Chasing Their Own History

A track article from a couple of years ago that was written for Virginia's Milestat.com website, but got picked up my milesplit.com, the national site. Couldn't attach the accompanying pictures.

Chasing Their Own History

By: Jim McGrath - jfmcgrath65@yahoo.com

Published on Milesplit.com  2008-05-20 11:00:00

     As the Virginia track teams head into championship season, it is worth noting that one of the most successful stories from our state so far has been the remarkable showings from the Bethel boys 4x400 relay, most notably, their 3:14.71 clocking at the Penn Relays.  The time, which was actually run in the preliminaries, launched the Bruins foursome of Austin Cuffee, Earl House, Sherrard Marrow, and indoor 400 national champion Ja-Vell Bullard into the finals where they placed second overall, but first among American teams. The sign in front of the school on Big Bethel Road states it all – Congratulations Cuffee, House, Marrow, Bullard - #2 in World.

     The Bruins and Lady Bruins are favorites to claim titles at the Peninsula District meet, which begins tomorrow at Todd Stadium in Newport News. The latest Milestat.com informal point tally also shows the boys team ranked first among the state teams. Perhaps the most interesting scenario of the outdoor post-season becomes obvious after looking at the top state all-time performances. While Bethel’s 3:14 is a top notch time, the best Virginia performance ever came from the quartet of Curtis Ponton, Demont Vann, Rodney Revels and Michael Wooden, who ran a 3:11.76 in 1985 for --- Bethel!

     Can the Bruins win the state title? Is the 1985 record in jeopardy? Are the key athletes even aware of their potential place in history? Several key members of the Bethel squad addressed these questions recently during a practice at the high school.

     As it turned out, House wasn’t available to meet that day, but short sprint specialist, senior Eric Williams (headed for the University of Mississippi) was, along with the other three 4x400 relay members. While Bullard is the national champion and most decorated of the group, the closeness among the four athletes provided a keen insight to the togetherness of the Bethel squad. Long days and out of town weekend meets have tightened this group. While remaining focused and serious, the question of any member being a “joker” brings laughter from all four. Somebody has “gotten” it! The young men speak of their team as a family, and note that part of their success comes from their bond on and off the track. Says Williams, “When you’re having fun, times drop.” There does not appear to be a “star” system in place on this team, probably because of the Bruins’ long tradition of success, noted by Coach Eddie Williams’ 12 AAA state title wins between the boys and girls teams. Each team member is friendly, accessible, surprisingly low-key, and one might say – a bit shy.

     Norfolk State-bound Marrow made it clear that they are well aware of the 1985 team. “We are reminded every time we step on the track.” When asked if any alumni show up to practice at Bethel or Darling Stadium to critique this year’s team, Bullard, who will be continuing his track career at George Mason, added an interesting note. “Nobody has come to practice,” says Bullard, “but there were some alumni who stopped by at Penn to talk to us.”

     The relay members remain confident in their ability to break the state record, but they may have to wait until after the state meet for a true run for the record because of Bethel’s state title goal. In order to break the record, junior Cuffee notes that everybody will have to do their part, and run personal bests.

     When the question turns to another state champion trophy in the case, the members seem to understand what it will take to overtake the challenges of schools such as indoor champion Western Branch. A look at the district performance list notes that the team has developed several field athletes who could score at the region, and possibly state level. This will help. However, Bullard’s last words put everything in perspective. “We realize that God is our biggest foundation, and because of that, we believe that we can win this.”

The effect of student loan debt on your credit report

A little something I wrote a couple of years ago for the University of Phoenix website:

For many students, a student loan will be the largest debt that they have incurred to date. In some cases, it may also be the first large loan that has been undertaken. Just like a car loan or credit card, the way that one maintains a student loan will have a direct effect on his credit score. Since the credit score is a determinant of future buying power for larger purchases such as a house, it is important to know how to manage a student loan so that it will not have a negative effect on one’s credit score.

            There are several things which are beneficial for the borrowing student to know. Being aware of these facts can make the difference between the student loan making a positive or negative effect on a credit report.

Fact 1 – The student loan begins immediately

            There is a misconception that the student loan does not appear on a credit report until the payments are due. The payments usually begin after the completion of school, followed by a 6-12 month grade period.

            However, the student loan may appear on a credit report soon after the initial papers are signed. Usually it is listed as being in “deferred” status.

Fact 2 – The repayment of student loans can begin at any time

            As mentioned, most lenders do not require the initial payment on a loan until the student has completed studies. However, interest will continue to accrue during this time.  A student is allowed to begin making payments at any time. One recommendation to keeping a credit score moving up is to work at paying the interest on the loan while in school. This will accomplish two things which are beneficial to maintaining good credit. First, it helps to keep the loan balance lower than if the payments were not made. Second, making timely payments is beneficial to one’s credit score, particularly for a student with a brief credit history.

Fact 3 – Paying off early can save thousands of dollars, but may not benefit your credit score

            Many student loans are set with a 10-year repayment plan. The student borrower can save a great deal of money by paying more than the monthly payment. Adding an extra $50 or $100 to each payment can shorten the length of the loan.

            However, there is no guarantee that engaging in this practice will be a great benefit to one’s credit score. The best way to improve a credit score is to make regular, timely payments.

Fact 4 – Defaulting on a student loan can cause multiple negative entries on your credit report

            There is never a benefit to defaulting on a student loan. In fact, defaulting can cause more than one negative entry on a credit report. The first negative entry will be for the original loan, while other entries can be added for failing to pay any collection agencies which have been hired to service the debt. Failing to pay or allowing the loan to fall into default status can result in severe consequences including, but not limited to, wage garnishment, state or federal payment offset, and additional collection fees.

            In the event of potential default, the best recommendation for a borrower is to maintain contact with the lender. In some cases, there may be options available, such as a deferment.

            The best way to stay on top of student loan status is to regularly check one’s credit report. By law, each consumer is allowed to request one free credit report per year.

Applying Qualitative Research Methodologies in Educational Settings

While many graduate students think of a formal research study as an exercise in quantitative analysis, there is a growing movement inspired by a new generation of scholars which is causing researchers to consider the option of conducting a study using qualitative analysis to gather and examine the data generated from their findings.

In some collegial learning communities, the idea of conducting measurement without disaggregating numerical data seems absurd. However, more academicians have found confidence in the data which can be gathered through activities such as interviews, observations and artifact gathering. Concurrently, more professors and research journal editors are taking greater notice of the findings which have derived from qualitative research, and have given the approach a newfound credibility.

What exactly is qualitative research? In its simplest form, it represents a general framework in which most of the data for a study is gathered in a non-numeric fashion. In other words, most of the findings come from deep within numerous interviews and observations, as opposed to adding and dividing the results of a survey given to a group of participants.

But this only scratches the surface of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative research is sometimes described as ethnographic, interpretive, critical or postmodern research (Creswell, 1997). On the other hand, quantitative research has been called empirical, positivist, postpositivist, or objectivist (Henrickson & McKelvey, 2002). Within these groups of terms lie specific nuances. However, in spite of the differences, most of these frameworks can be characterized as having a set of family resemblances (Wittgenstein, 1973). Each family has unique qualities, but there are enough commonalities to form a group. In a sense, both the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms define a certain way of approaching the process of researching.

Granted, there are a number of occasions when quantitative research should be the preferred method, and in actuality, most researchers will employ both forms of research to conduct a mixed-methods study. However, there are some instances when it is best to examine the qualitative world view to gather information.

One example of this is found in Basics of Qualitative Research, considered to be the foremost publication used to describe the grounded theory process, a popular form of qualitative study. Authored by Juliet Corbin and the late Anselm Strauss, the book is thorough in its step-by-step approach of how to perform a grounded theory study. As a change to the third edition, which was published in 2008, 12 years after Strauss’ passing, Corbin rewrites the second half of the book to give an example of a study which could be used. Although the study has not been completed, the data is worthy of attention.

For her “study,” Corbin chose to examine a group of Vietnam veterans to gain a sense of their collective war experience. Throughout her study, the keys to analysis become evident. Her preparation for the study is noted by literature immersion, or reading as much available information about her subject(s) as possible, before beginning the interview process. She then works through each phase of the analysis. In her first interview, the subject says that being in the Vietnam War was “not a big deal.” Surprised, Corbin filed the information away and went on to her next subject. His experience was much more harrowing, and she learned that it was because Subject #2 was a combatant, while Subject #1 spent most of his time in a hospital and was not required to perform as many life-risking duties.

Through her series of interviews, she notes the importance of the process, through methods such as coding information to help develop the similarities among the veterans, member checking for accuracy, and using the constant comparative method to allow for ongoing comparisons. But her means of acquiring information reflect the best methods for the qualitative researcher to use – the interviews, structured, semi-structured and emergent, observations, and the use of artifacts. All of these will be used to help Corbin develop the data needed to finish the study when she chooses to.

There are several books to help better explain the benefits of qualitative research methodologies in educational settings. Along with Corbin and Strauss, Foundations of Qualitative Research by Jerry Willis does a credible job at explaining the basics, while Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, from M.Q. Patton is also useful.

References

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Willis, J.W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Today's WYDaily.com/TideRadio (92.3) Story

By Jim McGrath

The York boys basketball team took advantage of numerous turnovers from a visiting Warhill team to race past the Lions 85-54 in a Bay Rivers matchup on Wednesday night.

Warhill’s Sam Buscher scored the opening points of the game on a three point shot, but then watched with his teammates as the Falcons rattled off 21 unanswered points. In one sequence, sophomore guard Brandon Harvell stole the ball on three straight possessions, each resulting with him scoring at the other end. The Lions suffered from poor passing and sloppy dribbling, committing at least a dozen turnovers in the first half alone.

Down 25-7 entering the second quarter, the visitors showed some signs of life. An Andrew Berkley three point shot cut the gap to 29-15 midway through the second quarter. Joseph Moreno scored on a lay-in and jumper from the left corner on successive possessions to narrow the lead to 31-21 with 2:20 left in the half. But a pair of buckets from York’s Tre’ Thomas, the second coming off yet another steal, opened the lead to 14 and helped the hosts carry a 37-22 advantage into the halftime break.

York (1-3, 1-3 in BRD) got the jump in the second half, with Taylor Kinney burying a three-pointer followed by another steal ending with a Harvell lay-up to open the lead to 20 at 42-22. Another mini-burst occurred in the middle of the third quarter with a Branson Tow three-point shot and Harvell steal and lay-up putting the score at 51-30. On the next Lion possession, Sean Southard recorded a blocked shot setting off the Falcon transition game which ended in a Quintin Martinez lay-in and foul. Martinez missed the free throw, but earned another opportunity as the ball was stolen on the next possession and Martinez scored off the break. This time, he connected on the foul shot. On the next trip, it was Martinez who stole the ball, passing to Trey Wintz for the layup and a 58-30 lead with 3:24 remaining in the third quarter. After a Warhill timeout, the game started to resemble a playground contest, but both teams seized the opportunity to get a look at all of their players over the final 11 minutes.

Harvell, who led the team with 17 points, feels that his team “got off to a rough start this season, but is now starting to play together.”  Tow and Martinez chipped in 14 and 12 respectively for the Falcons.

Jermaine Poindexter-Johnson led the scoring for Warhill (0-5, 0-5 BRD) with nine points, all in the final quarter.

YORK (1-3)         25    12    27    21    -  85

WARHILL (0-5)    7    15    19    13    - 54

Focus Statement and Study design Redux

After meeting with Dr. Harris last week, the recommendations are now in place for the rewrites of both the focus statement and study design.

The most significant change is going to be the transfer of five pages from my focus statement to the study design. Aptly enough, the section to be transferred will be the study design elements. After reading this sentence again, the move seems even more obvious and I am not sure why this wasn’t changed earlier. Anyhow, the elements of the study design will now be in the study design.

Another significant change will be in the number of observations and interviews. There will still be four coaches and two athletes from each team included in this study. However, for the sake of time and sanity, I will slightly scale back. Instead of interviewing each athlete twice for 30 minutes, the new plan is for one interview of 30-45 minutes, with the realistic expectation being 30. The athlete will be asked to bring the artifact to the interview or will be asked about it in a question formulated similar to, “If you could bring a memento or example of something from your team that shows cultural competence, what would you bring and why?”

Also, there will now be only one observation of each team instead of two. This will give me the opportunity to observe and interview on the same day, which will save a great deal of time.  Now, I will need to conduct and transcribe 16 interviews instead of 24. This should still allow for enough substance in the findings while avoiding possible repetition or saturation.

Today, I met one of our reference librarians, Mary Molineux, to help me obtain more materials which should help give more background detail to my cultural competence study, but specifically in dealing with high school coaches. There was one book on the library. I have just finished reading the chapter relating to coaches and have to figure out how to incorporate its findings. The writing is focused on the African-American athlete and includes qualitative data gathered from interviews which shows that the athlete feels special for being on the team, but also worries that grades are “given” to him by teachers who want to see him play. One concern of the African-American high school athlete is that academics are not being taken as seriously as they should. Recommendations are given to teachers, administrators and coaches. Perhaps I can use this to explain my topic, and perhaps even draw a few interview questions from this reading. Example – In terms of cultural competence, how often does your coach stress academics?  Another possible question - Is he concerned with your academic progress and how is this shown?

We also found two other materials which may be of great help to me and they have been ordered through ILL (Interlibrary Loan).

A couple of years ago, I found a website called Helium.com, a site dedicated to helping aspiring writers find a foruim to publish their work. I started out contirbuting articles which were rated against articles of similar topics and all of the writers shard in the advertising revenue. Although the funds dribbled in, it was nice when my total finally reached $25 (after almost two years) and I qualified for a payment into my Paypal account. Hey, now I'm a paid writer. Yet. things got better. Because of my involvement with WYDaily.com and Tide radio, I qualified to receive status as a professional journalist. With this affiliation in hand, coupled with my newfound obligation for educational papers as part of my Ph.D. studies, I now qualify for the Helium marketplace and am now given assignments every month. My first was a piece on qualitative research, and I beleive it was published on an online college website. Granted, I'm not paying bills with these funds, but it was nice to only have to wait three months for my second deposit. The assignments should be regular on a monthly basis for a while.

Anyhow, here is the link to my home Helium.com page

<a title="View my Biography at Helium.com" href="http://www.helium.com/users/249459"> <img border="0" src="http://corp.helium.com/images/af/234x60_wrote.gif"> </a>