How Dissertations are Written

Dissertation Reviews
Summary
This phenomenological study by Emmart (2015) examined the how teachers deal with working with traumatized students. Six female elementary school teachers were interviewed in a small urban school district. The teachers recalled experiences working with several students who had suffered from some trauma, whether it was sexual abuse of being abandoned by a parent. The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using the Moustakas model, which is helpful for obtaining a sense of the “wholeness of experience,” according to Simon (2011). Emmart’s (2015) qualitative study applied this model by using the interview method to see through the eyes of the participants what it is like to teach a traumatized student. By placing himself in the participants’ shoes, Emmart (2015) was able to better and more deeply understand the experience and interpret the data through a close analysis of the transcribed interviews. The most striking feature of the research was that Emmart (2015) uncovered the startling account from the teachers themselves that none of them had received any formal training in how to deal with a student suffering from trauma. The traumatized student would routinely lash out in class and the teacher would have to use trial and error to try to find some way to deal with the situation effectively. This was the case for all six participants, who had an average age of 18 years between them. The main concern with this study was that the teachers never really reached a solution and over the course of the school year the situation only got worse for both students and teachers, as the aggression of the former intensified.
The study included a sufficient explanation of the background of the subject, an explanation of the problem that needed to be studied—“little is known about how children struggling with trauma impact teacher efforts to reach established curricular goals” (Emmart, 2015, p. 13)—and how it personally applied to the researcher. The purpose statement and necessary definitions of terms were provided. The literature review provided information on the theoretical framework utilized—the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2002), which helped to supply focus for the study. The methodology was clearly described and the findings were enunciated clearly and discussed with respect to the research questions, the research problem, the theoretical approach used, and the research purpose.
Implications for practice were described: “There must be an increased effort on the part of school administrators and researchers to work collaboratively in order to come alongside the efforts of teachers throughout the U.S.” (Emmert, 2015, p. 94). And findings were discussed in terms of how teachers could be better developed to face the problem of traumatized students: “The preparation of teachers needs to be much more responsive to the significant changes evidenced in American culture related to the aftermath of trauma within the learning environment” (Emmert, 2015, p. 95). Likewise, the researcher noted that more support for students is needed and should be developed through policy at the district level, including the use of “safety plans,” which the researcher stated could provide “an opportunity for the grounding and self-soothing necessary to regulate one’s own emotional state”—which is helpful in classrooms for both teachers and students (Emmert, 2015, p. 99). The study also acknowledged its limitations and provided recommendations for future research, including for quantitative research on the subject.
Analysis of the Quality of Research Conducted
Strengths
The strength of the study was that it obtained the personal experiences of six young teachers in an urban area and provided analysis of their experiences in dealing with students who appeared to have suffered from some trauma. This was a strength because it revealed a deeper problem in the schools that went beyond the experiences of the students and the teachers: it revealed the fact that teachers—at least the ones in this study—simply were not prepared in their education programs for dealing with traumatized students. This finding is significant because it suggests that the education system that is supposed to be preparing teachers for the real world is not adequately doing the job.
Another strength of the study was its design. The phenomenological design does not always receive a great deal of praise, but I find it to be one of the most compelling research designs as it really provides a great deal of insight into an issue that a quantitative study simply cannot provide. There is something about seeing the issue through the eyes of those who have experienced it and arriving at a deeper sense of what is going on that makes this type of research worth it in my book.
Limitations
The limitations of the study included the lack of validity and reliability afforded by the research design. Qualitative studies typically do not offer much in terms of either validity or reliability, because they focus on subjective experiences and so the control of variables is much more difficult to discern, though some researchers acknowledge that it is possible (Golafshani, 2003). The study also suffered from lacking a clear definition of trauma—so teachers were discussing students from a variety of different perspectives and there was no way to tell if they were actually discussing a traumatized student or just a student who perhaps suffered from a learning disorder. This further reduced the study’s credibility in terms of having any validity or trustworthiness.
I also felt that the study did a poor job of addressing the research problem—but this might have been because the research problem itself was not articulated clearly: it contained multiple variables and was not easily understood. Therefore, I think it was probably not really understood well from the researcher’s perspective either. If the researcher was interested in the problems students were having and how this in turn impacted teachers data sources should have been triangulated, with the students’ perspective included.
On a technical note, the first chapter did not conclude with a summary or with a brief description of what the rest of the dissertation would look like. It simply stopped as though the researcher did not think it important to summarize some of the main points of the first chapter or to give the reader a preview of how the rest of the study was organized.
How the Research Could Have Been Done Differently
I feel that the research could have been done differently in a lot of ways. A mixed methods approach could have been used to better provide some concrete data to help answer the research questions and address the research problem. I would have triangulated the data sources by including interviews with the students and a third source of information to help corroborate the information that was coming from both students and teachers—such as test grades or other students in the class who observed the scene.
Personal Analysis and Practical Application
Personal Lessons Learned
One lesson that I learned from this dissertation was that a researcher really has to apply the theory to the findings and not just discuss it in one chapter and then forget about it. Theory is important to the study because it is what allows the researcher to interpret the findings. The theory should be both discussed and used by the researcher when it comes time to discuss the findings. Without a suitable or appropriate theoretical framework or model, the study will lack cohesiveness and a firm foundation.
Another lesson I learned was that it is very useful to provide the reader with a sense of what is to be expected in the study. The abstract gives only a brief overview—and so there should be a section at the end of the first chapter that tells the reader how the rest of the study is organized. This gives the reader a sense of what to look forward to instead of sitting there wondering if the researcher is going to address this or that point and then being pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised.
Finally, I learned that for my own experience, teachers need support—just as students do, and this study shoes it well. Teachers have to feel like they have somewhere they can turn when they have a challenge like a traumatized student that they have to deal with on a daily basis. If teachers do not have this support, they can quickly burn out in their field, and this is a tragic thing because there are already too few teachers. I would personally recommend this study to others for it certainly opened my eyes about the struggles that teachers can go through when they have no training in coming to the aid of a traumatized student.
Relevance of the Work within the Field of Education
In terms of this dissertation’s relevance in the field of education, it should help to open eyes about the extent to which teachers need more formal training in dealing with students who have suffered from trauma. Teachers are going to struggle with developing or implementing a curriculum if they have to deal with constant disruptions in the classroom. This will not only impact the teacher and the student but also other students as well. They are often forgotten in a classroom where disruptions prevent a teacher from doing her job effectively.
Therefore, the field of education could take this study to heart in spite of its limitations and really start to provide some answers or solutions for what this dissertation brought to light. That is one of the great aspects about phenomenological research: it does a great job of bringing new information to light that can be used to help develop new policies and approaches to serve the field.
I would also like to wonder why these traumatized students were not placed in a special education classroom for students with special needs. Two of the instructors in the study had backgrounds in special education but all of the teachers were focused on general education. If a student is found to be disruptive in the classroom, there needs to be more investigation into why the student is acting out. It should not be the teacher’s lot to try to conduct a trial and error approach to handling the situation. This is likely to be inefficient and ineffective at best. The teacher should rather be able to follow a policy already in place that can allow all stakeholders to address the issue collaboratively and find a solution to the problem together. Given that this study was conducted in an urban district, however, it could be that there are simply too few stakeholders to intervene at that level.
2
Summary
The dissertation by Ledford (2017) focused on providing a narrative of the life of a young person who had suffered abusive head trauma as a 5-month old infant. The narrative study applied a multiple theory framework to the study to identify how the theories of resilience, social cognition, and the ecology of human develop tied into together to explain the evolution and development of the main subject of the study—Trudy. The study explained the theoretical framework as an integral part of the approach to the subject and then discussed adolescent development in general.
Multiple dimensions of identify were also discussed to help provide information on how social and personal identity is formed and how this applies to the story of Trudy to show that people overcome challenges in multiple ways, often uniquely and in their own terms, though those terms are informed by a plethora of inputs from their environment—which in Trudy’s case included a youth minister at her church, a wide and encompassing support network, and her faith in God and in herself. The risk factors of abusive head trauma were discussed to provide the reader with an understanding of the main physiological challenges that Trudy faced, and relevant literature on how other adolescents coped with abusive brain trauma was included.
The study’s design was explained and shown to be applicable to the study and its research questions, namely: “1) What are the lived experiences of an adolescent survivor of an abusive head trauma in the Southeastern United States? 2) What challenges does an adolescent survivor of an abusive head trauma face? 3) What resilience mechanisms does an adolescent survivor employ to cope with living with an abusive head trauma? 4) What advice would an adolescent survivor give to someone who has experienced an abusive head trauma?” (Ledford, 2017, p. 63). The data collection method was discussed in detail and the analysis method was also described with issues of trustworthiness, credibility and transferability also defined. Ledford (2017) used the recommendation of Patton (2002) on how to ensure trustworthiness—namely by establishing the researcher’s competence through verification and validation of the data. The researcher discusses triangulating data sources and making sure the information overall is comprehensive and credible.
The findings of the study show that “resilience mechanisms, such as a large support network, adaptive behaviors, faith and perseverance have allowed [Trudy] to cope with life as a survivor of an abusive head trauma” (Ledford, 2017, p. 105). The subject was found to have to deal with a number of different challenges in her life—seizures, impaired walking, attention deficits, reasoning problems, and so on. The subject described in detail how she addressed these challenges whenever she could: for instance, with the problem of change, which was something she was described as hating, Trudy simply tried to accept that God had a plan for her and that she had to say goodbye to her high school friends to pursue that calling. She tried to get through her last day just by remembering to breathe and keep a good humor about it all.
Finally, the implications are discussed and the researcher showed that one of the best things a child who has suffered from traumatic brain injury can do is to develop self-efficacy. The research showed that this was the case with Trudy. It also aligns with what Maslow (1943) teaches about the hierarchy of needs, with self-actualization being the fullest development of the personality.
Analysis of the Quality of Research Conducted
Strengths
One of the biggest strengths of this study is its discussion of the methodology used for collecting data and analyzing it. In most studies, the methodology is fairly straight-forward and does not require a great deal of justification. However, with a narrative design, there is some need on the part of the researcher to explain how this design is appropriate and how data can be useful in the field. The researcher did an excellent job of explaining this by discussing credibility and transferability along with data triangulation. Instead of simply relying on one source for data, which would really call into question the study’s credibility and trustworthiness, the researcher focus on obtaining data from multiple sources—from observation, from interviews, and from the use of other documents; likewise, the main subject and secondary subjects used for interviews confirmed the “accuracy of the interview transcripts and agreed with the information provided in the written report” (Ledford, 2017, p. 84). This was the study’s main strength that I saw.
Other strengths included the overall organization of the study: it was well-thought out and well-written, with many references appropriately used and used well. The study also was strong in its findings, discussing the data from the perspective of the theories used, and showing some relevance for the field of development studies. For instance, the researcher noted first off how important it is for parents to
Limitations
The study’s limitations were really inherent in its design. A single narrative design is not going to necessarily allow for a great deal of transferability. However, it still provides an example of an experience that can be used to shape one’s perspective going forward—just like reading a novel or grand narrative by a master story-teller: the experiences of the characters in the novel serve to provide life lessons for the reader going forward. So this can be considered a limitation in one sense, but not in another, as there is still a lot to learn.
However, the study’s research questions were really not that unique or significant, and I wondered overall what the purpose of the study was—even though the researcher provided one early on. I myself enjoy qualitative literature as it gives a deeper sense of a subject in most cases, but I found this study to be very general and I could not imagine that any of the findings uncovered in this study would really be earth-shattering or even new or surprising to anyone that has studied the subject before.
How the Research Could Have Been Done Differently
While I felt the research design was justified and explained well, I thought that the research questions and purpose were a bit too general and did not really focus on anything substantial. I would have changed the study to try to focus on a specific experience of the subject and see how she dealt with it—whether it was saying goodbye to her friends and embracing change or learning how to cope with any one of the challenges she faced as a result of her trauma. At the same time, I feel that the researcher did an excellent job in spite of the general approach because I still learned a lot about the subject just be experiencing it in the subject’s own words and getting an idea of what it must be like to suffer from an abusive brain trauma. So while I say I might change the focus to explore a specific question in more detail, I still managed to learn a good deal from the way this study was approached.
Personal Analysis and Practical Application
Personal Lessons Learned
The lessons that I learned from this study included: how to really tackle a single subject and draw an immense wealth of information from it. Ledford (2017) was able to triangulate her data sources to allow for greater credibility and I thought that was a very good focus on her part. Using data triangulation took the study to the next level of competency, as far as I was concerned and I was able to see how one can conduct a qualitative study and still ensure that it is credible and trustworthy.
One particular lesson I learned was that when it comes to describing the methodology of a qualitative study like this, one should support it with the relevant literature but at the same time describe the exact steps that one takes so that the reader can really have an excellent idea of what happened and how the information was collected. Reading this dissertation I was impressed by the fact that the methodology was so well-thought-out and described both with detail and with relevant support from academic literature that justified why specific topics were important—such as the need to establish trustworthiness and credibility.
In a quantitative study, a researcher will typically tend to focus on establishing reliability and validity—and in qualitative studies, the researcher has to translate those concepts because they really don’t apply since specific variables are not being measured and one could not easily take this methodology and apply it to a similar subject and expect the same results, since the power of qualitative literature is that it tends to provide insight into a unique experience. All the same, I learned that making sure the reader knows that you verified your data and obtained verification of your interpretation of the data from the data source, as Ledford (2017) really helps to win the reader’s trust and give the study that much more credibility over all. I would want to apply this same focus to my study to ensure it obtains a similar reception.
Relevance of the Work within the Field of Education
The relevance of this work within the field of education is that it provides a great deal of insight into what a young person experiences as a result of going through a traumatic brain injury like that suffered by Trudy. This insight could be used to develop new policies and procedures for other children that can help them to obtain a strong support network. It can be used to educate parents or guardians about the challenges the young person is likely to face and it can be used to help develop ways of addressing those problems.
Furthermore, the importance of developing resilience for a young person is really important and educators and administrators should take notice of this. For Trudy, her resilience was based in her faith-based experiences, so this is one consideration that educators can take and ask themselves: What is the role of character formation in the development of a young person who has experienced education? How can character education be used to help a young person succeed in life and overcome obstacles? There is already a great deal of literature on character education (Lickona, 1993; Smith, 2013). This study could add to that literature and show how the development of the character is one of the most important parts of helping young people to become more resilient and overcome obstacles that they will face in life. Really, when one thinks about it, Trudy is no different from anyone else: she hates change just like so many others do—but her faith gave her the character to be resilient—and that is an important lesson for educators to take to heart.

References
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 665-683
Emmart, M. A. (2015). Teaching students struggling with trauma: A qualitative
investigation of impact upon curricular goals. Liberty University [Doctoral Dissertation].
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606.
Ledford, C. G. (2017). Trudy's triumph: A narrative life history of an adolescent
survivor of abusive head trauma. Liberty University [Doctoral Dissertation].
Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3):
6-11.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Simon, M. (2011). Dissertation and Scholarly Research: Recipes for Success.
Seattle: Dissertation and Success LLC.
Smith, B. (2013). School-based character education in the United States. Childhood
Education, 89(6): 350-355.