Considering or Beginning a Research PhD

Last November I gave a short talk to undergraduates considering further study at the University of Limerick, Ireland, from the perspective of someone recently finishing a research PhD.  Five things from my experience of the PhD process that I recommended for consideration were:

1. Finances. 
It may seem like an obvious one, but considering finances cannot be reiterated enough. 
Can you get a scholarship? 
Will you need to teach to support yourself?
Will teaching conflict with or aid your research? 
Will you need a part-time job? 
Will you be able to have a life outside of the PhD?
These are very important questions to consider and there are many others based on each person's context.

2. Relationship with supervisor(s).  
In any type of work environment, a good working relationship is needed.  You might be very motivated to do a PhD, but if you rush into a PhD you might find a little bit down the line that communicating with your supervisor is a difficult process.  It is good to get an understanding of what your supervisor's expectations of you and for the project are, but you should also make your expectations clear too, of the supervisor and for the project.  Otherwise, such expectations that were not made clear from the start can be a potential source of conflict later on.

3. College culture shock. 
Having done my undergraduate studies at the University of Limerick, I had not anticipated how different things would be for my postgraduate studies.  For example, I had to be much more proactive in making new friends/meeting work colleagues, as most of my undergraduate friends had left Limerick.  When doing an undergraduate course you can regularly meet 30+ classmates in one day through lectures and tutorials.  As a research postgraduate, you could sit at your desk all day and not meet or interact with anybody.

4. Initiative. 

It is sad to say, but doing PhD research is one of the first times you start to get real ownership of your own education within formal education.  In undergraduate studies there were lecturers deciding the course material, setting the deadlines, and giving examinations.  In doing PhD research it is you that needs to show initiative and begin to make these decisions, something that is not an easy transition for everyone.

5. Ups and downs. 

Some days you feel you have ripped through all the work you wanted to get done and even more.  Other days even Taz may need a change of pace.  A PhD can feel like a long process and you need to be mentally prepared for the varying challenges it can throw at you.  However, it is overcoming these challenges that can be the most rewarding aspect of doing a PhD.

For a more detailed exploration of the typical lifestyle of what can be entailed as a researcher (beyond my anecdotal advice) and effective strategies for overcoming difficulties in doing research, I would highly recommend reading the work of Hugh Kearns and Maria Gardiner.  I attended one of Hugh Kearn's workshops during my PhD and found it brilliant in terms of enhancing my research skills/work-life balance (See 'The Balanced Researcher: Strategies for Busy Researchers').  Ten strategies they suggest (p.6-9) for keeping your work in balance relate to:
1.Making a plan,
2.Pick the right things,
3.Make time for research,
4.Learn how to say No,
5.Delegate,
6.Set realistic standards,
7.Write regularly (and then submit it!),
8.Don't check your e-mail first thing in the morning,
9.Use the 3 Ds (Do it, Diarise it, Ditch it) of paperwork (and e-mail), and
10.Deal with distractions.

The Matrix of Experimentation Terminology

The possible uses of computers for school practical work continue to increase,  both as a means to enhance practical work and to support simulations as an analogy of practical work.  Simulations have been more readily adopted in aviation training (Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenzer, 1998) and in medical education (Bligh & Bleakley, 2006; Issenberg, McGaghie, Petrusa, Gordan, & Scalese, 2005; Ziv, Ben-David, Ziv, 2005), but the use of simulations for schools has only become more prevalent in the last decade (Rutten, van Joolingen, & van der Veen, 2011; Scalise, Timms, Moorjani, Clark, Holtermann, & Irvin, 2011).  However, the use of simulations for schools continues to expand. 

Since the advent of simulations in education, various different terminology has been used to describe the particular types of simulation and how they link with the object being simulated, e.g., simulation of practical work.  Clements (1999) draws on the idea of 'concrete' from  concrete manipulatives, in terms of a Piagetian pedagogical sequence moving from 'concrete to abstract', and offers a re-formulation that encompasses computer manipulatives.  However he notes potential issues in agreement of equating 'concrete' with physical manipulatives and 'accepting objects on the computer screen as valid manipulatives' (ibid, p.49).  Despite these issues he notes that research has shown that 'computer representations may even be more managable, 'clean', flexible, and extensible than their physical counterparts' (ibid, p.49).  Based on the research, what is 'concrete' is in 'the eye of the beholder' (ibid, p.50). 

Zacharia (2007) uses the terms Real Experimentation (RE) and Virtual Experimentation (VE) to distinguish between practical work and practical work simulations.  Zacharia and Olympiou (2011) introduce the terms Physical Manipulative Experimentation (PME) and Virtual Manipulative Experimentation (VME), thus highlighting the terms to distinguish types of experimentation are still open to debate.  When it comes to experimentation, it could be argued that the addition of 'manipulative' is unnecessary, as manipulation is an inherent aspect of experimentation.  It is also pertinent to note the change of the term ‘real’ (Zacharia, 2007) to ‘physical’ (Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011).  From a philosophical perspective, virtual experimentation could be argued as a ‘real’ student experience (Zacharia & Olympiou, personal communication, 07/09/2011) and hence, the change of real to physical.  However, it could also be argued that virtual experimentation involves a ‘physical’ student experience with a computer.  There is clearly an issue in defining the interpretive boundaries of virtual, physical, and real in relation to experimentation.  One could fall into a matrix of experimentation terminology.  What is real?  What is virtual?  What is physical?  Such a debate falls in line with Clements (1999)'s argument that determining what is 'concrete' is based on each individual's perception.  The debate could be complicated further by considering other terminology such as artificial experimentation, actual experimentation, simulated experimentation.  Put me back inside the Matrix where things are simpler!

Unfortunately, there are bigger issues of concern in schools in that many students' experience of supposedly 'real' practical work is rather 'artificial' or 'simulated' where students simply follow steps in a cookbook manner to a known conclusion (Abrahams & Millar, 2008).  Such practices reflect little in aiding to develop students' scientific reasoning and understanding of what scientists do.  The focus of enhancing practical work needs to move beyond issues of just physicality (hands-on) to consider the meaning students derive from practical work (minds-on).  An exellent 'concrete' activity is an excellent mental activity (Clements, 1989; Kamii, 1989).  Such activities for learners are meaningful, provide ownership and flexibility, align with cognitive processes, and overall assist in a greater knowledge integration (Clements, 1999).

References:

-Abrahams, I. and Millar, R. (2008) 'Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science', International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.

-Bligh, J. and Bleakley, A. (2006) 'Distributing menus to hungry learners: can learning by simulation become simulation of learning?' Medical Teacher, 28(7), 606 - 613.

-Clements, D. H. (1989) Computers in Elementary Mathematics Education, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.-Clements, D. (1999) ''Concrete' manipulatives, concrete ideas.' Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.

-Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Gordon, D. L. and Scalese, R. J. (2005) 'Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review', Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10-28.

-Kamii, C. K. (1989) Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic: 2nd grade. Implications of Piaget’s theory, New York: Teachers College Press.

-Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R. and van der Veen, J. T. (2011) 'The learning effects of computer simulations in science education', Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153.

-Salas, E., Bowers, C. A. and Rhodenizer, L. (1998) 'It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training', International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197 - 208.

-Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K. and Irvin, P. S. (2011) 'Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050-1078.

-Zacharia, Z. (2007) 'Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120-132.

-Zacharia, Z. and Olympiou, G. (2011) 'Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning', Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.

-Ziv, A., Ben-David, S. and Ziv, M. (2005) 'Simulation Based Medical Education: an opportunity to learn from errors', Medical Teacher, 27(3), 193 - 199.