home

Gents, Here's the article.

Or, here's the CARL link. [|King's Both Sides Now] You will have to be logged into a .mil with your CAC or know your library card number (16-digit number on the back of your card) to gain access. The format for the paper:

__**Purpose/Justification**__: (Bob) The author makes the purpose of the research clear from the very first sentence in the abstract: “The purpose of this mixed method research is to understand and support educators’ continuing learning and growth better by using a lens of transformative learning to examine their experience and professional development practice and responsibility” (King, 2004). King justifies her research by asserting that: “By examining transformative learning from the perspectives of “both sides we can gain insight into the personal, classroom, and organizational dimensions of professional development as well as its many contexts and possibilities” (King, 2004). The author notes that recent research (some of it her own) has focused on adult learning as professional development for educators. She goes on to reflect on research (again, some of it her own) that has shown that adult learning can be “transformative” in nature, referring to the theory of transformative learning which “describes how adults integrate new information, perspectives, or practice into their world view as they engage in learning” (King, 2004). By explaining in succinct fashion the linkage between adult learning, professional development and transformative learning, Dr. King neatly details her purpose and justification. The article introduction was very well constructed, building a solid link between transformative learning, adult education and professional development. I found the purpose of the research to be clear and the justification reasonable and well supported.

__**Definitions**__: (Bob) Central to the purpose of this study is a solid definition of the theory of //transformative learning//. As discussed earlier, the author provides a good definition of transformative learning theory early and expounds on what constitutes transformative learning on page 155: “When learners engage in opportunities to reflect on the meaning of what they are learning, they may engage in evaluating their familiar values, beliefs, and assumptions. Such experiences can result in reconfirming their current perspectives or developing new ways of understanding. It is within this experience of developing new understanding and experiencing shifts in their deeply rooted frames of reference that transformative learning emerges” (King, 2004). The author, building on her earlier work on transformative learning, has done an excellent job laying the groundwork for her analysis.

__**Prior Research**__: (Jay)

King references four prior research efforts with the most recent being four years old and the remaining three nearly ten years old. It is also worth noting that she was either author, or co-author, of three of the four research endeavors leading toward a discussion of possible data collector, or confirmation bias. The research article devotes little space to previous research, but provides a thorough section on the “Theoretical Background” (King, 2004, p. 157). This leaves the reader with the presumption that not much research has been completed, since “Mezirow’s (1978) original work on transformative learning” (King, 2004, p. 157) 26 years earlier.

__**Hypotheses**__: (Jay)

We identified two potential hypotheses both later in the work. The first possible hypothesis states, “Adult educators’ learning and critical reflection about adult education can facilitate moving them toward new perspectives of a fundamental and inclusive character” (King, 2004, p. 169). The second possible hypothesis is, “Creating professional development environments that cultivate freedom for critical questioning, reflective learning, and discussing and adopting new ideas can enable educators to create better understanding for themselves and consider extending their practice in new directions” (p.1 69). The former hypothesis is best supported in the article by the proposal following King’s (2004) research questions. She “suggest[s] how professors, developers, and institutions may understand and support professional development that has the potential to transform educators” (p. 157). This led us to consider a null hypothesis of adult educators' learning and critical reflection about adult education does not facilitate new perspectives of a fundamental and inclusive character. This implies that critical reflection and self-directed learning does not lead toward an evolutionary growth in and educator.

__**Sample**__: (Vince)

As a mixed-methods study contains two separate studies, analysis of the sample used must address the sample population in both studies. Since this is a quantitative, mixed-methods study, the first sample to address is that used to support the quantitative study. In the first part of this study the researcher used a non-random sampling method, referred to as a convenience sample. A convenience sample is one that is used because it is conveniently available. In this case it was a sample comprised of the students of a particular class in adult education as it was conducted over a four-year period. While these are likely not the only students taught by the subject of the follow-on study, the researcher concluded that these students would most likely meet the needs of the study, which the author defined as a continuation of her previous research regarding transformative learning and students of adult education. This convenience sample was further restricted to those who would voluntarily participate in the study. The voluntary nature of the study was to meet the ethical standards associated with a study involving human participants in that the findings of this study would not be significant enough to justify forced participation. It should be taking into consideration that an argument could be made that this is a purposive sample, used because the author was seeking to examine the transformative learning of students in adult educators; however, there is no explanation as to why only the students of a single instructor were asked to participate. The other element of this research working against this being a purposive sample is the fact that the researcher’s second study within this mixed methods study was a survey of the instructor in which the instructor was queried for answers regarding the emotions and motivations of the students. If this were a true purposive sample the researcher should have chosen to ask the students themselves what their emotions and motivations were and then compared those results against that of the instructor. This of course would have changed the nature of the study from an explanatory to an exploratory study.

The drawback to the use of a convenience is that it cannot be used to make generalizations about the larger population. Further bringing into question the results of the study is the assumed bias that must be considered for those who did volunteer. In cases such as this, where the researcher so narrowly defines the purpose of the study then for the sake of ability to replicate the study the researcher should have considered each class as a separate convenience sample study and then compared the results. Not having done this raises further questions about the external validity of the study. It should be considered that this study cannot be generalized to the larger population of student studying adult education or even the subset of those students who study adult education and are themselves adult educators, nor can the study be ecologically generalized since it was not proven to be able to be replicated. To the researcher’s credit, she does recognize the small sample size, the potentially highly individualized setting and the limited extent to which it could be generalized in the section of the report titled, Limitations. The second study involved in this mixed methods study was a qualitative study. In this case, the results of this second study were used to expand on the findings of the first study. Unfortunately, the researcher again chose a convenience sample, using only the instructor who taught the sample from the accompanying study. The drawbacks to this could be considerable as many of the findings are expressions of student responses, not made by the students but perceived by the instructor in unaddressed mediums. Specifically the teacher is asked to address barriers to transformative learning and left to question is the reasoning why the students themselves could not have provided this response. The most unfortunate element of the second study is that is actually does not contain a sample as a single member of a population, in this case the population of adult educators, cannot be considered a sample, it is a single point of reference. It could be considered that the subject of the second study possessed great expertise, but the report does not provide enough evidence of that expertise to properly assess.

__**Instrumentation**__: (Vince)

Instrumentation refers to the entire process of collecting data. As with the dual nature of the sample, there is a duality in instrumentation for this mixed-methods study. In the first study the researcher used the Learning Activities Survey (LAS) as the instrument to collect data from the 58 student volunteers. The researcher deems this instrument to be both valid and reliable based on previous use. Of concern in this claim, is the circular chain of evidence. It appears this instrument was designed by the current researcher in 1998. This alone would not place in jeopardy validity or reliability, but in the case of this instrument, involves the valuation of substantive comments. This process of turning qualitative responses into quantitative data is proper to research, but in this case the developer of the instrument is the one who is valuing the comments, who is also the one conducting the current study. While a claim of subject matter expertise is highly plausible it nonetheless warrants great scrutiny. The instrument itself employs self-report data and is a criterion-referenced in that the instrument determines if transformative learning was achieved. An additional drawback is that the researcher does not provide the measurement scale applied. To the researcher credit, regarding the use of this instrument, she does provide demographic information about the respondents and does mention that the respondents identify was shielded from the instructor, the subject of the follow-on study. Regarding the second study, the instrument was a survey used upon a sample of one. The results are obtained directly from the respondent but are evaluated by the researcher. The survey in this case appears to have been administered orally based on the narrative comments but it is not possible to determine from the report how the survey was administered. Unfortunately, the report does not state the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the single respondent so an evaluation of researcher bias must be assumed.

__**Procedures/Internal Validity**__: (Bob)

The author used a mixed methods research design in order to look at both sides of the transformative learning phenomenon, as suggested by the study title. The first method was a survey instrument given to a group of graduate students completing the same education course each year for four years. The survey was the Learning Activities Survey (LAS), designed by the author in 1998 and deemed valid and reliable by same (King, 2004). Data collector bias was well controlled by use of the survey instrument and volunteer subjects who turned in sealed responses that were available only to the researcher. Volunteer identities were not disclosed to the instructor. Upon analyzing the data, the researcher executed an interview regime with the Instructor, completing the second piece of the mixed methods design. The author builds on her own research using a survey instrument of her own design, which may raise questions about credibility as Dr. King does not support her work extensively from other sources. However, after considering the entire work, I believe that the research design accounts for possible bias and that the research is credible as a result.

__**Data Analysis**__: (Dean)

__**Results**__: (Dean)

__**Discussion/Interpretation**__: (Dean)

And here's our hypotheses for the research proposal.

Army field grade officers with an increased self-efficacy in writing are more likely to enroll in the MMAS program.

** Purpose ** To identify a possible correlation between increased self-efficacy in writing and Army field grade officers enrolling in the MMAS program. ** Justification ** Army field grade officers do not all possess the motivation to sign up for the MMAS program within ILE. The low self-efficacy in writing skills is one likely factor in current participation rates. This study seeks to understand the role, if any, of an Army field grade officer’s estimate of their efficacy in writing skills in their decision to enroll in the MMAS program. The results could indicate that a positive sense of writing skills are a significant factor in deciding to enroll in the MMAS program for Army field grade officers. This may justify greater focus on the development of writing skills with Professional Military Education for officers prior to ILE attendance. ** Hypothesis/Definitions ** H1: Army field grade officers with an increased self-efficacy in writing are more likely to enroll in the MMAS program. H0: Increased self-efficacy in writing among Army field grade officers does not result in a greater likelihood of enrolling in the MMAS program. **//Definitions//** Army field grade officers are defined as an officer who has achieved the rank of Major and is at their x-y year of service. Increased self efficacy in writing as determined by XXXX self efficacy survey tool (to be identified/developed.) MMAS defined as (described in terms of outcomes and correlation to Officer PME) ** Prior Research ** (I will take this on. I have the lit review of another study that looked at self efficacy motivating action. This lit review will not directly correspond to our research but will indirectly show a relationship between self-efficacy and participation does exist.) ** Methodology ** **//Subjects//** ILE students attending CGSC at the Ft Leavenworth campus. Both the spring and fall courses will be used in order to capture a complete year group. **//Test Instruments//** Current self-efficacy instrument redesigned to assess writing skills (TBD.) Will require testing, resulting in a one-year delay of the actual study. Survey results will be assessed by the GGSC QAO office in order to ensure objective assessment of results. **//Exercise participation data sheet???//** Survey test study results – developed as a result of the input received through test year exercise. **//Correlation Study//** Students will be administered the instrument through AKO based on selection for attendance at Ft. Leavenworth campus. Students will be sent the instrument prior to their arrival at Ft Leaveworth. **Threats to Internal Validity** (from chapter on Correlation study) ** Ethical Considerations ** Effects of self efficacy in writing driving enrollment decision at Ft Leavenworth campus into MMAS Students will receive notification, both within the instrument and upon in-processing at Ft Leavenworth that survey results are anonymous and will not be used in any cadre decisions at Ft Leavenworth. May need to develop processes to maintain confidentiality of participants’ survey answers. Use randomly assigned ID numbers vice name or ssn. ** Limitations ** There are limitations of time and resources, in particular, funds for an in-depth study and the time to devote to both the survey instrument design, pilot test, and administration. The results will also be specific to only the year group(s) and specialty cross-section represented in the sample. Generalizing over the entire force or for year(s) outside of the study is not valid. In order to overcome this limitation the researcher will include a recommendation for further study over multiple year groups.  ** Data Analysis Plan ** (TBD)