Bigger Hurdles: Proposal and mini viva

The new school term began on Monday and the dust has not yet settled, but 10.00am this morning was the time scheduled for my mini viva. It has been a busy couple of months. I gave my formal presentation of my proposal on the penultimate day of the summer term, then met a draft proposal deadline for my supervisor the day after we broke up. Much reading about methodology over the summer before two bound copies of the finished proposal were submitted last week (with a good twenty minutes to spare before the deadline, I might add).

I arrived in plenty of time to go over my notes and my proposal carefully. At 9.30am I reassured myself that in a couple of hours, whatever happened, it would all be over. I wasn't especially nervous; this was in the spirit of giving a taste of what the format of the actual viva would be like and provided a further opportunity to engage in healthy debate about aspects of the proposed research. As the 'invitation' explained: Always with the desire to have a good constructive discussion, the aim of the viva will be to clarify aspects of the proposal to help make sure it provides you with a basis for a workable bit of PhD research - with lines of enquiry likely to be similar to those that were raised during your recent proposal presentations, and generally taking up the different aspects of what makes a good workable proposal.

The first few questions began, 'Can you elaborate on...' and were fine and fair. I warmed to my themes. But, after that my terminology was questioned extensively, my research questions were pulled apart and my methodology was under fire. I faltered, I internally questioned my whole approach. Never has a sip of water tasted so good as at the end of the mini viva. It felt tough, very tough indeed.

I was sent away for twenty minutes whilst  it was discussed and, given the vigorous questioning, I feared the worst.  But - ultimately the comments were complimentary and I came away with a referral of five required responses, and a short turnaround time before submitting amendments to the proposal. They said:

The proposed research addresses an important area and you demonstrated a deep and reflexive knowledge of its complexities both in the written proposal and in the wide-ranging discussion that took place during the mini viva. The following requirements should help to consolidate these ideas with a view to embedding them more explicitly in the approach to data collection: 
1. Once the core terms/constructs addressed in the study have been finalized the title should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with these. You should also make sure there is no unintended hint of deficit.
2. The research questions should be revised to ensure best fit with the core constructs/terms and the methodological approach. Each one should be accompanied by a line or two of explanation so that the rationale underpinning the question is made explicit.
3. Develop and insert a diagrammatic representation of the research process so that it is clearer how the different elements and methods relate to the specific areas for exploration and intervention. Provide a page or two discussion on the methods chosen and why, linking this the literature and to two or three specific examples of focus group questions, areas for observation etc. 
4. Insert a single paragraph in Chapter One that highlights the school/research context in which the proposed research sits as discussed in the mini-viva.
5. Revise the timeline to ensure this fits with the timeline for obtaining ethics approval.

I think it felt good because it was hard. I feel as though I have survived a gladiatorial contest. I am exceedingly glad that it is done.

Now for ethical approval...

What A Difference A Day Makes

Whilst I was negotiating with school about the possibility of undertaking doctoral study, we agreed that I would be able to take the equivalent of five 'study days' through the year at mutually convenient times. The summer term seems to have been the first opportunity for a 'mutually convenient' time now that exam classes have departed and the general mele has died down.

I had the first of those study days today. And what a difference a day makes. I worked a solid eight hours, and realised (after a slow start) just how much can be achieved in that time. It was a slow start because I chose to do the hardest thing first. This was wading through an article I have been putting off  as it seemed long and difficult. It was long and difficult, but worthwhile. 

I began using the 'RefMe' app; it seemed convenient, but not infallible. Any thoughts greatly appreciated. I feel much more organised and on top of the reading, note making, and indeed the writing, having added several hundred words to my methodology section.

My physical study (the room) is clear and my actual study (the research) seems clearer.

And in the nick of time, as I am finalising deadlines for formal presentation, proposal submission and mini viva, which look as though they will be mid July, late August and early September, respectively - with three conference presentations in June. 

The heat is on.

Note to self: don't take on a large role in a play for the remaining duration of your study... 

Informal Presentation to Peers

I have reached another important milestone on this first year of my doctoral journey: the 'informal' presentation of my proposal to peers.

This was, frankly, terrifying.

I am now a confident public speaker, and regularly get invited to present at education conferences.  The thing is, when I do that, I am usually the person in the room who knows most about my 'thing', whatever it happens to be. Often, it is related to the specific way we have handled a particular idea or initiative within the department and I am merely disseminating something that is perceived as good practice.  I am the expert; I have done the 'thing', and I am one of the people most qualified to talk about it.  I am, therefore, usually confident that I can respond to any question that might be generated.

For this presentation though, whilst I still know an awful lot about my substantive topic (the teaching of reading in secondary English education) on points of methodology I am just about the least knowledgeable person in the room. And given that I am intending to undertake a form of participatory action research, not PAR in its truest sense, there was plenty that was shaky, or at least unsubstantiated, about the methodology.

Also, because of the part-time nature of my studies, I have only met the other members of my cohort ever so briefly; only had a real, actual, conversation with one of them.  So they weren't really a known audience.

But I did it, and have now had something of an opportunity to reflect on it.

I know that I need to make the 'narrative' aspect of the presentation, the rationale, more joined up. I realise that some of what I was saying was irrelevant, and leading me (and my audience) down unnecessary paths. I need to define some of my terms. 'Authentic' is one. My methodology needs to be significantly more robust - but I think I am beginning to see where and how. There are some gaps that are easy to fill - aspects of early ethical considerations in relation to teacher-time need to be more clearly explained, for example.

How did I feel at the end of it? Relieved, elated and grateful.

Relieved that I'd made it through.
Elated by the supportive, thoughtful responses offered by my academic peers.
Grateful for their suggestions and feedback.

I also, finally, understood that I need not be defensive (at this stage!) - it really was an opportunity to 'test the water'. The water is quite cool, but now I have dipped a toe in I think I can get a little bit braver.

Vaulting Hurdles and Admiring Ivory Towers

Blame the English teacher in me who can't resist a metaphor. Last month it was milestones, this time it is hurdles. I'm safely over one (submitting that draft literature review) and now in the run up to the second.

One of the perils of full time work combined with part-time study is the disconnectedness from all campus activity. I have a 'cohort' of some faces that I recognise, but might struggle to put a name to, or could only do so by a process of elimination.  The rest of the cohort know and support each other and are familiar with aspects of each other's research.  They are also at the stage now of presenting their proposals before seeking ethical approval. I have a date provisionally booked in for an informal presentation of mine in early May (that next hurdle) along with the other part-time student.  Notice the singular.

But yesterday was a rare opportunity to spend the day at the university, watching the presentations and meeting up with people that I haven't seen since the first day of the academic year back in September. The style of those presentations was as varied as the projects and the presenters themselves. Ideas spanned disciplines, paradigms and continents. All were nervous before they began, and some were treated more sensitively than others in the question and answer sessions which followed. Gulp. So I know now what I am aiming it.

But the biggest privilege of yesterday's experience was the reminder of the pace of life within the walls of the university.

There was time for a two hour lunch break. I read, reflected on the morning's presentations, made some notes, visited the library (oh, what a place to be). It was all so civilised and so far removed from inside the walls of my school where this week has been the monthly department meeting, the Year 11 'Walking Talking Mock' and all the resulting marking; BBC School Report with 270 Year 8 students and all the stress of the deadline; Year 12 and Year 13 tracking - and then a full teaching load around all of that.

It really is two worlds colliding and I have to keep reminding myself of their ultimate interconnectedness and the fact that they do and will impinge on each other in dramatic ways.  Difficult to remember when I finally remembered to wolf down lunch as the bell went this afternoon. But the feedback on my literature review put a little fillip into Monday's step - so thorough and developmental as it was - and I have to remember to offer my own students the same.  A timely reminder, indeed.

Limbering up now for that next leap.

Reached First Milestone

I had to write something.

And submit it.

It felt hopelessly inadequate.

I have read, read, read since last July, so it represented six months of my life.  I have had so many thoughts, ideas, responses; eureka moments and moments where I feel like I am groping around in the dark, about to reach something.

And I was supposed to condense that in to less than 3000 words of a literature review for my proposal.  Before research questions have been fully formed, even. It was clumsy, inarticulate prose bolted together with a few quotations.

It has made me value the power of 'free writing' even more; in comparison to what felt like stilted, pseudo-academic nonsense - that I always seem to spout when I use a computer and have the cloud of a deadline hanging over me. And it makes a good argument for the handwritten reflective journal - which can always be turned into academic writing once the thought has been expressed and the point made.

But, reader, I submitted it.

And breathe.

And wait.

The way ahead is long, and will no doubt get a little hillier - mountainous, even; certainly much rougher terrain.  But there it is. Mile 1.  (Or 3000 words of the 80,000? The first mile of the marathon.)

Christmas Reading and New Year's Study Resolutions

A question that I continually wrestle with is this: As a part-time PhD student, how much study am I meant to do?  How much study can I do? What are the most effective ways of studying? Working full-time within the education system means that the holidays become, naturally, my most 'productive' times in relation to my studies. But I am conscious of the need to make this work consistently throughout the year - certainly as best as I can.

So, in writing, here are my New Year's resolutions in relation to carving out time for my research:

• Sunday night is bath night.  It must also become 'reading' night. I can get a good two hours in before the water turns cold!
• Monday mornings need, therefore, to be an opportunity for reflection. The alarm must go off at 5am to make sure that I get at least an hour and a half in of quality work in before having to get ready for school.
• Monday evenings will continue to be my main study time. 7-10pm gives me three hours, and should include attending to my university emails. That block-booking of six and a half hours over an actual time span of about twenty eight hours is crucial to maintain some sort of consistency.
• The use of my research journal must become more rigorous. I need to build in time for regular re-reading of my research journal. The first hour of the Monday night session would work well.
• The second hour for new writing - either in research journal or with ongoing writing up; currently on the literature review for my research proposal. 

My Christmas reading has been very much about research and away from the substantive topic of reading. The Routledge Doctoral Student's Companion remains my main text.  I've read to Chapter 23 now. It continues to both reassure and unsettle in equal measure.

I'm preoccupied with the continued need to define 'values', that it is no longer enough to simply identify and then establish oneself within a constructivist or interpretive paradigm. But then there is the inevitable acknowledgement of the ethical problems inherent in researching in 'one's own backyard', alongside some warnings about reflexivity as a methodological tool. Sigh.

I also feel that I have been granted 'permission' to write in the first person, and in the active voice. This is something that I definitely struggled with on my Masters course, but I think that first person active might allow my writing to be 'truer' to the particular academic genre in which I find myself.

I am conscious of the emphasis that there needs to be on argument, even in the literature review. This is very hard to construct when I don't yet know exactly what it is that I wish to 'argue', but it is something that I intend to take to heart.

So onwards and upwards. I feel that it has been a good first term, but the much harder work is about to begin as I move towards actual deadlines in relation to the research proposal.

One Giant Leap Forward and Several Hasty Retreats

Supervisor, cheer me, for I have read. It is one month since my last meeting.

Brown, J. .S, Collins, A & Duguid, P. 1989. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher. [Online]. 18(1), 32-42. [30 November 2015]. Available from: http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/1/32
Kalenze, E (2014). Education is Upside-Down Reframing reform to focus on the right problems. (1st ed.). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Merga, M.K. (2015). Access to Books in the Home and Adolescent Engagement in Recreational Book Reading: Considerations for secondary school educators. English in Education. 49(3), pp. 197-214.
Nationalcollegeorguk. 2015. Nationalcollegeorguk. [Online]. [24 November 2015]. Available from: https://network.nationalcollege.org.uk/collegediscussions/28075
Revisiting Margaret Meek

I was also lucky enough to attend Tom Bennett's Research Ed English conference at Swindon on the 7th November. I heard David Didau, Debra Kidd, Professor Ray Land of Durham University who gave the keynote address on threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. I took something from each. From Andy Tharby I am utilising an ideal: imagine if every English teacher read one paper every half term over a period of ten years...Eric Kalenze's discussion of context and his urge to 'put those comprehension strategies down' was compelling.  Each sent me scuttling in a different reading direction.

But of this month's new reading, Brown's Situated Cognition was the most interesting (and the most difficult to process!) I need to investigate much further, but this could be the start of a theoretical framework in which to root my research. I am definitely shaping around the building of a reading community, and the things that are within my power in the classroom and across the department. Influenced by Brown, I am questioning what it means to be a reader in the real world, and what that might look like translated into a classroom – so still maintaining those initial threads of ideas about teacher knowledge; systems, environment and opportunities; and knowledge of the students themselves as readers all contributing to some kind of departmental pedagogy about the teaching of reading.

From the eminently companionable Doctoral Student's Companion I have enjoyed a useful chapter on the Literature Review with really concrete examples of good and bad writing - so I have begun, and will have something by the January deadline. A timely and useful prod since I feel like I actually have to do something other than read and think in a bubble but it is, still, difficult to do without formulated research questions. I have too many of them and they are simply too big at the moment. Which is where Pryor's essay on constructing research questions has been invaluable. I have undertaken the suggested map of significance exercise to try and focus thinking.

It transpires that, currently, the profile and status of reading for pleasure institutionally, notions of ‘authentic’ reading and ‘authentic’ situations and opportunity for reading both in terms of access and curriculum are central. I suspect that, in spite of everything that might be going on to promote reading at the surface, teachers are still subconsciously but intrinsically and implicitly condemning it as an activity.  I think about the 'Currently I'm Reading...poster campaign at school and its now tired unsustainability; the half-hearted support amongst non-English staff for things like DEAR; the fact that reading in lessons is side-lined the minute exams or any kind of internal assessment are on the scene; even the language that we use to describe the most able readers, not to mention the lack of curriculum time currently allowed to pursuing reading for pleasure. All these initiatives which might be having the opposite effect of that which is intended. Perhaps school culture creates an unintentional devaluing of books and reading.

So, I have a more clearly defined focus than I have had since the heady days of my research proposal application for study, when I thought I knew what I was doing...!

The problem is that this is most definitely a case of one step forward and two steps backwards.

Until this point I have always thought about things that I would like to do…and then worked backwards to reading and theories.  I now find that whilst I think I have now narrowed down the area of focus, I have no idea now about what to actually do!

Supervision tomorrow.  Perhaps I will be absolved.