Part II: 1. Self Development

This section describes my self-development. In other words, it describes how my character and or abilities have developed over my period of study.  In order to share this, I will focus on four main areas, namely (a) philosophical foundations, (b) research ethics, (c) Self-evaluation, and (d) Mentoring/Internship.

1) Philosophical Foundations

My philosophical foundations have contributed to my character development—my moral character, habits, actions, and even emotional responses to varied situations. 

My foundations have taught me to demonstrate good character in my interactions and actions even though at times I fall short.  My foundations also give me an understanding of who we are as humans and where the source of our strength and growth comes from.

As a Christian, my philosophical foundations are embedded in my theistic worldview.  My character, integrity, and virtue have been specifically shaped to a great extent by Seventh-day Adventist teachings and principles, which I learned at home, school, and church.  I was brought up in an Adventist home.  I was taught to always distinguish between right and wrong.  The Ten Commandments were a significant part of my instruction (education) at home.  They were considered not just a biblical creed but direction instruction from God (Exodus 20:1–17), given to man as guidelines for how to live.  We were encouraged to internalize the Commandments and do as they stipulated.  The Commandments cover all areas of life, my relationships both with God and with my fellow human beings.  My early Adventist teachings provided me with a lens through which I view the world. God occupies the central core of my entire being. 

My actions reflect the goodness or badness of my character, but my actions can also change my character. Even though there are times I have fallen short of God’s expectations, I always aspire to be of good character, to know and desire the good, and most importantly to act and pursue it in both my public and private life. Growing up, we were always reminded to live virtuously and that integrity and virtue were the hallmark of a good Christian.  So I grew up grounded in the teaching that possessing or embodying behavior that demonstrates high moral standards is important.

Applying my theistic worldview to my philosophical self-development, I often ask: What are some biblical parameters for thinking about human beings?  First, it is evident from the Bible that God cares for and understands each and every one of us.  “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (Psalm 139:13–14). We are valuable to Him, worth His utmost sacrifice. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Secondly, our worth can be found in God alone. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John 1:1–5).  God is the foundation of everything.  He is the creator, the source of life.  Without Him there is absolutely nothing.  My thoughts, my philosophy, and my relationships must be anchored in God to have meaning. 

Throughout my studies at AU, I have been introduced to numerous worldviews.  The course EDFN 500 Philosophical Foundations of Education and Psychology exposed me to multiple ways of understanding the world.  This ability to understand others has been strengthened by the excellent academics provided by the Christian environment at AU.  I have developed a deepened appreciation of the theistic worldview and the intellectual freedom to engage and dialogue with scholars of diverse worldviews. 

The artifacts shown in the links below demonstrate my growth in the area of philosophical foundations. The artifacts include critiques, book reviews, and reflection assignments.

Reflection:

1.      Personal Philosophy and Conceptual Framework

2.      Reading Reflection:  My Pedagogic Creed: John Dewey 

3.      Reflection Paper:  Understanding Curriculum as a historical text

4.      Understanding Curriculum as a phenomenological text

     
Book Reviews:

1.      Philosophy and Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective

2.      Foundational Issues in Christian Education: An Introduction in Evangelical Perspectives

Critique:

1.      Existentialism

2.      Naturalism

3.      Curriculum

4.      Physical Education

5.      Technology Curriculum

Other:

1.  Doing the right thing or doing things right
2.  Getting rid of poor teachers
3.  No Marks case

 

2) Research Ethics

Scientists bring more than just technique to their work.  Scientists also make complex decisions about their interpretation of data, about the problems to investigate, and about the best ways to work with others and exchange information.  These matters of judgement contribute largely to the art of science and the character of researchers.  Talking about genome editing and the Christian, Hardin (2019) quoted V. Elving Anderson’s statement: “What inner resources will individuals have for coping with future discoveries? It’s sometimes claimed that questions of the future will be so unique that ‘old values’ will be inadequate…but I have not found any basic questions that will not profit from consideration of a Biblical perspective” (para. 2).

Today, like in the past, social and biomedical scientific research is conducted in an environment where research ethics are often violated.  Researchers are prone to committing research misconduct.  The threat of a lack of ethics and oversight in research has been so extensive for so long that in 1978, V. Elving Anderson predicted that the existing ethics at the time would not be sufficient to guide researchers. 

My philosophical theistic background provides me with a moral foundation that enables me to easily master and navigate the field of research ethics.  This background has helped me to distinguish between what is wrong and right when conducting research with human subjects and to demonstrate responsible conduct in research.  Christian teachings such as the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments provide me with a foundation for understanding ethics of professional conduct like the Hippocratic oath: “First of all, do no harm.”  In essence, the Bible and God’s standards guide my life, values, decision-making, behavior, and relationships with others.

Training

My growth in research competency has been enhanced by my work, which became an appropriate laboratory for my growth.  As the university’s Research Integrity and Compliance Officer, I have had the opportunity to attend multiple ethics trainings, workshops, and seminars since 2013.  These trainings have been on a variety of topics and have prepared me to be of great support to the university research community. 

I have also had tremendous opportunities for growth through the conferences and workshops required by my work. I attended a one-week conference on teaching research ethics for the 21st century.  This course focused on teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR), approaches to teaching RCR, establishing RCR training programs, designing and implementing RCR training programs, and facilitating small group discussions. As part of the course, I also attended a keynote address on research integrity focusing on national issues and local challenges.  As a result of this conference, I implemented RCR and National Institute of Health trainings at Andrews University.  My growth is demonstrated by a recognition in the form of an award.  Below are links to the award presentation, and also trainings that I have attended.

In my 3^rd year of service I received an Excellence in Service Award: https://www.andrews.edu/agenda/45111

Training and Workshops conducted by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office/ for Human Research Protections. 

DATE	TOPIC
July 28, 2015	Human Subjects Research:  Current Challenges in the Modern Research World
October 2015 to April 2016	National Institute of Health:  Introduction to the Principles and Practice of Clinical Research
June 21-22, 2016	St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Getting the Hang of Regulatory Essentials and More
October 27-28, 2016	National Institute of Health Regional Seminar
November 15, 2017	Change is Coming:  Meeting Potential Challenges

In this role of research integrity and compliance person, I have also designed and taught lessons on research ethics, which have helped me to hone my knowledge and skills in this area.  I have delivered over 52 IRB and responsible of conduct in research in various schools and classrooms across campus being employed in 2013. This has been tremendously helpful for educating the AU research community and in assuring compliance with federal, state, and institutional regulations for conducting research with human subjects.  Student evaluations demonstrating my level of growth are provided in this portfolio. 

Student Evaluations

In an effort to determine my growth in instruction delivery, I collected student evaluations for my classroom IRB/Research ethics presentations:

Student Evaluation 1              Student Evaluation 2              Student Evaluation 3  

           

Student Evaluation 4              Student Evaluation 5              Student Evaluation 6

Student Evaluation 7              Student Evaluation 8              Student Evaluation 9

Student Evaluation 10            Student Evaluation 11           Student Evaluation 12

Student Evaluation 13            Student Evaluation 14

These evaluations are comprised of eight questions using a Likert scale ranging from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) and an additional six open-ended questions.  Under each of the scaled questions, the students also had room to make remarks. 

Basic analysis of the student evaluation results reveals that 100% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that I made students aware of the IRB/ethics expected learning outcomes.  Some students remarked that I “introduced the topic clearly.” One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that I was knowledgeable about the subject matter.  Some students remarked, “I was quite impressed by his dedication to and knowledge of the subject,” “He was knowledgeable, which is why I wanted to hear more,” and that I was “helpful answering questions.”  One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that my presentation was well organized.  One student remarked, “Yes, well organized, the material was easy to understand.” One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that my presentation style kept students’ attention.  Some of the students remarked, “I enjoyed the case studies and examples—very engaging”; “He started with an attention grabber”; and “Very relevant.”  One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that I was interested in their ideas and opinions.  Some of them remarked, “He asked us about our research proposals and expressed excitement about them; he encouraged students to participate and was enthusiastic.” One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that I was able to answer questions posed by students.  One hundred percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that my presentation was interactive.  When asked to rate my overall presentation or teaching ability on a Likert scale ranging from 4 (excellent) 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor), 90% of the students rated my abilities as excellent and 10% rated them good. Some students remarked, “The teacher made the content easy, relatable, and gave it the importance and attention needed.  His teaching style is excellent.”

The open-ended questions encompassed what the students perceived to be my strengths and weaknesses, what they liked about my presentation, what they liked the most about my presentation, what they would like to change about my presentation, and any other additional comments they would like to provide.  These were their responses:

Strengths

·         Had great tone in his voice and kept us focused

·         Interactive

·         Easy to follow (challenging topic).

·         Presentation kept attention of students.  Presenter was knowledgeable about subject.  Presentation included handouts to keep students interested.

·         Kept class engaged

·         He was very knowledgeable in the subjects, ethics and approval

·         Content was well prepared

·         He was good and knew the information

·         Creative, knowledgeable, interactive, enjoyable, funny

·         Great mix of information with some storytelling breaks

·         He made the information interactive and relevant.  He provoked student feedback.  He was able to answer our questions and connected back to topic.

·         Teaching style, interactive, knowledgeable, passionate about subject

·         Interactive, interesting, knowledgeable, good stories

Weaknesses

·         Time was short

·         I cannot recall any glaring weaknesses.  I just remember wanting to hear more about the Stanford experiment, from him, b/c he is better versed in the matter than us.

·         Need another class (a lot of information)

What they liked about the presentation

·         Informative

·         Very well done

·         The list of unethical studies and reviewing how the IRB standards were broken

·         Addresses issues, interesting subject, interactive

What they liked the most about the presentation

·         That he made sure we all understood each step

·         He established some nice rapport with us by sharing personal stories

·         Very clearly and tangibly gave us tools for the IRB process

·         I enjoyed the different cases we discussed and questions to provoke understanding.

·         Very good presentation, I enjoyed it very much

·         The real life stories and applications

What they would like to change about the presentation

·         Have more time to cover more material because it was interesting

·         Explain the process of submission before, during, and after approval

Additional comments about the presentation

·         Overall, good content, good interaction between class and teacher.  It’s the most we’ve talked in the class all semester.

·         Please come again

In general, the student ratings of my presentations were very positive, providing significant evidence of my growth.

3)  Self-Evaluation and Reflection Paper with Inventories

Further evidence of self-development is demonstrated by my self-evaluation.  I have taken more than one self-evaluation during my time in the Leadership program.  Three evaluations I have taken are the StrengthsFinder, the Personal Work Style, and 16 Personalities tests.  The results of these assessments are presented below.

StrengthsFinder:

My StrengthsFinder assessment test results indicate that I am a well-rounded individual.  My top themes are Learner, Connectedness, Analytical, Responsibility, and Achiever.

Personal Work Style:

I also took a personal work style assessment.  The results showed that my most used style is the Hero.  The Hero work style is interpreted as a person who is easy to work with, supports the group and its objectives, helps other employees succeed, and shows selfless behavior.  The results revealed that I often use this style.  Medium scores indicated that I sometimes use two different work style—the Maverick and 9-to-5-er—with the Maverick ranking above the 9-to-5-er.  The Maverick work style mean the worker is an idea person, is creative, thinks of new ways to do things, always looks to make improvements, and makes decisions quickly.  The 9-to-5-er always does his/her best on the job, comes to work on time, and goes home on time.  This is a person who doesn’t make waves.  My lowest score was the Dissident.  A low score means that I seldom use this style.  A dissident work style is interpreted as an individual who is frustrated, critical, and finds fault with and places blame on others.  Nothing is quite right, and problems are always someone else’s fault.

Peruse through my personal work style assessment at this link: Personal Assessment Work Style.

16 Personalities Test:

Another self-evaluation assessment I took is the 16 Personalities test.  The results of the test revealed my individual traits as follows: Extroverted—54%, Observant—81%, Feeling—63%, Judging—86%, and Assertive—76%.  The results show that I have a personality type identified as the Consul personality (ESFJ-A).  A Consul has a strong sense of duty and is very loyal, sensitive and warm, and good at connecting with others. A consul has weaknesses such as worrying about their social status, being inflexible, showing reluctance to innovate or improvise, and being vulnerable to criticism, too needy, and too selfless. More information about the Consul personality can be accessed here: 

https://www.16personalities.com/esfj-strengths-and-weaknesses.

4) Mentoring/Internship

Participating in an internship and being mentored also contributed to my self-development.  I completed my internship under the supervision of Dr. Shirley Freed, Dr. Larry Burton, and Dr. Gary E. Randolph.  I took specific internship courses, which included EDAL 886 Internship in Educational Administration, LEAD 886 Internship in Higher Education, EDAL 886 Internship in Advanced Education Systems, and LEAD 886 Advanced Internship: Student Services. 

           

I had set objectives which I met as per the evaluations by my supervisors.  Under the supervision and mentorship of Dr. Shirley Freed, I reached the following objectives: 

1.      Develop the ability and skills to support students in the department in developing and preparing Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications for approval to conduct human subjects research. 

2.   Review pre-formal and formal student IRB applications and advise as needed prior to submission to IRB for their approval.  

3.   Assist with the creation of a new IRB application form and Andrews University guidelines in line with the Code for Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 45 CFR 46.  

4.   Enter data and maintain the Leadership and Educational Administration department’s budget by: 

a)    Posting transactions to the general expense, travel, and contracts ledgers, respectively. 

b)     Securing monthly department financial statement(s) from the university Finance Office, and reconciling the statements. 

c)    Monitoring and controlling the department’s supplies inventory—placing orders when necessary, in consultation with the department chair, faculty and staff. 

5.   Generate statistical data and supporting documents for the 2008 Leadership program. 

6.   Develop the ability and skills to guide online discussions and offer technology support to participants for LEAD 636 Issues in Leadership Foundation Class, Spring 2008, by: 

a)      Posting weekly instructions and assignments from the syllabus to d2l. 

b)      Responding to participant questions and concerns. 

c)      Managing the grading system.  

I had a wonderful experience working in the Leadership Department, specifically during my internship.  It provided me with important learning opportunities in professional conduct, communication skills, leadership skills, and collegial and community building skills.  Working with students in preparing their IRB applications provided me with important skills that I use in my current job.  My internship also introduced and prepared me for service to a diverse population. 

The second internship was under the supervision of Dr. Larry Burton.  I had the opportunity to serve as an intern in a collaborative research project which was funded by the National Science Foundation.  This was qualitative research using a grounded theory approach.  It was a great eye-opener for me in the area of research, especially qualitative research.  I conducted telephone and face-to-face interviews with individual male subjects.  I also conducted focus group interviews, analyzed the data set, gave a poster presentation, and disseminated our research findings.  Our report has been published under the title “Engaging Diverse STEM Students in Transformative Learning.”

https://www.academia.edu/3061216/Engaging_Diverse_STEM_Students_in_Transformative_Learning

Internship Evaluation by Mentor 1                             Internship Evaluation by Mentor 2

I have also had the opportunity to work with other scholars on collaborative research projects, for example, the paper The Influence of Culture on Leadership Styles and Behaviors (2018). Culture is one of the most influential determinant variables affecting leadership styles and behaviors across societies and organizations. For instance, culture plays a huge influence on how power, authority, and status are perceived and distributed in organizations. Unfortunately, the dynamics between culture and the practice of leadership are not always well understood. This presentation focused on the preliminary data from our investigation of the ways culture shapes leadership expectations at a Seventh-day Adventist university.

Baumgartner, E., Kijai, J., Ongo, M. O., Patterson, S. E., et al. (2018, September). The Influence

of Culture on Leadership Styles and Behaviors. Paper presented at the Seminary Scholarship Symposium conducted at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, MI. Abstract available at http://works.bepress.com/jimmy_kijai/7/

Hardin, J. (2019, February 13). Genome editing and the Christian. BioLogos. Retrieved from https://biologos.org/articles/genome-editing-and-the-christian.