowed the elevator ride down immensely at times. I

experienced both unexpected jerking movements and complete elevator breakdowns along the

way. From my first doctoral course writing assignment to writing this reflective paper, I had and

continue to have intermittent thoughts of wonder about my writing ability. As I try to express my

experience in this section of the paper, I am reminded of four significant words that were, and

continue to be, at the heart of many of my doctoral courses. Resonate, reflect, audience, and

purpose automatically come in to play with both teaching and writing.

Learning to write and writing to learn are two concepts I taught and currently teach in my

undergraduate literacy courses. In the doctoral program, I discovered I was the student learning
10
how to write. I was dismayed at the idea that I was requiring students to demonstrate their

writing abilities in an effort to express their knowledge of relative educational concepts all the

while I was unaware of my own limitations with the skill of purposeful writing. Each writing

experience shaped my writing ability and led me to discover a scaffolding process that

continuously fostered these writing skills. Stephanie Dix, (2016) found in her study of Teaching

Writing: A Multilayered Participatory Scaffolding Practice that, “Worthwhile questions are

regarded as those that challenge students’ thinking, deepen understandings and promote

reflection, analysis, self-examination and inquiry (p. 24). Once I polished the technical aspects of

writing and developed an understanding of the importance of reflective practices to support

composition, I was better prepared to approach writing endeavors. I was definitely challenged by

many writing projects, which ultimately slowed the progress of the elevator ride, but came to

understand the imperativeness of knowing the target audience for whom I am writing.

From the beginning, I was excited about learning how to write for publication in the CI

677 course. I recognized the benefits of being a skilled writer as a student in higher education

and as a professor. As the semester progressed, I questioned my level of writing and faced delays

on the elevator ride. However, I kept reading the texts and tackled the assignments. When I

thought about what I wanted to write it would sound crisp and clear in my mind, but looked

elementary when I put the words on paper compared to the well scripted articles I had read. The

more I compared my writing to that of published authors, the more intimidated I felt. Folding

laundry became a welcomed chore just so I could take a distracted break from writing.

Eventually, I recognized the need to find a plan for accomplishing the writing tasks. The book,

Writing for Publication: A Practical Guide for Educators, by Mary R. Jalongo, (2002), was an

effortless read. The author shared similar unfortunate experiences when she began writing.
11
Jalongo noted “Until you devote time to nurturing your writing in the same ungrudging way that

you would minister to an ailing friend or family member, finding the time to write will seem

insurmountable” (p. 44). I realized that many family influences were the direct cause of the

slowing of my elevator and it was imperative that I made great effort to find writing time.

I began writing at night and early of the mornings when the house was quiet. I had

moments of clarity with understanding my role as a writer for publication. I had chosen the

Reading Teacher Journal as a possible venue for a published book review. I reached out to Dr.

Stange for guidance in a book selection and ultimately chose Ruth Cullahan’s book, The Writing

Thief. The selection of this book was twofold. I had also been searching research journals to

support my students’ understanding of their role to guide their future students in writing across

the curriculum. I successfully published a book review in the December 2017 issue of the

Reading Teacher Journal. I met the course task, have a publication, and now the elevator is

cruising on as I continue to strengthen my writing skills.

While writing for publication, I began to understand and make connections with course

discussions, reading reflections, and critical feedback from Dr. Campbell. A pivotal moment for

me occurred when critiquing my own students’ writing. I began using similar phrases such as,

“trimming the fat” to help students refrain from becoming too wordy with their writing. I asked

questions along the way about their intended audience and the rationale for their selected writing.

These discussions along with providing written feedback supported my knowledge of what

students should be considering to strengthen their writing.

Reflecting on the many writing assignments I completed in the doctoral courses, I recall

that I was an able writer. I have learned to adjust my writing style to meet the audience. The

publication of the book review, submitting conference proposals, research papers, and reading
12
responses are examples of writing opportunities that have shaped my writing abilities. These

opportunities have caused me to continually reread my written piece, accept feedback, make

adjustments, and continue editing to finalize the product. Writing endeavors have been mostly

problematic with consideration of time management and I continue to grapple with this issue

while striving to develop a quality piece of writing.

Let us continue the elevator ride to the next floor: reflecting, resonating, and critical

thinking floor.

FIFTH FLOOR – REFLECTING, RESONATING, AND CRITICAL THINKING

Along with learning about curriculum, theories, and writing I noticed I began using a few

phrases and vocabulary in my own teaching. From my first doctoral course to my last, the terms

reflecting, resonating, and critical thinking were consistent with course assignments. Knowledge

gained and developed from doctoral courses broadened my critical perception concerning the

importance of reflective writing and how to prepare teachers to practice critical thinking when

using reflection and analysis as a guiding tool to learn from experiences. A moment of clarity

came while working with preservice teachers and noticing they tend to miss the mark in

discriminating between the two words, reflection and analysis. Dewey (1938) developed a

definition of reflection viewing it as a manner of how to critically think in which the person

“looks back over what has been done so as to extract the net meanings which are the capital

stock for intelligent dealing with future experiences” (p. 110). The reflection tool involves

educators critically thinking about what happened, why it happened and perhaps why it happened

in a particular way. Not only was I striving to actively participate in reflecting about my own

teaching and learning, but I purposely instructed my students to do the same with reflective
13
journaling. My goal was for the preservice teachers to prepare more descriptive and thoughtful

reflections.

Resonating became one of my favorite terms used in the majority of the doctoral courses.

I became a more active reader by purposely resonating with course texts and articles. The

practice of resonating coincided with metacognitive exercises. I learned to set a purpose before,

during, and after reading and reflect along the way about what I was reading and to what extent I

understood the information. I began requiring my students to resonate with assigned readings in

my education courses. An activity I developed for a small group discussion charged students to

begin their reflective statements with what they resonate with most from the assigned reading.

The elevator ride has helped me to recognize my relentless efforts as well as many trial

and error experiences that caused the delay from one floor to the other. With each delay, or at

times when the elevator broke down, I reflected on ways to meet new writing challenges. This

process reminds me of the course I took in qualitative analysis in that I came out of that class

looking at the world a little differently, being more observant of my surroundings. I view writing

a little differently, too. It takes time, effort, skill and lots of edits along the way. I am learning to

write, and one day I will be a prolific scholar. The elevator ride has slowly started back up to

proceed to the next floor, area of emphasis.

SIXTH FLOOR – AREA OF EMPHASIS

When I had to choose an area of emphasis, I assumed I would naturally select literacy

because of my prior experience in both the public school and higher education classroom. I also

considered an area I needed further support to continue growing with both the doctoral program

and teaching. I understand the possibility that I may not always teach literacy courses so I found
14
it critical to broaden my skill level. This decision led to a focus on an area of emphasis in both

literacy and technology. To meet the requirement for a literacy course, I took CIRG 610,

Multimodal Literacy. This class offered many opportunities for me to grow in both content

literacy knowledge and approaches to teaching. I also had the privilege to collaborate with Dr.

O’Byrne and two classmates for the West Virginia Writer’s Conference. Marc Shoemaker, Katie

Redd, and I presented techniques to support the multimodal classroom. This was also an

opportunity for me to use technical writing skills to write a proposal and go through the

submission and acceptance process. Demonstrating content knowledge using three different

modes of delivery, collaboration, writing, and technology strategies, led to a deeper

understanding of the skill. This was an invaluable presentation opportunity that I felt I mastered.

This was the only literacy course I took for my area of emphasis because of my literacy

background in literacy coaching, classroom teacher, and as an assistant professor of literacy

education in higher education. After meeting with Dr. Heaton about my interest in adding

technology to the area of emphasis, I took CIEC 635 Using the Internet in the Classroom where I

learned how to use technology to support teaching and learning. This was an intensive course

that focused on learning the history of the internet and online application as well as creating

projects and approaching tasks that required the use of savvy computer skills. Never regretting

the choice to learn more about technology for the purpose of teaching, there were times my

elevator ride slowed down while I tried to figure out how to complete a technology assignment.

The expected product of the technology assignments differed from other course

assignments I was accustomed to in the doctoral program. Some form of written product or

presentation was the typical product associated with most of my doctoral coursework. The

expected outcomes for the technology class were to learn about a specific technology and use it
15
to create a useable product. I approached some of the assignments with the idea to create a usable

product that I can take back to use in teaching the higher education courses to support my

teaching and student learning. One of the course assignments was to create a WebQuest.

Understanding upfront that this would take some time to develop, I chose to create the WebQuest

with CI 345, Literacy in the Secondary Content, in mind. This is a course I have taught for

several semesters and what better way to complete course assignments than to actually be able to

use them to support my own instruction. I also learned about social bookmarking by developing

a Diigo site. I have used both the WebQuest and Diigo social bookmarking for three semesters to

support student learning and engagement. The elevator ride is ready to continue to the next floor

where technology and curriculum meet.

When I began the next technology course, CIEC 700, Technology and Curriculum, I felt I

would be better able to connect my understanding of both technology and curriculum since I had

coursework experience in both. Kirkwood and Price (2013) noted that “As new technologies

emerge and enter into higher education, we must continue to appraise their educational value” (p.

536). I learned to consider the contextual situation and evaluate the technology I chose to use in

my courses. This course compelled me to look deeper at my teaching practices and how I could

better use technology to support my instruction. Along with improving my technology usage, I

realized my students needed to learn the value of using technology to support their understanding

of course content. I developed a deeper appreciation and interest in students’ usage of technology

as I evaluated the Teacher Preparation Assessment (TPA). Student teachers, for the most part,

used technology to deliver instruction. This was similar to how I used technology in the

classroom before the CIEC courses.

16
 With my understanding about technology and as a TPA evaluator, Dr. Heaton agreed to

supervise an independent study where I assisted in gathering information for the accreditation

evaluation. This opportunity led me to personally evaluate my understanding of curriculum and

technology integration as I interviewed a few faculty members on their technology practices as

part of the data collection for accreditation. I examined frameworks defined by three technology

integration models, SAMR, TPACK, and TIM. Through the research of the models, I learned

that technology integration is an important strategy to have a better chance with classroom

instruction success. The term cross-cutting theme worked its way to the top of my vocabulary

usage as I truly examined how faculty used appropriate technology tools to support learning and

engagement. Through the research, I began to view technology usage as more of a continual

process of emerging technology practices in the classroom. I became more aware of the

importance of selecting appropriate technology and how to effectively integrate the usage to

support instruction and student learning. Hilton (2016) refers to this as a “systematic manner to

ensure that such technology enhances the learning of their students” (p. 1).

Although I found some faculty used technology to support instruction and learning,

many, including myself, were neglecting the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of

implementation and integration. This experience left me thinking that we were mostly using

technology to deliver instruction, but not really to support or augment student learning. I viewed

the cause to be a lack of awareness for recognizing the need to evaluate technology usage as part

of an ongoing practice. While examining the three models and working with Dr. Heaton on

gathering information, I found that rubrics could have the potential to guide the technology

integration endeavor. This is about the point I began reflecting on and evaluating the learning

theory that resonates most with my instructional practices. Through reading I recognized this
17
task could help when considering which model of technology integration would best fit faculty

practices. I found the TPACK and TIM models are aligned more with pedagogical approaches

while SAMR is considered a constructivist method. As I supported my understanding of

connecting learning theories of technology use based on the need of faculty and students, the

elevator ride continued to move along at good speed to the next floor, applied learning.

SEVENTH FLOOR – APPLIED LEARNING

I felt I truly supported my learning experience when I had opportunities to use course

knowledge and put it into practice. Along with using many of the learned technology practices in

my own classroom, I was also able to connect learning with another doctoral course. In EDF

711, Survey Research in Education with Dr. Childress, I created a survey with a student from my

CI 345 course. This opportunity came when the student approached me requesting to use CI 345

as an Honor’s Option in an attempt to meet the Honor’s College criteria. This eager student

wanted to learn the extent educators understood critical pedagogy. The plan for learning about

educators’ knowledge level of critical pedagogy was to develop a survey instrument. I now had

the opportunity to use what I learned about survey development. The elevator is continuing to

proceed ahead, but with caution.

While the student worked on developing the questions for the survey, I revisited the

course text, How to Conduct Surveys by Arlene Fink (2017), to refresh my understanding of

creating a usable survey. Using prior experience from class activities and material from the book,

I automatically recognized the student’s weak survey format with several essay style questions

and no request for demographic information. Working alongside the student using Fink’s book,

we were able to develop a survey after several edit sessions. Having gone through the process of
18
seeking IRB approval, I contacted Bruce Day to make sure I was approaching this project

correctly. He requested the student complete the CITI training in preparation to submit the

survey.

Expectations were high for us to complete the data collection before the end of the Spring

2018 semester while I was enrolled in in LS 776, Computer Analysis in Research with Dr.

Securro. In the course, I used SPSS to analyze data to broaden my understanding of statistics in

journals. It would have been beneficial to use my own data while learning the differences in tests

and result formats each test could produce. I asked Dr. Securro at the beginning of the semester

for his assistance with running the data after surveys were collected. Needless to say he

expressed his delight in providing assistance with the task when I was ready. To my great

disappointment, the student and I did not get that far with the project. Perhaps part of the reason

is due to the number of responsibilities the student and I both had at the time and we both did not

prioritize our schedules to focus more on this task. Another reason that impeded the process was

difference in the level of involvement for the project and the foreseeable outcome. David

Katerndahl (2012) stated that “Social theory suggests that the formation of a collaborative tie is

weighed in terms of its cost and benefit over the short term to the individuals involved” (p.

1244). I had the goal for a published piece of scholarly work to add to my curriculum vita; the

student’s goal was Honor’s credit for collaborating with a professor.

This was still an invaluable experience that provided the opportunity to experiment with

areas of scholarly work. However, the student and I did not get to the extent of submitting the

survey for approval. I continue to have ambitions to carry on with the research, while the student

received Honor’s credit and has moved on with other coursework. The next step in this endeavor

is to work with Bruce Day on suggested ways to appropriately pilot the survey, as suggested in
19
Fink’s (2017) book. The elevator continues to progress, but I know I need to revisit this floor

again in the near future.

EIGHTH FLOOR – CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of the doctoral program was determined by my level of commitment in

striving to gain knowledge and make it applicable to my current teaching practices. I appreciate

the opportunity for the number of experiences that have provided supportive evidence of my

growth in the program. Specific experiences were highlighted throughout to support my level of

understanding and growth toward a terminal degree. Some examples of specific activities that are

attributive to my level of involvement and commitment are the various opportunities to present at

conferences, enhance curriculum knowledge, enrich teaching skills, and become more familiar

with research and writing.

Dr. Mindy Allenger was a supportive colleague and friend as she often was a sounding

board as I shared ideas for class assignments and projects. Her mentoring skills facilitated some

of my most prominent experiences with both state and regional presentations. Dr. Allenger did

not hesitate to present with me at the West Virginia Reading Conference and Eastern Educational

Research Association Conference in Florida. I was able to present at both conferences as a result

of the knowledge gained and experiences from doctoral course work, specifically the Multimodal

Literacy course and Advanced Quantitative Analysis. Feeling comfortable with my presentation

skills, it was the process of constructing and submitting conference proposals that was a new

experience. Dr. Allenger served as a guide as she worked alongside me as a colleague, not as a

doctoral student. From my direct participation in the presentations, I became more aware of the

importance of curriculum knowledge in conjunction with research and writing skills.

20
 The results from my time in the doctoral program will positively support and contribute to

future endeavors in education. I will continue to evolve into a scholar that is reflective of this

doctoral experience. I have best represented the total experience in my online portfolio,

https://jenniferjacksondoctoralportfolio.weebly.com/, which highlights examples of doctoral

work. As expressed in the beginning, from an elementary classroom teacher to the higher

education institution, I have had multiple experiences to influence my drive and dedication to

earning a doctoral degree. I am almost there.

21
 REFERENCES

Ashwin, P. (2014). Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding in higher

education. Higher Education,67, 123-126. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9715-3

Biesta, G. (2014). Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum
conversation, but via pragmatism. The Curriculum Journal, (25)1, (29-49).

Beishuizen, J., Hof, E., Putten, C., Bouwmeester, S., & Asscher, J. (2001). Students’ and
teachers’ cognitions about good teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology,71(2), 185-201. doi:10.1348/000709901158451

Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty Partnership in Explorations of Pedagogical Practice: A

Threshold Concept in Academic Development. International Journal for Academic
Development, 19(3), 186-198. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2013.805694

Hilton, J. T. (2016). A Case Study of the Application of SAMR and TPACK for Reflection on
Technology Integration into Two Social Studies Classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2),
68-73. doi:10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Chapter 2 Imagining Yourself in the Author's Role. In Writing for
Publication: A Practical Guide for Educators (pp. 21-48). Norwood, MA: Christopher-
Gordon.

Joseph, P. B., Green, N. S., Mikel, E. R., & Windschitl, M. A. (2011). Narrowing the Curriculum.
In Cultures of Curriculum (Second ed., p. 37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Katerndahl, D. (2012). Co-evolution of departmental research collaboration and scholarly

outcomes. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(6), 1241-1247.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01881.x

Kirkwood, Adrian and Price, Linda (2013). Examining some assumptions and limitations of
research on the effects of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4) pp. 536–543.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.

Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341-360.

McCutcheon, G. (1982). What in the world is curriculum theory? Theory Into Practice, 21(1),
18-22.

Meyer, E., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to
Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines (pp. 1-12, Rep. No. 4). Edinburgh,
UK: © ETL Project. doi:http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142206.pdf

22
Stornes, T., Bru, E., & Idso, T. (2008). Classroom Social Structure and Motivational Climates:
On the influence of teachers’ involvement, teachers’ autonomy support and regulation in
relation to motivational climates in school classrooms. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 52(3), pp. 315–329.

Tyler, R.W., 1957. The curriculum then and now. In Proceedings of the 1956 Conference on
Testing Problems, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, pp. 79-95

23