Have you ever thought about any potential unintended consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise? Discuss any possible risks and why, presumably, you see the rewards as worth the risks. One could read Richardson as pushing back against narrow disciplinarity when she advocates for “stewardship.” Feel free to discuss any of this or anything else you found interesting in the readings.
Amy Jefferson: During the process of building disciplinary expertise a snowball effect may occur. For example, one starts to research assessment with the idea of focusing on pre-service teacher programs, only to find that classroom management and knowledge of students must be studied as well. Unsure as to where to focus most research efforts while being mindful that aspects of education are all interrelated like flakes in a larger snowball. In the quest for expertise in one area one could find themselves overwhelmed. The reward however is expanding one’s breadth of knowledge of all the influencers on the original selected topic, assessment, and in turn gaining a more layered understanding.
ReplyDeleteRichardson mentions, “Ph.D. programs need to help students not only examine their own beliefs, but also understand how to help others recognize and, possibly, change theirs.” P. 258 This academic journey will entail not only identifying my own beliefs but also evaluating them. I see potential for discovering biases I may hold that I am unaware exist.
Mitchell Waters: As I was reading the Richardson article, I found that it raised good questions with regards to how we perceive education. I had not considered the fact that education, as a whole can be both a field of study for academic’s sake, but also an enterprise dedication to knowledge with the goal of action. Becoming a good steward of education as both a field of study and an enterprise well-defines why I am here. Knowledge, in my opinion, is only useful if it is paired with action (enterprise) to further the field and help others. Until now, I had not considered any unintended consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise. As I am reflecting on these consequences, I think back to the differences within me before and after I received my Master's in Counseling. I went into school with the hopes of developing a set of skills that I can use in my career. To make it more simple, I could not be a counselor before school, but I could be after. I came out of school with these skills but also an entirely different way of seeing the world. When we discussed our "lens" last class, my lens was completely altered. I look at myself, others and the world through a lens of what is mentally, relationally and socially healthy and useful to promote human flourishing. This complete alteration or enhancement of my worldview was absolutely an unintended consequence of going through my Master's program. I started this program because of the post-credential opportunities. I want to teach and supervise counselors. History repeated itself in that I went into school looking for a set of skills and credentials that would allow me to do what I wanted professionally after graduation and it is indeed foolish of me to not believe that I will come out of the program changed. I anticipate that my lens will be altered yet again. Positively, I hope!
ReplyDeleteKristian Robinson:
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Richardson’s highlighting on the importance of checking one’s own beliefs and biases throughout the doctoral process. In the counseling profession, this is one of the most critical learning objectives at the master’s level and was personally the most fulfilling parts of my master’s program. Through taking a hard look in the mirror and assessing beliefs/biases that I held and how they impacted my clinical skills had a ripple effect and entirely changed my entire outlook on life and transformed my path in counseling towards one to be filled with advocacy and social justice. I foresee that partaking in this doctoral program will only help to more critically look at my beliefs/biases and look at them more globally than the therapeutic relationship and allow me to better understand how they fit into the larger discipline of education, academia, and higher education administration.
After reading the article, an unintended consequence that I foresee with my pursuit of “expertise” is the politicization of said expertise. For context, my background is counseling, and my research interests pertain to better addressing mental health issues, leadership identity development, and professional development on college/university campuses (for students, staff, and faculty), more specifically for those who belong to marginalized populations. In my work thus far, I have focused in on the LGBTQ+ community and their needs. From bathroom bills to workplace discrimination, the LGBTQ+ population has been a constant political topic, and a divisive one at that. As someone who’s main objective in pursuing a PhD is to be a steward of social change, social justice, and advocacy in the realm of mental health, I will need to make peace with the fact that research, practice, and scholarly activities could be construed as political and divisive. This is likely one of the many reasons that careers in social justice and activism often lead to quicker rates of burnout, which I am desperately trying to avoid as I am so early in my career.
Upon reading Richardson’s article with the prompt in mind, I definitely felt compelled by what seemed like a strong argument towards the importance of stewardship within the upper echelons of educations. Upon further reflection, I interpret Richardson’s writing to not solely advocate for broadened stewardship, but a call to action to help guide the focus of PhD in Education programs towards a balance of narrow expertise and broadened stewardship. Especially as I move towards my post-credential opportunities, I believe that it is broad stewardship that will allow me to succeed in the realm of higher education leadership, while my narrow expertise will help to set me apart from others in the field.
Kori Nicolai: Disciplinary expertise is a narrowing of knowledge. This narrowing of knowledge can result in difficulty integrating other ideas and applying research to schools or policy. When you become an expert in one area you may not feel compelled to integrate theories outside your domain. You may miss a part of the picture and be unable to fully understand what you are researching. Practical application is also impacted. Research with little knowledge of how it will be applied to a classroom or politics may lose its value when it leaves the context of research. These problems can be solved by working with others who are disciplinary experts in different areas than yourself.
ReplyDeleteRichardson pushes for stewardship over disciplinary expertise. While having a broad understanding of your field is important. Stewardship in education, with all its different facets, would be hard to accomplish within the maximum of eight years allowed. Stewardship would be a difficult switch to make in our education system.
Elizabeth Severson-Irby
ReplyDeleteRichardson spends some time discussing beliefs and misconceptions, stating that many people who create policy within education are relying heavily on their own beliefs and understandings stemming from their time as a student. This can hold a serious amount of risk for the field and can prevent the field from moving forward. Some of the risks I see pertain to just that: beliefs and misconceptions we carry with us based, not on our knowledge and research, but by our experience. This can happen not just within ourselves, but within the field as a whole. I think a lot of people come to a Ph.D. program because they see a problem area and want to enact change. This is a very positive starting point, with very good intentions. However, if we do not use research, theories, and knowledge responsibly, our practice can head down the wrong path. For example, in my area of interest, adult literacy, I see many practitioners using their experience of teaching reading to children as a model of how to teach reading to adults. While the reading components are the same and some of the methodologies are similar, the bottom line is teaching reading to adults is not the same as teaching reading to children. Without proper leadership, knowledge, and research, this misconception will not change.
Some of this ties back into the question from the first class: what does it mean to be an expert? In any field, an expert is someone who knows the field well enough to ask the right questions in order to make improvements in the field. If we are unable to do this, we are not being good stewards of the field. Our responsibility, and in the end hopefully our reward, is to be good stewards and help move the field in a positive direction. However, we must be aware of, and willing to change, any misplaced beliefs or misconceptions.
Waleed Sami:
ReplyDeleteThe idea of acquiring disciplinary expertise within a domain field carries important privileges and an inherent, academic respect amongst your class. Being able to contribute to your field through research and practice inevitably create an authority to practice and disseminate doctrine to your field’s adherents. However, like most doctrines they run the risk of becoming dogma. Acquiring disciplinary expertise can create a tunnel-like vision on the needs of your field and specifically, indoctrinate one to theory over practice. I believe that is a potential hazard in all who study in the academy. In today’s secular word, the academic researcher is a “priest”-like figure, in that authority and ideological training are often distributed through secular “liturgical” means. This can include journaling, conferences, teaching, salary, and public respect. All of these characteristics can inevitably create an ideological authoritarianism and unquestioning loyalty to disciplinary dogma. This begs the question: how do we circumvent authoritarianism through an inherently hierarchal process? I believe Richardson offers a potential solution into this underlying tension when the author speaks of promoting ethical and moral values as a necessary underpinning to disciplinary expertise. These include humility, professional growth, and basic human decency. Richardson promotes an idea of stewardship, which marries the necessary needs of specific, honed expertise with the humility and guidance of a “first among equals” mentality. The rewards of being a steward/care-taker of knowledge, rather than a strict disciplinarian create what I believe to be the fundamental factor of a successful education experience: strong relationships. If the field disciplinarian remembers to create relationships and to model knowledge-seeking, stewards will inevitably develop and push the field further. Anecdotally, most people can confirm that disciplinarians with narrow vision and an authoritarian lens are often masking narrow and insecure personalities. In summary, the fundamental skills and training of discipline expertise are necessary for adding to the field and teaching it. However, the transition from an ideologue to a steward, happens in fostering relationships that are grounded on ethical and moral foundations. If this balance is successfully achieved, then potential unintended consequences of acquiring disciplinary expertise can be mitigated.
Tosha Yingling:
ReplyDeleteOne of the tensions between advocating for either stewardship or discipline expertise I find is the issue of looking at knowledge as objective or universal. The more I move through different phases of my education, the more I come to question what mastery entails, and the more suspicious I become that mastering a discipline means actually closing myself off to nurture and preach my static ideals. Sounds gross and kind of antithetical. So I like Richardson’s push to make our knowledge always evolving, interdisciplinary, and not without some regular examinations of our blindspots. As we discussed in class, we cannot truly be experts without honing our own critical thinking to adapt to new and challenging ideas in earnest. We must admit that knowledge is in fact not something that is objective, universal, or static and there is no end-game or quota of which we can obtain and be sufficiently full. As someone with an academic feminist background, the most woo-woo and surely unacademic of social sciences, I am used to the idea of stewardship, simply because tying my research interests into a variety of fields is usually the only way I can get any street cred (though through academic excellence, maybe this is the opposite of street cred?). The idea of combining knowledges, knowing being subjective or biased, or missing a point completely are oddly ideas I’ve become very comfortable with, though I understand the post-positivist world is situated right at the top of camp woo-woo, where the abstract ideas of bleeting art-types are easily dismissed. The reality is though, dismissing the idea of the non-universal knowledge is a threatening one, one that forces us to look at life as complex, often immeasurable, and something with which can always be studied and studied to different outcomes and perceptions. So what even is an expert, a disciplinary hero? As someone trying to suture all my quirks from feminist hooplah, prison abolition, disability studies (with no knowledge of special education), embodiment and materiality, cyborgs, affect and magic, and fiction into an education doctorate, I can say that academia doesn’t necessarily foster an environment for stewardship, but I feel like my own work benefits myself and others best when it can. So basically, I have no idea what I’m doing here, and thanks for being patient with me.
Amy Taloma: I’ve spent a great deal of time reflecting on the field of education and how the discipline that I am studying, Adult Learning, is a very specific lens that can be used to study other disciplines within education. For instance, adults learn differently than children and so that must be taken into account when creating curriculum, assignments, and student engagement. I actually started thinking about this very thing last semester when I took a class called Motivation in Education. It was offered as an Educational Psychology research elective and so I was able to get a glimpse into this discipline’s way of learning about and conducting research. In learning about motivational theories from an educational psychologist, I noticed many areas where adult learning theory could enhance and almost be blended in with the motivation theories. Through conducting a literature review on the two theories, I saw that there really was not any research with a cross-disciplinary approach.
ReplyDeleteI think this experience plays into the Richardson’s idea of Education as a field of study or education as an enterprise. The ability to see gaps in two fields of study within education and then design and conduct research to help impact education as a system is definitely a goal that I had while doing the work for the Motivation in Education course. While I was able to gain formal knowledge, conducting the literature review and understanding more about different methodologies also helped me to gain practical knowledge as well.
This is all a very meta way of thinking about pursuing this PhD. Instead of making Adult Learning feel narrow as a discipline, applying these thoughts to my experience as student stepping outside of my own discipline for a research class actually made the possibilities and areas of study a lot more vast.
Catina- The risks of acquiring disciplinary expertise would be completely contingent upon how expert is defined. If the expert, as I believe, is the person who is willing to listen the longest, learn the most, incorporate new insight and apply information strategically and thoughtfully to new situations as it relates to a particular field, then “disciplinarity” should not necessarily create a problem. The expert in that scenario is open to new information from other disciplines. The similarities and the dissimilarities provide insight supporting a reasoned expansion of the knowledge base. In that case, disciplinary expertise and disciplinary expansion are not mutually exclusive. Richardson’s explanation of “stewardship” reflects this perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe label matters much less than the perspectives on the roles and responsibilities of those within the discipline. Regardless of the label, it is clear to the expert/steward that information alone does not create expertise. Tom Nichols, in “The Death of Expertise” (not one of our readings but some stuff I’ve picked up that reminds me of this conversation) warns of the challenge of intellectual egalitarianism where expertise is equated with simple knowledge and shunned because everyone, allegedly, knows everything based on access to information alone. Experts, to the contrary, are more than informed. They are consistently and reliably applying information in their role as steward to ensure progress and a greater certainty of success.
An example of this is DIY TV, HG TV and the like. When these programs began, many people believed they could successfully renovate a bathroom for $100 dollars in a half hour and learned after demolishing their home of the need for experts. When I asked a contractor, with 40 years of experience, if he was concerned with the DIY-ification of his field he replied, “Nope. Them people be *messing* (he used another more colorful word) up their houses, then they have to call me and pay me twice what they would have if they had used me in the first place.” Even though they have access to the information they don’t have insight into the how and end up ineffectively and inefficiently, destructively operating.
Unfortunately, education as a discipline does not have the resources to burn to wait for the expert/steward to come in after predictable, preventable mistakes have been made. The cost is human and the socials risks are beyond quantification. Therefore, the reward to the general population of disciplinary expertise in education is far greater than the risk because the listening, learning, studying, growing, expert/steward, needs to be called to keep “them people from *messing* up” generations, irreparably.
Jia Gui：
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Richardson’s article, I have a clearer picture of what my obligations are as a PhD student. She advocates a lot of “SHOULD” for Ph.D. programs and students. For example, “certain learning opportunities that focus on practical knowledge should be consciously structured into the Ph.D. program”. I strongly agree with this point. As a full-time international student I am not allowed to work off campus, but I found out that there are few job opportunities offered on campus. So if there is no such practical working opportunity offered by the PhD program, how can international students obtain practical knowledge during the Ph.D. study?
Besides, she points out that the stewards of education should give attention to both a field of study and an enterprise. I used to just focus on the field of study instead of considering myself as a steward of an enterprise, but now I believe this is why I am here.
Jaime Williams: So, honestly, I have not previously thought about unintended consequences in gaining expertise in assessment and evaluation. After all, it's what I need to be the best practitioner I can be and it makes me much better situated to reach my desired career goal. After reading Richardson, I'm not sure that I readily see consequences for myself, and I have a difficult time deciding what consequences would be for others whom I do not know personally. If I think about everyone else in our class, for example, I don't know all of their career aspirations, I don't know their background, I don’t know how feasible it is for them to obtain a terminal degree…I see “consequences” as a personal issue that varies by each individual.
ReplyDeleteI think one question I still have after reading Richardson is- how are we supposed to be stewards of education as a field of study and enterprise when we cannot realistically gain practical knowledge in every aspect of our PhD in Education? I think even now I feel prepared to be somewhat of a steward in my own concentration area, but I do not feel that after obtaining a PhD I would feel capable of being a steward of education as a whole, much less a steward of lets’ say…Educational Psychology. In my mind, being a steward of something requires a certain amount of expertise and practical insight. I do not see myself gaining what is necessary in Educational Psychology to be at the level where I have expertise in it by the time I complete my PhD. Nor do I want to. No offense to the Ed Psych folks, but it’s not what I want to spend my time on during this journey. Of course I want to gain knowledge about different aspects of education to inform my work and research in assessment and evaluation, but that’s different than gaining expertise, I think.
So, I don’t really know the answer to my question above, but I do believe that Richardson has made me begin to think a little differently about what getting this PhD means. Or, at least- what it means to others that I have it. Right now, I see it as necessary to achieve my goals (and that is enough for me), but will others see me as a “steward” of the education enterprise? Will they even think about what that means? Will I care what they think? And, will I view the PhD differently by the time I graduate?
Lauren- Entering a Ph.D. program, I had a similar sentiment to others. We are going to take on large, systemic problems in education in hopes of better the field as a whole. Most of us have identified areas that need assistance, and have quickly found that one person, one tenure in a Ph.D. program can accomplish even a fraction of that; Focusing on a discipline seems not only inevitable, but necessary. Seemingly, this is the way we will get through our dissertation and narrow down the facets of higher education we want to pursue.
ReplyDeleteBut, while we all do this we need to keep the big picture in mind. What Richardson refers to as “stewardship”, I think relates to the fact that as academics in education, we have to keep in mind the learners and their educators in mind. Every classroom, lesson, and learner do not exist in a vacuum. Contextual issues are carried with people into the learning environment and even as we as disciplined “experts” identify small indicators of improvement, we must keep in mind the whole person.
Moreover, we have to keep in mind that these learners and educators are in a struggle between a wide or narrow range of study. Students are exposed to a wide liberal arts education typically through the first two years of college. As college professors disseminate their “expertise”, college freshman and sophomores are trying to fulfill general education requirements. On the flipside, elementary teachers are expected to be experts in all disciplines, tasked with providing a solid foundation in all areas of study to young thinkers. While I as a researcher can provide them with a narrow scope of assistance, perspective of the whole scope of their job is important to keep in mind.
Erica Ross- Disciplinary expertise comes with a responsibility to, as Richardson had put it, "preserve the best while promoting change and improvement." To be a steward of the field, I believe you do need to be an expert in your field, but that is only one aspect. There are certainly risks involved with having your lens so narrow and focused on one thing. Richardson highlights three forms of knowledge and understanding in a Ph.D program of Ed. She acknowledges how everyone has experience in education and therefore beliefs and misconceptions develop. When your lens can be so focused within your disciplinary expertise, it could prevent you from taking into consideration other aspects of education that would be relevant to your field. This reminded me of a conversation I had had with you Dr. Stemhagen last week and my own personal beliefs as a previous Special Education teacher. While not related to the doctoral program, it was related to my field of experience and what I hope to research. We were discussing behaviorist and constructivist learning theories in regards to the classroom and I had always had a solid viewpoint on what I thought was best for certain students. Discussing with you more on the constructivist theory opened my eyes more to a different lens into viewing classroom learning goals. Richardson makes the point that Ph.D. students should become cognizant of how unwarranted beliefs and misconceptions develop. Richardson’s recognition of more than just formal knowledge reduce the risks. Going through a Ph.D program as steward, the student not only has disciplinary expertise, but an awareness of misconceptions and experience with all elements of research. The rewards can outweigh the risks when you combine practical knowledge, formal knowledge, and awareness of beliefs and misconceptions.
ReplyDeleteEjana Bennett- Falling short of the responsibilities expected of stewards of education is the most apparent unintended consequence of acquiring disciplinary expertise. Richardson describes these responsibilities as generating new knowledge, understanding the intellectual history of the field, using the best ideas and practice in current work and representing that knowledge to others. A more personal unintended consequence is getting caught up in the acquisition of disciplinary expertise and forgetting about what it means to be a practitioner. Moving away from the practical and into the theoretical. I also have fears that my beliefs and misconceptions might overshadow the other important areas (formal knowledge, practical knowledge and understanding). Another intended consequence, is not be prepared to learn how to move to a different level of analytic scholarship than the experiential level with which I have entered the program with. Other intended consequences coming into a PhD after teaching, is wanting to fix all the educational problems and really honing into my intended area of expertise. On the other hand, the reward is my desire to understand the system outside of the information my specialized field will provide. “Having an expansive appreciation of the field will enable the [me] to understand the place [my] field falls within the broader intellectual context.” (Richardson).
ReplyDeleteRobyn Lyn: [Posts must be at most 4,096 characters so, because I had a lot to say for anyone interested…Extended version here: 3rli.com/files/2019.08.29_BlogPosts.pdf]
ReplyDeleteThe risks and unintended consequences of an advanced education have already impacted my life, personally, professionally, and academically. I went back for my degrees late in life and didn’t graduate with my associate and bachelor’s degrees until I was in my 50’s.
During my master’s program, I decided to complete a Women’s Studies certificate. What became apparent to me is that I lived in a bubble for more than 50 years and most of my friends and family are still there, without me. I had gained expertise and in doing so, lost some of my friends and family. [Story about this statement in extended version.]
My daughter said, “I just thought, I wish my Mom knew what I know.” Their disciplinary expertise moved them into a dimension I wasn’t able to enter. That is one of the reasons I went back to school. I wanted to be able to talk to my daughter on their level. I wanted to gain understanding. [Story about this statement in extended version.]
Having disciplinary expertise also means you can no longer walk through life sleeping. Knowledge which becomes known cannot become unknown. It reminds me of the move The Matrix and the red and blue pill. Once you are awake, you can’t go back. Even though I wouldn’t want to go back to ignorance, it does make life less easy. You begin to see and hear things that people say as inaccurate or harmful to vulnerable populations and it is impossible not to speak up. You notice the world from different perspectives and become addicted to questioning what it is you are hearing and whether or not it is something you should believe. You become curious when you hear things said that contradict your knowledge and want to understand why it’s believed and, more so, “how unwarranted beliefs and misconceptions develop in others and what it might take for others to change their beliefs” (p. 258).
This is the burning question in my proposed research in the Ph.D. program. What are the triggers that bind people to their beliefs systems and how can educators who educate other educators help teachers disconnect biased beliefs systems and then do the same for their students?
The risks are loss of relationships and the ability to accept inequity, but the rewards are that you gain new friends as you move into academic scholarship. New friends who are excited about learning. The reward for me is being accepted into the CCC PhD program at VCU. It is a gift to have the opportunity to learn and make new connections with people who are academically curious.
The risks and rewards of disciplinary expertise are endless. You no longer accept the things people say at face value as “just the way it is,” or without boundaries, but you call things out and try to correct the inequity, understand the perspectives of others, and work towards creating a better world with the credibility of having earned a Ph.D. You are no longer ignorant to the way society wants us to accept the things it tells us we cannot change, and you begin to try and change those things instead. Disciplinary expertise is worth the risks and unintended consequences. It is worth it to be awake and able to see. You become part of the solution for finding answers for society’s needs. I am excited to be on this journey.
While I am a School Counselor, my doctorate is in Counselor Education and Supervision. One of the possible risks or challenges with Counselor Education, is that I have experience and training in School Counseling but will be required to give counselors tools for success in all other disciplines or expertise areas. With a doctorate and as a recognized “expert” there will be areas that I am not as knowledgeable in first starting my career in the profession. Despite all of the risks, I am really excited about the opportunity to be in the field. Being able to create and establish effective and positive change in the field of counseling will make it worthwhile. One thing that stood out to me in the Nixon reading is thought that one must take off the educationist hat and pick up the scholar had to change or modify the work that is being done in an identified discipline or field. I’m interested to know if my peers agree or disagree with the statement. This course/the readings would have been very helpful at the start of my program. Being 3 years in, this would have set up a greater foundation and knowledge of what is the expectation of a PHD student.
ReplyDeleteAs a doctoral student in Counselor Education and Supervision, I have definitely considered risks to being labeled an "expert in the field." There is so much liability within the counseling field. As an expert educator of counselors, it is my responsibility to inform the best practice in regards to ethical dilemmas within counseling. If a legal issue does present itself, then I want to make sure future counselors are prepared. It is certainly worth the risk when future counselors/professionals inform me of their successful interventions with their clients. My internal feelings of validation within the overall counselor educator community are important to me. Also, it allows me to develop meaningful professional relationships with future counselors. As a professional school counselor, I do feel that it is important to have a broader understanding of the overarching public school system. There are different disciplines that interact within the public school system and these disciplines assist students with their academic, career, and social/interpersonal growth. I feel that it is possible to be the expert (at the site) in many disciplines because there may not be any other resources available.
ReplyDeleteMartinique:
ReplyDeleteAiming to become an expert, or a master, of a discipline can seem an unattainable goal. Within each field, there are contradicting theories, rules, and products. Two experts within one field may disagree in nearly every aspect. The fact is that although one can dedicate their life to a study and can learn novel information about this field daily, I do not believe that one could ever be omniscient in anything. Being an expert is recognizing that no one could ever know everything. Even if someone learned all of the history and all of the current data within a field, novel situations or errors can ultimately arise each moment. It is possible; however, to know more about a particular phenomenon than the average person. Professors know more about the subjects of their courses than their students, which is why they are certified to share their “expertise”; however, even professors, researchers, phd’s and “experts” come together to compare knowledge and constantly strive to learn more. Striving to be an expert not only betters the individual, but most importantly betters the discipline. A discipline can thrive when there are many levels of individuals within in it and when all the members can collaborate to produce novel information. Richardson describes being a steward of a field. The ultimate purpose of becoming a philosopher within a field is to better the field overall. A steward learns the information of a field with the desire to share it with others, research it, or create more.
Alison Dossick:
ReplyDeleteI certainly see unintended consequences of knowing a very lot about a tiny thing. I would ask is it better to know just a little about many disparate things? I have a science background and hope to use my PhD to guide science education. My best friend is a Biology professor and got her PhD studying the wasps that parasitize tomato horn worms, so I certainly see the problems on being an expert on such a small thing. It should be noted, however, that to get to that point, she had to take many classes on broader topics and I feel is an expert on lots of science stuff. I know as a science educator, I will need to be an expert on the delivery of content of many science disciplines. I have also always thought that using content to reinforce and teach reading and math is a good practice so I do feel that I am/will be a good steward of education and educators and the educated. Richardson says it best “They need depth and breadth as well as full involvement” (2008, p260). It is with involvement that ones’ stewardship comes into play. I feel it is important to continue to learn and grow in the field to remain relevant. This involvement is essential to being a good steward of our future educators and essentially our educational system. We are pursuing a PhD to not just gain depth in a topic but to expand our overall thinking.