Interesting. When you say more insight into fundamentals of education, are you referring to a Phd in education or content related or would you say it is true for both? I have this idea about a Phd, that there is risk that it narrows your view rather than widening it because you specialize so much in a particular field. But I might be completely wrong with that.
What's your masters in if you don't mind sharing?
Relevance of Master's degree
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
I am generalizing about a Phd in Education. And even though you are specializing in a certain area, your courses in a good program will cause you to examine many aspects of education.
In my masters we looked at curriculum, staffing, buildings, philosophys, leadership types, procedures and more.
My masters research thesis had a technology slant to it. I researched the impact of 1:1 laptop programs on student achievement, and was able to do so because my school gave me access to the SATs for students in grades 7,8,9 and 10, so I was able to do a longitudinal study of two groups, one of which was a 1:1 computing group, and the other (the previous year) who were not. Both groups had the same teachers for their core tested classes, so I was lucky in that regard.
The over-arcing thrust of my masters was school leadership and improvement, and the nicest thing is that it leads to a research-based Phd if I choose to pursue that.
In my masters we looked at curriculum, staffing, buildings, philosophys, leadership types, procedures and more.
My masters research thesis had a technology slant to it. I researched the impact of 1:1 laptop programs on student achievement, and was able to do so because my school gave me access to the SATs for students in grades 7,8,9 and 10, so I was able to do a longitudinal study of two groups, one of which was a 1:1 computing group, and the other (the previous year) who were not. Both groups had the same teachers for their core tested classes, so I was lucky in that regard.
The over-arcing thrust of my masters was school leadership and improvement, and the nicest thing is that it leads to a research-based Phd if I choose to pursue that.
-
panta_rhei
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:46 am
I'd like to do a Master program with focus on leadership and school improvement in a couple of years. How many years of school/teaching experience would you say one should have before doing such a program? Also does one need experience in a leadership position (e.g. HoD)?
What was the conclusion of your study?
What was the conclusion of your study?
-
buffalofan
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:08 pm
The doctorate in education (EdD) is the more content-related degree, and it is not the same as a PhD in education. As it was explained by the coordinator of my MA program:
A PhD in Education is mainly for those who want to work in higher academia and devote their career to educational research. It is a research degree.
An EdD (doctorate in education) is for those who want to continue practicing as teachers & admins. These degrees usually specialize in something (Ed leadership, Ed technology, etc)
Both are a massive commitment of time and money.
As to why schools might value them, I agree a big part of it is to impress parents.
A PhD in Education is mainly for those who want to work in higher academia and devote their career to educational research. It is a research degree.
An EdD (doctorate in education) is for those who want to continue practicing as teachers & admins. These degrees usually specialize in something (Ed leadership, Ed technology, etc)
Both are a massive commitment of time and money.
As to why schools might value them, I agree a big part of it is to impress parents.
It also depends on where you go to school and how respected the program that you are graduating from is. For instance I have 2 masters degrees. My first is from a public institution. I got me a higher offer on the pay scale but little else.
My 2nd I just finished from an Ivy League school in the U.S. My program and school are highly competitive to get into. In fact out of 500 applications 2 years ago the school only took 5 of us. I was receiving offers from some of the best schools in the world to come teach for them. But I got into a doctorate program at Oxford and well you just don't turn down a chance to study at Oxford.
I had one Head of School and Board Member tell me over dinner that having teachers from prestigious universities and programs looks good in their marketing and generates higher enrollment. Rich people can be snobs and if they're going to shell out big money for their children to receive an education there is something about them being educated by an Ivy Leaguer that just makes the whole thing feel better.
But I'm looking to teach pre-service teachers and research now. I love statistics and what if scenarios.
My 2nd I just finished from an Ivy League school in the U.S. My program and school are highly competitive to get into. In fact out of 500 applications 2 years ago the school only took 5 of us. I was receiving offers from some of the best schools in the world to come teach for them. But I got into a doctorate program at Oxford and well you just don't turn down a chance to study at Oxford.
I had one Head of School and Board Member tell me over dinner that having teachers from prestigious universities and programs looks good in their marketing and generates higher enrollment. Rich people can be snobs and if they're going to shell out big money for their children to receive an education there is something about them being educated by an Ivy Leaguer that just makes the whole thing feel better.
But I'm looking to teach pre-service teachers and research now. I love statistics and what if scenarios.
-
panta_rhei
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:46 am
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Panta,
what I found was that there was a statistically significant correlation between 1:1 laptop programs and student achievement in some subjects. Because they had the same teachers, I was able to ignore trying to adjust for teaching styles, etc. However, not all subjects showed the same correlation, with most of the 5 not being significant.
English and Socials are areas ahead of the curve, where technology can make an impact. I suspect HOW the technology is used makes a difference, because I knew the teachers in question (although they had left the school by the time I did my research) and my son was in their classes, so I had some background on who was really integrating technology into the curriculum and who was just layering it on as an adjunct when necessary or when they felt they "had to".
To any school planning on going to a 1:1 laptop program, there are lots of factors to consider...
what I found was that there was a statistically significant correlation between 1:1 laptop programs and student achievement in some subjects. Because they had the same teachers, I was able to ignore trying to adjust for teaching styles, etc. However, not all subjects showed the same correlation, with most of the 5 not being significant.
English and Socials are areas ahead of the curve, where technology can make an impact. I suspect HOW the technology is used makes a difference, because I knew the teachers in question (although they had left the school by the time I did my research) and my son was in their classes, so I had some background on who was really integrating technology into the curriculum and who was just layering it on as an adjunct when necessary or when they felt they "had to".
To any school planning on going to a 1:1 laptop program, there are lots of factors to consider...
-
panta_rhei
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:46 am
It was interesting to read this thread. My husband and I have had this debate several times. I'm American and finished my Masters five years ago. He is British and doesn't have his. I've encouraged him a few times to look into getting one but he's not convinced. He is adamant that if he did get one, that it be in his subject area and therefore be courses that will interest him and be more applicable to his teaching rather than just a general education degree. The problem is that because his subject is very specific there aren't any online programs for it, so getting the degree would require moving to the US or UK to complete the program, and probably also mean that he quit teaching to just go study full time for a year or two to get it over with. A few years of living on just one income, plus having to pay his tuition, fees, etc is daunting, especially now that we also have a mortgage. He also argues that it really doesn't do anything to improve your teaching; he's worked with people who had Masters degrees and were horrible teachers and people who were terrific teachers and didn't have one. It's hard to argue with that, but I do worry that he (we) could get passed over for a job because it came down to his not having a Masters and another candidate having it. Sigh.
-
Yantantether
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:41 am
And therein lies the different perspectives of the British and American teacher Lagringa.
And it is very typical. I'm British and completely agree with him. Unless a course is going to provide me the skills to be a better teacher - teaching methods, integrating technology etc. - then I really don't see the point, other than to gain a perception (wrongly in my opinion) of status. (It might be a different situation when one wants to enter leadership roles as it is probably a requirement/expectation for many schools - I don't know).
The majority of Master's courses from what I have seen just will not make you a better practitioner, they are not vocational enough to provide that. If schools really know their stuff, they will understand this.
I know of quite a number of Americans who have not even had teacher certification/status and then gone on to do a Master's to be able to consider themselves 'proper' teachers. They haven't had the basic necessary training to become a competent teacher but are walking around boasting that they have a Masters. Most can't teach for toffee.
If some schools look on an academic piece of paper as an indicator of a great teacher, then more fool them. And I mean no disrespect to those that have said pieces of paper.
And it is very typical. I'm British and completely agree with him. Unless a course is going to provide me the skills to be a better teacher - teaching methods, integrating technology etc. - then I really don't see the point, other than to gain a perception (wrongly in my opinion) of status. (It might be a different situation when one wants to enter leadership roles as it is probably a requirement/expectation for many schools - I don't know).
The majority of Master's courses from what I have seen just will not make you a better practitioner, they are not vocational enough to provide that. If schools really know their stuff, they will understand this.
I know of quite a number of Americans who have not even had teacher certification/status and then gone on to do a Master's to be able to consider themselves 'proper' teachers. They haven't had the basic necessary training to become a competent teacher but are walking around boasting that they have a Masters. Most can't teach for toffee.
If some schools look on an academic piece of paper as an indicator of a great teacher, then more fool them. And I mean no disrespect to those that have said pieces of paper.
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Panta,
if you are going to do a masters and want to maximize return on investment (ROI :-), you should do it early. Most masters will not accept you until after 2 years of teaching. My advice is wait until 4 years in - by that time you will also have realized whether teaching is the thing for you and won't have done your masters, gone back out teaching and realized it's not for you.
You do not need any leadership position to start your masters.
if you are going to do a masters and want to maximize return on investment (ROI :-), you should do it early. Most masters will not accept you until after 2 years of teaching. My advice is wait until 4 years in - by that time you will also have realized whether teaching is the thing for you and won't have done your masters, gone back out teaching and realized it's not for you.
You do not need any leadership position to start your masters.