USA Instructional Design & Development Student Research Dr. Althea Pennerman Instructional Design & Development Ph.D. (2003) (Interviewed October, 2004) When did you enter the IDD PhD Program?   I officially enrolled in the IDD PhD Program in August of 1997 after completing my masters in Special Education (SPED) in 1996 here at South. I came to the University of South Alabama (USA) from Freeport Bahamas in 1995 for the sole purpose of studying SPED at the master’s level, but prior to achieving this goal, I was encouraged to consider the IDD PhD Program, which I did and was accepted for Fall 97. What were you doing before you entered the program? Before coming to USA, I taught for a number of years in public and private schools at various levels and positions including acting principal. When did you graduate and what are you doing now? I graduated in December 2003. I am now an assistant professor in the SPED Department here at USA. Prior to gaining full faculty status, I developed all the online courses (all graduate level) offered by the department and taught one of them. Now, I have a full teaching load (graduate and undergraduate, but mostly graduate) and field supervision as well. Being a member of a number of in-house committees and faculty coordinator of Student Support Services here at USA keeps me very busy. I also spend quite a bit of time mentoring students who need a little extra help – a manifestation of my interest in addressing the achievement gap at all levels. What is the title of your dissertation and who was your chair? The title is: “An Investigation Of Perceived Factors That Contribute To The Achievement Gap: A Comparison Of Black And White Students.” Dr. Susan Tucker, (a professor in the BSET department until her departure in summer of 2001 – think I have the date correct) was my original chair before she left the institution. After that, I had a hard time finding a replacement- one who felt comfortable working with verbal protocols – until Dr. Van Haneghan agreed to work with me. I would like to add that I have no horror stories to tell regarding working with my committee members. They were all very supportive and patient with me throughout the entire process. Dr. Joseph Newman was especially helpful as a final editor of the manuscript. <>  How did you first begin to settle on the topic that would eventually become your dissertation? Why did that topic interest you? The Achievement Gap (AG) issue captured my attention almost immediately after I began the master’s program. I did not know about it prior to my coming to USA and was curious as to the literature-based reasons/explanations for the disparities in academic performance between the subgroups. I guess I grew up in a society where Blacks competed as well as other subgroups and therefore I was ignorant about this phenomenon that was so different from what I was familiar with. So I began to research the topic to satisfy my own curiosity – read books and articles on the topic – clipped and filed related stories from the local news papers, charted and studied the annual test scores published for the local schools, monitored performance status (“clear”, “alert”, “priority”, etc.) of different schools, etc.  Also, whenever I was given an opportunity to relate class projects and papers to my own special interest, it was the AG. Therefore, when it was time to select a dissertation topic, I knew that it would be something relative to the AG. My biggest problem at the beginning was in trying to narrow such a broad, complex topic to a manageable research question and still cover some of the things I wanted to find out.  I began to research the topic to satisfy my own curiosity – read books and articles on the topic – clipped and filed related stories from the local news papers, charted and studied the annual test scores published for the local schools, monitored performance status of different schools... Do you plan to stay active in research now that you are finished with the program? If so, what are your longterm research interests? I do plan to stay active in research. My goal is to write and I feel I can be a more respected writer if much of what I present is supported by research. However, I am more oriented toward qualitative methodologies that seek answers or explanations to the more “messy”, real-world problems that many psychometric studies are not suited for – problems that are of critical importance, but do not have clean, straight-forward answers – (see quote below that describes this desire so adequately). And so, I am particularly interested in case studies, etc. that produce thick descriptions of first-hand experiences and stories of underachievers rather than the more limited quantitative focus on gains and losses of large groups. I sense that as educators, we are learning more and more that quantitative methods work well for static situations and variables that remain relatively constant, but when we are assessing live, dynamic interactions and phenomena such as the ones we find in social sciences, it is important to factor in the context and hear from the participants or perspective clients themselves in order to be able to extrapolate beyond what sheer numbers tell us. I feel that if we are able to capture and analyze the learning and test-taking experiences of these students, we can find in them pertinent information that can be used to help us design more effective instruction. I would therefore like to collaborate with others who have similar interests to develop a model instructional program that is built upon research-based strategies and innovative ways of teaching low performing students how to become better comprehenders of written messages. Language, and in particular comprehension, has been identified (in the literature as well as my study) as very problematic for many of the students who are represented in the AG. I would like to begin my post-doctoral research by writing grants to initiate such a program that will be successful and replicable in various settings. The following is copied from page 81 of my study to further explain my bias for a more qualitative research paradigm As was discussed earlier, the protocol analysis method of research is grounded in the works of Ericsson and Simon (1984, 1987, 1996). Moreover, the underlying notion for using the method and specific approach to researching the problem in the present study was strongly influenced by Schön’s (1983) theory of “Reflection-in-Action” (p. 52). Schön recognized the limitations of what he termed “technical rationality” (p. 37) in the process of understanding real-world problems that are “puzzling, troubling, and uncertain” (p. 40). The author described such phenomena as a dilemma of “rigor or relevance.” The following statement analogically summarizes Schön’s view on the importance of selecting an appropriate qualitative approach to complex social problems: In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground where practitioners can make effective use of research-based theory and technique, and there is a swampy lowland where situations are confusing “messes” incapable of technical solution. The difficulty is that the problems of the high ground, however great their technical interest, are often relatively unimportant to clients or to the larger society, while in the swamp are the problems of greatest human concern. Shall the practitioner stay on the high, hard ground where he can practice rigorously, as he understands rigor, but where he is constrained to deal with problems of relatively little social importance? Or shall he descend to the swamp where he can engaged the most important and challenging problems if he is willing to forsake technical rigor? (p. 42). Could you tell us something about your dissertation research that was rewarding, exciting, interesting or fun? An exciting part of the research was establishing strong support for some of the proposed contributing factors identified in the literature – namely test anxiety and poor test-taking strategies mainly among Black students. What also emerged as intriguing was an exception to what was expected, or, as described by Patton (1987), a  “negative case” (but positive in this situation) that did not fit the normal pattern. To further explain, all but one Black student demonstrated almost debilitating test anxiety and poor test-taking skills and strategies when compared to the White students. An investigation of this “unexpected” event revealed that the particular student had received intensive training in test-taking strategies and mentoring support previously, which supposedly not only helped his test performance, but also reduced the high levels of anxiety displayed by all of his peers. Even as a single case, this example suggests that specific training and supports can help to reduce the differences in academic performance among the targeted subgroups – a finding that is most encouraging.  What was the biggest challenge you encountered while completing your dissertation?  How did you overcome that challenge? Balancing family obligations with my studies was perhaps most challenging. I worked late hours and weekends to deal with this – (fortunate to have had an office of my own as a doctoral assistant) and I did not rush to complete the dissertation – thus reducing chances for possible frustration. Also, my topic was not the interest of many around me, so I couldn’t engage in meaningful conversations about what I was doing as often as I would have liked. This fact may have also limited the level of guidance I was given as well. Plus, I had to access a lot of the literature on the AG via interlibrary loans and this took time and patience. I must say here though that the library staff was most efficient in assisting me in this area. <>In what ways did you grow as a scholar and researcher as a result of being in the PhD program? It is fairly accurate to say that I entered the research phase of the program with only a vague idea of the intensity of the research process and that I matured and grew as a scholar and researcher in many ways. I will discuss only the two that I feel are most important. The first is in my appreciation for the existing body of literature that serves to inform us. It was comforting to know that I had almost unlimited access to the information once it was out there somewhere. I particularly feel a new appreciation for the commonly accepted rules, requirements, regulations and guidelines that govern the publishing world – (e.g. APA policies and procedures for writing and publishing). I understand now how these help to preserve credibility and maintain high standards for what is found in the literature. The second is reduced fear of writing. I always love to write and my ability to express myself through this medium has been a strength throughout my schooling. Yet, I was afraid to see my ideas in print. I thought publishing was for a selected few – that writers had extraordinary skills and talents. However, having seen some of my own ideas (original to me, but already in print) written made me realize I have thoughts that were publishable. I also read some pieces that I felt were not well written in my opinion and this too served to increase my confidence that I might be able to join this “elite” group one day. It is fairly accurate to say that I entered the research phase of the program with only a vague idea of the intensity of the research process and that I matured and grew as a scholar and researcher in many ways. What advice do you have for someone thinking about entering a PhD program and becoming a researcher? If you are a disciplined, hard worker, don’t hesitate, go for it – minorities are especially needed at this level – it’s sometimes lonely up here (no prejudice intended). If possible, pursue the PhD program before taking on family responsibilities. Select a topic/subject that you have much interest in – one that you will almost never get tired learning about. Seek committee members who have some interest in your topic and knowledge and experience that you might be able to draw on – not always possible, so be prepared to “lead” the committee if you must. Begin early to identify experts/writers in the wider publishing world who have same interests and begin to build connections for post-doctoral networking. Attend and present at conferences that have high standards (e.g. AERA) – these experiences are invaluable. Enjoy the entire PhD program – it is the link to brand new opportunities at a higher level – well worth whatever cost you encounter along the way.