So this is it. I have now completed (well, almost completed) my first course in the MSLD program. Even though this wasn't my first grad school class, it was surely the most interesting. Having taken a few previous classes, I started this one expecting it to be something completely different than it was. First of all, the name of the course is "Leadership Foundations in Research". I honestly thought that it was going to be about how to do research. Though that was a major part of the class, it wasn't really the main focus. That surprised me. The main focus ended up being on critical thinking.
I will begin with the positives of the class. First, I am honestly a little upset with some of my past instructors. I didn't know it at the time but the Hunt Library is such an awesome tool. This class had an assignment devoted to learning how to properly utilize the Hunt Library. WHY is this not required in other classes? This would have made my undergraduate work a lot easier. But other than just learning how to use one tool to do research - again, that wasn't really the main focus of the class - I really learned a lot about how I think. I have always been a very logical person. I inherited that trait from my mother. But logical thinking is just a small part of critical thinking. I learned that it is okay and even required to embrace emotions a little with critical thinking. I learned that it is okay to have assumptions. And, most important, I learned how to be a more effective time manager/prioritizer (that's my own new word) through critical thought. (That was the main focus of my action research on my own work history.)
As far as the negatives of this class, it took a lot more time an effort than past classes. I am always willing to put forth the effort, of course, but this time consuming course just happened to coincide with the most hectic work schedule that I have seen since I was deployed. I had to take this class while working 60+ hours a week in the office and while dealing with a move to a new apartment. But I think all of that actually makes me appreciate it just a little bit more. I don't consider this wasted time. I consider it time invested.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Saturday, July 25, 2015
A500.8.3RB_LeeDarrell - What makes a good presentation?
We are getting very close to the end of our class now. We have completed the majority of our assignments. In fact, other than a couple of discussions and blogs, all of the written assignments are now complete. I have to admit that it takes a little bit of pressure off when I look at my overall grades for the class and realize that I could technically not complete any other assignments and still pass the class. That isn't to say that I would accept that as a reality. I am not a quitter and I don't see how doing just the bare minimum academically will benefit anybody.
Though all of the written assignments are done, there is still one beast of an assignment - my presentation. I need to take my action research report - my "research paper" for the class - and turn it into a presentation. This would not be a monumental event if I had the technical expertise to make a nice presentation to put online. As a certified teacher and former instructor, I am used to giving live presentations. I have no problem making my little PowerPoint slides and getting in front of a class and teaching but this will be different. I have to figure out how to convey my entire message without physically being present. I have a few ideas for a YouTube video but even that will be difficult as I don't think that I have the proper video equipment.
Regardless of how I do it, the purpose of this post is to ponder on what makes a good presentation and what makes a bad one. I am sure that we have all been there at some point in our professional lives where we had to endure the most brutal presentations and we feel like we got nothing from it. I experienced that just yesterday, actually. We had some battalion training that almost required toothpicks for me to put in my eyelids. I do not know why but people that give presentations in the military tend to hate to use microphones. I don't know if it is just a cockiness issue or pride or what. However, we have the technology. I wish that people would use it. Yesterday, we were in the drill hall. Our Commander and Command Sergeant Major both have very powerful voices. When they speak, they honestly don't need the microphone. However, the briefer that followed does not. He actually held the microphone at his side through the entire presentation. He thought that he was pretty awesome but nobody could hear him. So the first element of a good presentation is being able to actually hear it! It kind of makes you wonder how Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount of Olives or how Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. Maybe God just amplified them.
Keeping right in line with being able to clearly hear the presentation, the one giving the presentation must also know the material. I saw a few people say that on the discussion board this week. That isn't to say that they have to know every single detail of the subject at hand but they at least need a working knowledge of what is being presented. And if they don't, they need to be very convincing at making you believe that they do.
The next thing has to do with PowerPoint. There was a reading assignment dedicated to it this week. I think that we have forgotten what life is like without it. The best presentations that I have seen in my life didn't use it at all. It is meant to be a tool and not the whole. If you use it as a tool, that is great. But K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, silly). Too much writing is a complete killer. Too many animations or too much clutter is as well. That isn't to say that you shouldn't use any animations or any text. But less is more. But what really blows my mind about PowerPoint is that people often do not review their slides before presenting them. I have seen this happen where there was a ton of text - like paragraphs worth - of blue on black text or orange on red. You can't see that. Contrast is important in your text. People often think that the two most contrasting colors are black and white. This is actually not not. They are black and yellow. Think about a highway. They are painted with yellow stripes to divide directions.
Ultimately, there is no perfect way to give a presentation. The best presenters, though, are confident and use the tools at their disposal without relying on the tools to give the presentation for them. That really is the bottom line.
Though all of the written assignments are done, there is still one beast of an assignment - my presentation. I need to take my action research report - my "research paper" for the class - and turn it into a presentation. This would not be a monumental event if I had the technical expertise to make a nice presentation to put online. As a certified teacher and former instructor, I am used to giving live presentations. I have no problem making my little PowerPoint slides and getting in front of a class and teaching but this will be different. I have to figure out how to convey my entire message without physically being present. I have a few ideas for a YouTube video but even that will be difficult as I don't think that I have the proper video equipment.
Regardless of how I do it, the purpose of this post is to ponder on what makes a good presentation and what makes a bad one. I am sure that we have all been there at some point in our professional lives where we had to endure the most brutal presentations and we feel like we got nothing from it. I experienced that just yesterday, actually. We had some battalion training that almost required toothpicks for me to put in my eyelids. I do not know why but people that give presentations in the military tend to hate to use microphones. I don't know if it is just a cockiness issue or pride or what. However, we have the technology. I wish that people would use it. Yesterday, we were in the drill hall. Our Commander and Command Sergeant Major both have very powerful voices. When they speak, they honestly don't need the microphone. However, the briefer that followed does not. He actually held the microphone at his side through the entire presentation. He thought that he was pretty awesome but nobody could hear him. So the first element of a good presentation is being able to actually hear it! It kind of makes you wonder how Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount of Olives or how Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. Maybe God just amplified them.
Keeping right in line with being able to clearly hear the presentation, the one giving the presentation must also know the material. I saw a few people say that on the discussion board this week. That isn't to say that they have to know every single detail of the subject at hand but they at least need a working knowledge of what is being presented. And if they don't, they need to be very convincing at making you believe that they do.
The next thing has to do with PowerPoint. There was a reading assignment dedicated to it this week. I think that we have forgotten what life is like without it. The best presentations that I have seen in my life didn't use it at all. It is meant to be a tool and not the whole. If you use it as a tool, that is great. But K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, silly). Too much writing is a complete killer. Too many animations or too much clutter is as well. That isn't to say that you shouldn't use any animations or any text. But less is more. But what really blows my mind about PowerPoint is that people often do not review their slides before presenting them. I have seen this happen where there was a ton of text - like paragraphs worth - of blue on black text or orange on red. You can't see that. Contrast is important in your text. People often think that the two most contrasting colors are black and white. This is actually not not. They are black and yellow. Think about a highway. They are painted with yellow stripes to divide directions.
Ultimately, there is no perfect way to give a presentation. The best presenters, though, are confident and use the tools at their disposal without relying on the tools to give the presentation for them. That really is the bottom line.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
A500.7.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Quantitative Research
Last week, I discussed qualitative research. Though the actual concept wasn't foreign to me, the actual definition was. Imagine that you have been doing a certain exercise at the gym for years and finally someone says, "Oh, I see that you are doing squat-benders" and you just never know that is what your exercise was called. That is what I mean by the concept not being foreign by the definition was. However, just like the person doing that exercise, they may be doing it with improper form. Even though I was familiar with the overall concept, I can tell you with confidence that I would have no idea how to actually conduct a qualitative study.
This week, we are shifting our focus a little from qualitative to quantitative research. It wasn't until my readings for the week that I realized that I actually missed some of the key points last week. We looked at a PowerPoint presentation this week and it had a comparison that I really loved between the two. It said, "Qualitative research aims at understanding. It answers primarily to as how? - questions." It then went on to say, "Quantitative research aims as (casual) explanation. It answers primarily to why? - questions." I was looking at qualitative research as being more a study of the change in the variables in a social experiment. I guess that really wasn't too far off. The variables in a given environment to affect the how but it is a little more in depth than that. Fortunately, the purpose of a class is to learn. It is okay if I get some concepts wrong. My understanding is still developing. In a case like this, it took studying quantitative research this week to understand what I was really supposed to be learning last week. These are actually fairly advanced concepts that may take some time to really understand.
So shifting my focus now to quantitative research - the why - I am left still scratching my head just a little trying to figure out how this really plays into the social sciences and, specifically, with my current and future leadership roles. Quantitative research does deal a lot with gathering numbers and statistics. However, the quantity is just the end result. Actual quantitative research is, like qualitative research, still adaptable. What I mean by that is that you still have to keep the desired goal of the research in mind and adjust your research methods to gather the correct data. It seems pretty straight-forward overall. Quantitative research aims to gather quantities and you adjust your methods to get the data that you need. It seems so simple so it may seem odd that I say that I am not quite sure how to apply that to leadership roles. The reason that I say that is because leadership and management are two completely different fields that people often confuse. I can see how managers can easily apply quantitative research in what they do because the role of a manager is to utilize available resources in the most efficient way. A leader, on the other hand, is there to provide vision, motivation and direction. To really understand how quantitative research fits with leadership, a leader would have to understand how changing variables change end results. For example, if I work for a company that makes widgets and we sell x number of widgets per week on average then, all of the sudden, we are selling y number of widgets instead as identified through quantitative research (remember, quantity = numbers), that would be a sign that we would need to investigate what variables changed to produce the new results. But again, doesn't that feel like more of a management function than a leadership function? Quantitative research tends to just take a snapshot of the environment and say, "this is what is going on and here is the data". (This is usually collected through a random sample of the population.)
Ultimately, qualitative and quantitative research should not be viewed as an "either this or that" choice. A leader needs to be able to know how to use the two together. Quantitative data will show you the snapshot. Qualitative research will show you what variables were at play to get there. And a leader must use the two to adjust the environment (NOT manipulate the environment but adjust through positive and meaningful change) to lead the organization to the next step.
Friday, July 10, 2015
A500.6.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Qualitative Research
We seem to be on the downward slope of our class now. A bulk of the concepts have been introduced. We are getting close to the point to where we will just be focusing on our projects but there is still room to grow. As we prepare to research our project topics, this week we were introduced to an entire new research method - qualitative research.
Qualitative research is, in a nutshell, a research method that emphasizes looking at variables in the natural setting in which the research is conducted. Honestly, it is still a little foreign to me so I had to look at a lot of several websites that described what it was to come up with that definition. Traditional research would be considered quantitative research. That is where you focus predominantly on the results vs. the qualitative research that looks at the interaction between the variables. (Qualitative research appears to be primarily in the field of social sciences.) For example, suppose I wanted to examine how a group of twenty people progressed over the course of a year when they exercised regularly for a year. Quantitative research may show you the physical and mental results. It would show that those that exercised had more energy, lower blood pressure, less depression, better performance at work, etc. Qualitative research, however, would look at the conditions in when the experiment was conducted. I don't mean that it would examine the weather or time of day or anything like that. It would be more like examining how the same conditions may have a different effect on different people even though they were in the same situation or how minor changes would influence their decisions. The thought that comes to mind to me is the scene in the original "Jurrasic Park" movie where Dr. Malcom is talking about his chaos theory. Even that is still not qualitative research but it is the closest comparison that I can really make.
Our reading assignment over qualitative research identified eight main characteristics of qualitative research. The following list can be retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html.
Qualitative research is, in a nutshell, a research method that emphasizes looking at variables in the natural setting in which the research is conducted. Honestly, it is still a little foreign to me so I had to look at a lot of several websites that described what it was to come up with that definition. Traditional research would be considered quantitative research. That is where you focus predominantly on the results vs. the qualitative research that looks at the interaction between the variables. (Qualitative research appears to be primarily in the field of social sciences.) For example, suppose I wanted to examine how a group of twenty people progressed over the course of a year when they exercised regularly for a year. Quantitative research may show you the physical and mental results. It would show that those that exercised had more energy, lower blood pressure, less depression, better performance at work, etc. Qualitative research, however, would look at the conditions in when the experiment was conducted. I don't mean that it would examine the weather or time of day or anything like that. It would be more like examining how the same conditions may have a different effect on different people even though they were in the same situation or how minor changes would influence their decisions. The thought that comes to mind to me is the scene in the original "Jurrasic Park" movie where Dr. Malcom is talking about his chaos theory. Even that is still not qualitative research but it is the closest comparison that I can really make.
Our reading assignment over qualitative research identified eight main characteristics of qualitative research. The following list can be retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html.
1. Qualitative research uses the natural setting as the source of data.
2. The researcher acts as the "human instrument" of data collection.
3. Qualitative researchers predominantly use inductive data analysis.
4. Qualitative research reports are descriptive.
5. Qualitative research has an interpretive character, aimed at discovering the meaning events have for the individuals who experience them, and the interpretations of those meanings by the researcher.
6. Qualitative researchers pay attention to the idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive, seeking the uniqueness of each case.
7. Qualitative research has an emergent (as opposed to predetermined) design, and researchers focus on this emerging process as well as the outcomes or product of the research.
8. Qualitative research is judged using special criteria for trustworthiness.
(Sanders, 1997)
It is actually quite fortuitous that we are being introduced to this concept at this point in the class. As I previously mentioned, we are moving into the research project phase. The research project in this class is very different from what we are used to doing. We aren't just researching a theory or program or statistics. Instead, we are researching something that is relevant to us as it applies to developing our critical thinking and leadership skills. I think that my topic is really being boiled down to obstacles to critical thinking that I face. Just as those obstacles can mutate and shift, so, too, can qualitative research. It doesn't have a predetermined path. It focuses on the humanism and the spirit of the subject instead of just looking at the end result. That all matches the pattern of the development of the obstacles that we all face with critical thinking.
One interesting story about qualitative research from my week - On Tuesday, I had printed out the article that we were to read on qualitative research to read on my commute to work. I had to go to our headquarters in Brooklyn for training so I had about an hour on the subway. I can only imagine how my face must have looked to my fellow commuters. Honestly, this is a very deep subject and the article read like a technical order complete with "big words". I read the article twice on my commute just to make sure that I understood. Well...I didn't. However, when I got to my company headquarters for the training, we were ushered into the conference room where we were introduced to the team that came in to give the class. It was all of that touchy-feely personality stuff. The main woman, Dr. Tobias, was a social scientist. After the class, I was chit-chatting with her a little and I wanted to sound smart so I said, "I bet that they get all of these results through qualitative research" and she said, "That is EXACTLY what this is". That is when I had to be honest with her that I didn't know what I was really talking about and she was kind enough to break it down for me. What we were doing was not just training but also qualitative research. We were being observed in our natural setting. What we were saying wasn't anywhere near as important as how we were reacting to one another based on our environment. When she explained it, I finally had my "ah-HA!" moment and I began to realize what qualitative research actually is. But truly, I am just beginning to realize it. This is still a foreign concept to me but I am very interested in exploring it more.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
A500.5.3RB_LeeDarrell "Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking"
I have now been enrolled in the MSLD 500 class for a little over a month now. When I first began the class, I had a completely different idea about what we would be studying. The class is "Leadership Foundations in Research". I thought that it was going to be similar to one of the undergraduate classes where you just are learning how to conduct research but on a higher level. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that it wasn't "check the block" type class and that there actually is some substance to it. The focus thus far has been primarily on critical thinking.
Going into this class, I suppose that I had my own ideas about what critical thinking actually was but it had never been fully defined. Obviously it is a pretty in-depth topic if an entire graduate level class can be devoted to it. That indicates to me that even those that have completed an undergraduate degree may have been introduced to critical thinking but have most likely not mastered it. That is where I found myself. It is a term that I had heard and had self-defined but I wasn't truly familiar with it. I just thought that it meant giving serious thought to something to find the proper course of action.
I think that we all inherit certain traits from our parents. Some of those traits are psychological. Some are social. Some are mental. My father is a very emotional based man. I think that my sister inherited that trait from him. My mother has always been very logical. That is something that I inherited from her. In a crisis situation, my mother and I have always been the ones that I can step back and evaluate the situation and take control. I think that is an indicator of someone that thinks critically - using logic. But something that I have learned from this class is that it is so much more than that. Critical thinking is about more than just using logic. It is about applying a system of thought that includes emotion and perspective.
So how has this class changed me? As with most things, I think we get out of it what we put into it. I am sure that there are people that have taken this class before me and those that will take it after me that don't really care what they learn here. I, however, and working on my masters degree because I do want to learn. I don't just want to be a leader. I want to be an effective leader. I want to make a difference. Over the last month, I have been actually trying to apply what I have learned about critical thinking to my life. The main thing that I have been doing is trying to think about the eight elements of critical thinking. (Point of view, purpose, question at issue, assumptions, implications/consequences, information, concepts, conclusions/interpretations.) I memorized what they are I slow down and think about each of them in my situations. One thing that I have noticed is that it is really slowing down my thought processes. I am trying to not get discouraged by that. Our textbook even mentioned that that very well may happen. It's a little like trying to drink from a fire hose. It is a lot to think about. But I think the more that I do it, the easier it is becoming. I am at least familiar enough with the process now that I can just remind myself to follow the steps. The problem is that everything has to work in unison. For example, I have remember my point of view while processing the information and I have to remember the assumptions all at the same time. Sometimes it is tempting to just go back to my old way of thinking but it is too late. I have learned the right way to do it now so I can't just stop. The more I do it, I think the easier it will become. It may take years to master critical thinking but it is a work in progress.
Going into this class, I suppose that I had my own ideas about what critical thinking actually was but it had never been fully defined. Obviously it is a pretty in-depth topic if an entire graduate level class can be devoted to it. That indicates to me that even those that have completed an undergraduate degree may have been introduced to critical thinking but have most likely not mastered it. That is where I found myself. It is a term that I had heard and had self-defined but I wasn't truly familiar with it. I just thought that it meant giving serious thought to something to find the proper course of action.
I think that we all inherit certain traits from our parents. Some of those traits are psychological. Some are social. Some are mental. My father is a very emotional based man. I think that my sister inherited that trait from him. My mother has always been very logical. That is something that I inherited from her. In a crisis situation, my mother and I have always been the ones that I can step back and evaluate the situation and take control. I think that is an indicator of someone that thinks critically - using logic. But something that I have learned from this class is that it is so much more than that. Critical thinking is about more than just using logic. It is about applying a system of thought that includes emotion and perspective.
So how has this class changed me? As with most things, I think we get out of it what we put into it. I am sure that there are people that have taken this class before me and those that will take it after me that don't really care what they learn here. I, however, and working on my masters degree because I do want to learn. I don't just want to be a leader. I want to be an effective leader. I want to make a difference. Over the last month, I have been actually trying to apply what I have learned about critical thinking to my life. The main thing that I have been doing is trying to think about the eight elements of critical thinking. (Point of view, purpose, question at issue, assumptions, implications/consequences, information, concepts, conclusions/interpretations.) I memorized what they are I slow down and think about each of them in my situations. One thing that I have noticed is that it is really slowing down my thought processes. I am trying to not get discouraged by that. Our textbook even mentioned that that very well may happen. It's a little like trying to drink from a fire hose. It is a lot to think about. But I think the more that I do it, the easier it is becoming. I am at least familiar enough with the process now that I can just remind myself to follow the steps. The problem is that everything has to work in unison. For example, I have remember my point of view while processing the information and I have to remember the assumptions all at the same time. Sometimes it is tempting to just go back to my old way of thinking but it is too late. I have learned the right way to do it now so I can't just stop. The more I do it, I think the easier it will become. It may take years to master critical thinking but it is a work in progress.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)