Concept+Paper+Versions

=**Assignment:**= Get Concept Paper approved by chair, committee, and Graduate School
 * Started:** 3 January 2013
 * Approved by Chair:** 6 March 2013
 * Approved by Committee:** 10 July 2013 (91 day lay off to take two additional classes)
 * Approved by Graduate School:** 6 November 2013
 * Total Number of Days: 216 **

Version 0 - Template with styles, no comments, no content
New NCU Templates:

Version 1 - First attempt at problem statement (6 Jan 2013)
- Told to create a funnel from general problem to a specific problem.

Version 2 - Second attempt at problem statement (8 Jan 2013)
- Told to tighten it up slightly, but to include purpose statement and research questions to work on alignment.

Version 3 - First attempt at purpose statement and research questions (10 Jan 2013)
- Pointed out a slight misalignment of problem and purpose, and told I'd probably have to narrow my scope. She also questioned my methodology.

Version 4 - Align problem and purpose, clarify purpose further (14 Jan 2013)
- Discouraging feedback, but my Chair did not find any difficulties with my problem/purpose/rq's or hypotheses, so I'm going to include the Intro and work on the Research Methods. I've also determined that my purpose is too complicated, so I'm going to simplify the construct to andragogical characteristics and student satisfaction.

Version 5 - Resubmit problem/purpose/research questions/hypotheses (22 Jan 2013)
- I talked with my chair over the phone. We identified what I was trying to accomplish and determined on viable variables that would meet stringency requirements, and get the process done as quickly as possible. We discussed switching to a PhD program instead of the EdD since I intend to attack a full theoretical framework workup in my dissertation. We also confirmed that I will be working with the correlation of andragogical characteristics and student satisfaction as my variables.

Version 6 - Resubmit clarified problem/purpose/research questions/hypotheses and add introduction (28 Jan 2013)
- There were quite a few revisions in wording, but not too many in structure. Will continue to focus on problem and purpose and get that together before moving forward.

Version 7 - Rework introduction/problem/purpose (31 Jan 2013)
- Not nearly so many revisions or rewordings! It's exciting! I can see my paper taking shape, and it feels good! Focusing on Research Questions, hypotheses, and putting in sections for my literature review. in the next version.

Version 8 - Work on Research Questions and hypotheses with the beginnings of the literature review (9 Feb 2013)
- No revisions in the main sections, with great feedback and direction on the literature review and the theoretical framework.

Version 9 - Add additional parts of the Concept Paper for initial feedback and direction (17 Feb 2013)
- No major revisions, a couple of rewordings and suggestions for moving a section. Still have 14 specific details or sections to include and then I'll be ready to turn in for a complete review. I also received permission to use my main instrument from the owner, and am excited about that.

Version 10 - All of the parts are included, for the __first full review__. Now, to get it approved by the chair, committee and graduate school! (24 Feb 2013)
- Need to revise the research methods section, putting measurement information in the appropriate section, and mostly move things around to get them right.

Version 11 -- Research methods revision and completion of all sections (3 Mar 2013)
- Still had a couple of sections to move around, and some rewriting of the data analysis section. It's getting refined and better on each edit - I'd just like to get to the point where we can move forward. But, I'm sure that that will come, when the paper is ready to move forward.

Version 12 - Data analysis revision, tightening of sections, citing of assertions (4 Mar 2013)
- A fair amount of rewordings, a need to look at the presentation of my criterion variable as student satisfaction and it's relationship with student dropout/persistence. Also needing to refocus the theoretical framework and support my summary.

Version 13 - Rework of the criterion variable, refocus theoretical framework, add support to research summary (5 Mar 2013)
- It looks like we're ready to go to Committee! Dr. Throne's comment for this return was: "You are so meticulous! Nicely done". I just had to note that I already have permission to use both instruments, and that those permissions have been included in appendix B.

Version 14 - To Committee (6 Mar 2013)
- Dr. Almasude requested a stronger problem statement, and a few minor corrections. I realized that the way the CP is written that I was emphasizing the criterion variable instead of the predictor variables, which is the reason for the study in the first place, to validate the principles and design elements of andragogy in //toto//.

Version 15 - Rework of problem statement, and restructuring of research method section (17 March 2013)
-Wow! The end of my first dissertation class is next Sunday! Hopefully I can get this in to the GS before the end! - My chair replied that there were a couple of issues raised by my SME that I did not address adequately, so back to the drawing board!

Version 16 - Rework the research questions and add to the problem statement (19 March 2013)
- I've modified the paper some more, continuing to align my problem statement with what I am attempting to research, and I completely changed the research questions going from two to five, and the accompanying hypotheses. I feel really good about the changes. Let's hope that my chair and SME do as well! Alas, my chair now feels that I have too many predictor variables and wants me to scale back my project.

My first dissertation class ended at this point. I switched programs from EdD to PhD, which necessitated me taking two additional classes, Stats II and Qualitative Design Methods. During this time I determined to run my paper by Dr. Nina Moliver to see what I need to do to better introduce my topic so that the focus is on testing the theory of andragogy as a whole, principles and design elements, rather than only part of it. I will hopefully start the dissertation process once again in a couple weeks (as long as my qualitative mentor will close the class after grading my last assignment).

Version 17 - Rework the CP to focus on testing the reliability of the instrument (19 June 2013)
- This is the first submission that I've made to my chair in three months. The CP is in good shape, but I'm not sure yet of which research questions/hypotheses to include or exclude. I look forward to returning to the process, and improving my paper. - We had a lot of push and shove on this one since I lost some of my SME's comments and chairs comments. She wanted the original documents with comments showing changes, and I didn't have those, but will provide them in version 18 so that we can hopefully move forward.

Version 18 - CP with original chair and SME comments but few other changes (28 June 2013)
- Starting point document to hopefully get this thing approved and on to the next level, but unfortunately the fourth set of four weeks seems completely wasted. Dr. Throne only made minor corrections and a single suggestion. She suggested that once that is done we will send the result on to committee.

Version 19 - To Committee (7 July 2013)
- Since I am also validating and checking the reliability of a modified instrument to measure andragogy I need to also identify the process that I will use to validate that the constructs are reliable and valid. My chair has indicated that if I've done this well we'll send the CP back to committee. Added reliability information into the measurements data analysis section and a clearer explanation of the randomization.

Version 20 - Addressed SME's concerns with transitions in the problem statement (9 July 2013)
- Two comments regarding transitions and one about extraneous information in the problem statement. No other comments, so I don't know if he stopped at the problem statement or not.

- To Graduate School (10 July 2013)
- The Graduate School rejected the CP stating that the problem "is not well articulated and precise" and suggesting a complete realignment of my research proposal.

Version 21 - Completely rewrote problem statement with criticisms of the Graduate School in mind (1 August 2013)
- Focused on the need to test andragogy syntactically, as it has been tested semantically for over 45 years. This problem statement was seen as too theoretical by my chair, and "validating an instrument is not a doctoral-level study".

Version 22 - Refocus on the problem and purpose statements (13 August 2013)
- It is the nature of the student to want to change more than is needful after a rejection. What was needed here were minor tweaks, to move the theoretical discussion to the theoretical framework, to focus on the problem defined by the measures in my instruments, and to focus the purpose on testing the variables measured by the instrument, remove any discussion of reliability and validity to the measurements section, and explain it such that a middle-school student would be able to understand it.

Version 23 - Finish aligning new problem and purpose statements with the rest of the CP (19 August 2013)
- I believe that I am now appropriately focusing on the variables of the study, and not so much on the theory (but I love theory)! I start DIS3 today, and hope that I will get more accomplished during this course than I did in the last. - Chair says that we're getting close to getting it put back in.

Version 24 - Further clarify problem statement and purpose statement (22 August 2013)
- Minor clarifications to ensure alignment and consistency, and a minor tweak on the problem statement (and a complete rearrange and re-write) and I'm excited about this version.

Version 25 - To Committee (26 August 2013)
- Minor spelling and punctuation issues.

Version 26 - Reduction in problem statement size and better transitions (29 August 2013)
- SME came back with two comments saying that I had good content but was too wordy in the problem statement. I reduced it in size about 50% and made sure that the sentences led to the next. Is it too much to hope that this can get to the GS before Labor day?

- To Graduate School (5 September 2013) **-- Excluded**
- My chair does not agree with the feedback (such that it is) from the GS who refused to review my paper because of "absent or inadequate foundational elements" - specifically, "Problem Statement: The problem statement is not stated clearly and concisely and there are inconsistencies within the problem statement section as to the central focus of the study, i.e., investigating the relationship between elements of an andragogy theory and instructional process design elements and learner satisfaction or investigating the relationship between low learner satisfaction and high drop out rates for learners in online postsecondary courses. Alignment: The purpose statement does not align with the specific problem described in the problem statement. Research questions 1 and 2 do not align with the purpose statement because andragogical principles and instructional design principles will be investigated separately instead of jointly."

Version 28 - Answer to exclusion (18 September 2013)
- Now, a concentrated reading of the document would have answered the concerns brought up in this blurb, but I have changed the terminology away from the theoretical, have deleted some phrases that might have proven distracting, and have now resubmitted, for another go.

Version 29 - Going for a full revamp (26 September 2013)
- Since my chair doesn't agree with the GS she's asked me to do a full revamp of the entire CP to eliminate any references to andragogy except in the theoretical framework. We'll have to see!

Version 30 - Addressed additional chair concerns (1 October 2013)
- Each version is a slight tweak from the previous. In this one the problem statement was once more tweaked, and I believe that it -again- is better than it's been before, and I'm getting a clearer idea of what is wanted in this important paragraph (and my word count is getting closer to the lower bound rather than the upper). Some good improvements were put in. Looking forward to the feedback.

Version 31 - One issue left and minor changes (4 October 2013)
- I missed my original deadline to finish the program a couple days ago, and am still messing with the CP. Only one unsubstantiated assertion and several wording changes by my chair and this version is ready to go.

Version 32 - Removed wordiness (8 October 2013)
- My SME came back with the following comment: " Approved! However, I think there are still too many issues of poor composition and wordiness throughout the paper, especially the Problem Statement and the Purpose of Study. Thanks :-) " So, my chair asked me to go through one more time to address these issues.

- to Graduate School ( 8 October 2013) - **Rejected**
- While the CP was rejected by the GS, there were no comments regarding either the problem statement or the purpose statement, and most of the comments were requesting clarification or expansion on the research methods section. I'm hoping that that is a positive sign, and here is my response.

Version 33 - Clarification of design, methodology, and data analysis (28 October 2013)
- The paper is getting better. I am hoping, however, that this part of the process is about to an end so that we can get to the DP soon!