document 1 of 1
\nFull Text | Scholarly Journal
\nDeveloping Practitioner-Scholar Doctoral Candidates as Critical Homework help – Writers
\nKlocko, Barbara A; Marshall, Sarah M; Davidson, Jillian F.
\nJournal of Higher Education Theory and Practice; West Palm Beach Vol. 15, Iss. 4, (Aug 2015): 21-31.
\nAbstract
\nIn this study, we sought to understand how students perceived the dissertation as practitioner-scholars and parttime doctoral students in advanced doctoral programs in educational leadership. The results indicated that the
\nexpectations associated with scholarly writing present major hurdles for doctoral students, and the dissertation
\nprocess can be lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. Doctoral faculty members are often called upon to
\nadvise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. We found that
\nthe essential part in this process is supporting practitioner students as they transform into doctoral level writers.
\nFull Text
\nHeadnote
\nIn this study, we sought to understand how students perceived the dissertation as practitioner-scholars and parttime doctoral students in advanced doctoral programs in educational leadership. The results indicated that the
\nexpectations associated with scholarly writing present major hurdles for doctoral students, and the dissertation
\nprocess can be lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. Doctoral faculty members are often called upon to
\nadvise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. We found that
\nthe essential part in this process is supporting practitioner students as they transform into doctoral level writers.
\nIn the realm of academia, writing skills are imperative to creating a lasting career, putting truth to the adage of
\npublish or perish (Ferguson, 2009). Since publications are commonly associated with academic prestige, it is fitting
\nthat researching and writing a dissertation is the culminating activity for doctoral candidates (Kucan, 2011). In our
\nresearch and experience, we found that the dissertation process is lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. In
\nparticular, the expectations associated with scholarly writing presented significant challenges to success for doctoral
\nstudents.
\nFor practitioner-scholars, there are additional stressors to completing coursework and the culminating dissertation.
\nGraduate students who are also full-time practitioners must carefully pilot the balance between graduate school,
\nemployment and life (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Manalo, 2006; Nielson & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek,
\n2012). Additionally, the need to alternate between the mindset of a practitioner and that of a scholar impacts both
\nthe writing process and the framework with which one embraces inquiry (Labaree, 2003; Ondrusek, 2012).
\nDoctoral faculty members, and particularly doctoral dissertation advisers, are often called upon to instruct and
\nadvise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. One key part
\nin this process is supporting practitioner students as they redefine their identity as doctoral level writers.
\nBACKGROUND
\nIn 2013, we undertook a study designed to review the writing challenges experienced by doctoral candidates in an
\neducational leadership department at a Midwestern university. Our original study was written in response to the
\nliterature base about the stresses facing practitioner-scholars as they advance through doctoral programs (Belcher,
\n2009; Ferguson, 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2008; Nielsen & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011 ); the
\nconcerns for the quality of scholarly presentation by doctoral candidates (Boote & Beile, 2005; Casanave &
\nHubbard, 1992; Kamler & Thomson, 2008) and the possibilities that exist for educational leadership faculty to
\nprovide assistance to students with expanded roles and responsibilities not normally associated with doctoral
\ncandidacy (Manalo, 2006; Wang & Li, 2011).
\nAccording to Boote and Beile (2005), a lack of quality research in the field of education can be attributed to the
\nstandards of educational doctoral programs. Graduate level discourse requires writers to “integrate disparate ideas,
\nsynthesize perspectives, and extend theory” (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007, p. 809). These concepts, which are
\nuncommon in undergraduate coursework, are elusive to practitionerstudents who approach writing assignments
\nfrom their perspective within their area of expertise.
\nBecoming a critical writer necessitates the development of a research lens with a focus on critical inquiry. When
\nanalyzing an issue, the researcher’s position can be contrary to that of a practitioner and therefore practitionerdoctoral students must be encouraged to separate from their professional identity in the workplace in order to
\nassess the underlying factors at play in education (Labaree, 2003). In essence, doctoral students must detach from
\ntheir pragmatism and subsequent practitioner beliefs in order to develop a worldview with an unbiased lens to
\nproductively conduct objective research.
\nCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
\nThe importance of scholarly communication is well documented and understood as an influence to one’s research
\noutput, which directly impacts a future academic career (Boote & Beile, 2005; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000; Ferguson,
\n2009). Nevertheless, the education of doctoral students on the writing process is neither a common practice in
\nhigher education nor represented in the body of literature (Ferguson, 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2006). Since the
\n1970s, the need for doctoral writing research has been noted and continues still today (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007;
\nManalo, 2006).
\nDoctoral Level Writing Dispositions
\nTwo underlying stressors experienced by doctoral students when approaching writing include unclear expectations
\nof writing assignments and underdeveloped writing skills (Ferguson, 2009). Since undergraduate faculty have
\ndifferent writing expectations than graduate programs, students do not have the opportunity to learn the
\ngrammatical skills necessary to write at an academic level beyond the doctoral program (Kucan, 2011). When
\nstudents experience doubt about their ability to complete quality work, the result can be lower scores on their
\nwriting submissions (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011).
\nEmotional Response to Feedback and Critique
\nDuring the course of doctoral studies, students receive varied feedback from peers and professors on writing
\nprojects. Due to low self-confidence of writing skills, students are unsure how to move forward with the feedback
\nwhile maintaining their voice (Cafarella & Barnett, 1997; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Furthermore, critiques can be
\nviewed as personal attacks instead of assistance towards a better product (Nielson & Rocco, 2002). Wang and Li,
\n(2011) noted:
\nFeedback in doctoral research is a social practice embedded in supervisory relationships. This demands attention to
\nthe interpersonal aspect of feedback, focusing not only on the what, that is, the text, but also on the how, that is,
\nthe way in which feedback is given and received. (p. 102)
\nOverall, the process of editing is not understood by some graduate students; instead of using feedback to
\nreevaluate the overall strength of the piece, attention is often paid to correcting minutiae such as spelling and
\ngrammar (Ondrusek, 2012).
\nWriting Efficiency
\nFor practitioner-students, time management can be viewed as an insurmountable hurdle in the writing process
\n(Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Nielson and Rocco (2002) noted that many doctoral students are responsible not only
\nfor their studies but also a career or family. Accordingly, the age of students in educational doctoral students is
\nhigher than other fields (Labaree, 2003). Thus, making research and writing a priority amongst life’s many other
\nduties and responsibilities can prove difficult for practitionerscholars (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007;
\nManalo, 2006; Nielson & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek, 2012). The issue of time is more about making the most of
\nlimited time resources and prioritizing coursework amongst life’s other requirements.
\nResearcher View of Writing
\nDeveloping a researcher lens can be challenging for practitioner-students because “writing for their chosen
\ndisciplines requires them to make major adjustments in how they view knowledge, learning, written expression,
\nand themselves before they reach a comfort level in scholarly writing” (Ondrusek, 2012, p. 180). By changing
\nviewpoints and ways of approaching inquiry, a level of dissonance ensues as doctoral students vacate their work-life
\nperspective for that of academia (Boote & Beile, 2005; Labaree, 2003). Less likely to be changed by their program
\nin a transformative way through the research process, many educational doctoral students do not plan to join the
\nacademy and publish original research but desire to work in advanced practitioner roles in education (Labaree,
\n2003). The role of inquiry is therefore viewed as a by-product of advanced coursework versus a separate goal.
\nAnxiety
\nIssues of time management, doctoral level writing expectations, feedback and critique, and cognitive dissonance
\nbetween practitioner and scholar worldviews compound with the pressures of coursework and elicit feelings of
\nanxiety and a lack of confidence which can prove overwhelming in the dissertation writing process (Cafarella &
\nBarnett, 2000; Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Ferguson, 2009; Ondrusek, 2012; Nielson & Rocco, 2002). Figure 1
\nprovides a conceptual model of the four stressors we examined in this study.
\nOften, doctoral students have past academic successes which have created high expectations for their work. It is
\nunderstandable then when they receive constructive feedback and lower grades in their doctoral level coursework,
\nwhy self-imposed anxiety may result (Caffarella & Barnett, 1997; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011). Additionally,
\nstudents can become frustrated when the feedback is limited, contradictory or of low-quality since they are unable
\nto clearly identify their missteps (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). However, not all work produces the same emotional
\nresponses. Belcher (2009) noted graduate students experience intense pressure surrounding academic writing
\nwhich can cause doubt, depression, or guilt and result in a lack of writing progress. Nielson and Rocco (2002)
\nexplained “the more important the writing, the greater the apprehension” (p. 313). Students experience increased
\nanxiety in proportion to the importance of the assignment in their courses building to the ultimate project of
\ndissertation writing. To that end, the purpose of this study was to ascertain doctoral students’ beliefs regarding
\ncritical writing skills and the extent to which professors can alleviate or contribute to student dissertation anxiety.
\nThe research questions that inform this study included: 1) What helps or hinders practitioner students in their
\nacademic writing process? 2) What areas do students feel they need more instruction? 3) What institutional or
\ncurricular changes can be made to increase the number of practitioner students completing the doctoral program?
\nMETHOD OF THE STUDY
\nIn this mixed-methods study, we systematically examined the beliefs of practitioner-scholars who had advanced in
\na doctoral program in a Midwestern state regarding their critical writing expectations and stressors. We conducted
\nthis exploratory study in 2013 to measure differing trends and adjust curricular practices and expectations
\naccordingly. Specifically we were interested in whether students felt that doctoral level coursework addressing
\nremedial writing skills would be beneficial to themselves or their peers. We designed a survey with both
\nquantitative and qualitative inquiry in mind. Consequently, the researchers were able to facilitate analysis by
\ncalculating numerical averages as well as extracting emerging themes to provide a holistic interpretation of this
\nproblem under examination.
\nParticipants
\nAdvanced doctoral students and graduates were invited to participate in this electronic survey. Eligible participants
\ncompleted their doctoral core coursework from 2006 to 2013 in a doctoral program in educational leadership at a
\nMidwestern state (n=97). Participants are part-time doctoral students who maintain full-time employment within an
\neducational setting. Most serve as administrators or faculty. Participants (n=47) consented to participate and
\ncompleted the online questionnaire administered through Survey Monkey\u00ae. This is not a longitudinal study and we
\nonly sought to determine generalities based on the behaviors and attitudes of students and graduates as a cohort,
\nnot as individuals through this research design. The sample size supports a 48% confidence level as ascertained by
\nthe responses received by the researchers. Thus, we present a representative sample from the surveys to
\nadequately make generalizations about the perceptions of doctoral candidates in a Midwestern state regarding
\ncritical writing skills and associated stress.
\nValidity
\nIn order to establish construct validity of this survey, the variables were aligned with the literature base of scholarly
\nwriting, the stress of doctoral candidates as defined in the literature, and the descriptors based on the experiences
\nthat we had as researchers and professors. Thus, the researchers determined that the survey instrument measured
\nthe theoretical constructs the instrument was designed to measure- doctoral students’ beliefs regarding critical
\nwriting skills and the extent to which professors can alleviate or contribute to student dissertation anxiety. Since we
\nstudied an array of variables that may be associated with doctoral candidate stress and writing under the multiple
\nconstructs of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, we anticipated a wide degree of variation in the response. Thus,
\nthere was a low but acceptable level of internal consistency (.59 Cronbach alpha) among the variables.
\nRESULTS OF THE STUDY
\nThe final reporting of these data is presented as a descriptive narrative. While generalizable findings may appear,
\nthis research is not seeking universals that exist free of context. Timely feedback from instructors, thinking
\ncritically, and having a strong working vocabulary were essential elements for success indicated by these doctoral
\ncandidates as shown in Table 1. We also found that respondents did not agree that technology resources were
\nessential to their writing acumen. However, candidates highly valued the supports provided through the university
\nlibrary in securing literature, but seldom used the intensive writing support offered by the campus writing center.
\nPeer review provided interesting results in this study. When asked whether peer editing and review are helpful,
\n45% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Conversely 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed
\nand 24% of the respondents appeared ambivalent regarding peer editing and review. When asked how often they
\nasked a peer to review and comment on their writing, one third of the respondents reported almost never, and only
\none respondent (2.22%) reported almost daily as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
\nThe overall mean score of 2.4 suggests that students seek peer support once in a while, perhaps one occurrence
\nper week as shown in Table 2. These data generate questions regarding why doctoral students value peer review,
\nand yet seldom take advantage of this support.
\nThis finding also corresponded with reports that 54% of the respondents answered N\/A when queried about the
\nhelpfulness of the writing center, suggesting that they had no experience or had never taken advantage of the
\nwriting support offered by the university as shown in Figure 3. The writing center offers support for editing and
\ndevelopment of student manuscripts, and a mere 13% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was a
\nhelpful support. It is interesting to note that 67% of the respondents indicated that they agree that doctoral level
\nclass time should be used to teach writing skills and yet they do not avail themselves of peer review, nor did they
\nreport problematic behaviors in their writing.
\nWhen asked to describe the challenges they face in developing their writing expertise, the respondents consistently
\nidentified time and anxiety, over developing writing expertise. However the mean response indicates that students
\nschedule sustained blocks of uninterrupted time, more than two hours two to three times weekly as shown in Table
\n2. In looking at the distribution, it appears that they are prioritizing their writing time, but students still are
\ndistraught over the time requirements of scholarly writing. If these practitioner students are indeed regularly
\nscheduling more than two hours for writing daily (15%), four to five times weekly (28%), two to three times
\nweekly (28%), or even once a week (24%), time should not pose a barrier to the completion of their dissertation.
\nAs self-reported data from a small population, the qualitative results of this study posed interesting findings that
\nmay inform faculty. The qualitative data were organized around four key themes entitled: time, feedback and clear
\nexpectations, anxiety, and writing mechanics.
\nTime
\nThe first major finding related to effective use of time. According to the data, students are scheduling time to
\ncomplete their writing assignments yet they experience high levels of anxiety about the amount of writing required
\nin their doctoral program. If adequate time is being set aside, the efficient use of this allocated time is called into
\nquestion (Belcher, 2009). According to one participant, “I need long chunks of time in my schedule. I need to
\nimmerse my brain in my material.” Students set aside sufficient time to complete quality assignments yet failed to
\neffectively utilize their time. Stress pertaining to writing and project completion lead to anxiety as a stumbling block
\nto writing. As one participant commented, “I fear not writing well. I struggle with writer’s block.” If students felt
\nmore capable to do the writing assignments by improving their writing and researching skills, anxiety could be
\nlessened and the amount of time allocated for the projects would be sufficient. As one other participant added, “I
\nam challenged by organization. I never feel that I know enough about a topic to come up with a decent outline.”
\nParticipants offered suggestions for lessoning anxiety associated with writing and time management. These
\nsuggestions included meeting regularly with their advisor and\/or faculty members for regular feedback, writing
\nstrategies and encouragement. Participants in this study recognized the vital roles that faculty play in developing
\nstudents’ doctoral level writing skills but also in building their confidence. Second, participants recommended the
\ninclusion of organization tools to assist them in mapping out a timeline for completion, developing milestones
\ntoward achieving their writing goals, and for learning how to locate and abstract literature. Third, participants also
\nidentified the positive impact of peer editing or peer writing groups. By receiving additional feedback from their
\npeers, students were able to obtain another perspective on their writing from a less-intimidating peer.
\nFeedback and Clear Expectations
\nThe second key theme that emerged from the participants was the need to have clear, faculty expectations and
\nconsistent, constructive feedback. Additionally, the expectations and feedback should be consistent across faculty.
\nFor example, one faculty member would have high expectations for the proper incorporation of and citation of
\nliterature and the next would devalue these elements and emphasize grammar and organization. The contradictory
\nfeedback between instructors was confusing and frustrating for participants. In the words of one participant, “The
\nexpectations for each professor and paper have not always been clear. It would be beneficial for there to be ground
\nrules within the department for grading and paper component expectations.” The need for faculty consensus on
\ngrammar, citations, organizational preferences, and other writing elements were frequently sought by participants.
\nAdditionally, participants noted incompatibility between student and faculty expectations on writing assignments. As
\none participant stated, “It seems each professor has a different hang up on writing…it seems a common rubric
\nwould help… please stay consistent.” Ironically the quantitative data supported clearly explained scholarly writing
\nexpectations on assignments, while the qualitative data spoke to a clear disconnect between student and instructor
\nexpectations on writing assignments. In an effort to ensure uniform, realistic expectations that are consistent
\nbetween faculty and students, detailed rubrics with specific assessment criteria were recommended.
\nAnxiety
\nAnother theme that emerged from the qualitative data surrounded student anxieties surrounding the writing
\nprocess. At times the emotional response to the assignment would appear as writer’s block, paralyzing even to the
\nmost seasoned writers, leading to a student’s inability to complete quality, timely assignments. An additional
\ncontributing factor to their writing anxiety included receiving participant’s responses to constructive feedback.
\nRather than appreciate faculty feedback, participants commented on how the feedback only contributed to their
\nfeelings of writing. One student in particular discussed his struggle after completing the comprehensive exam
\nprocess, “After comps, I had an extremely difficult time getting my confidence back. The first time I had to write I
\nsat at the computer for an hour and couldn’t get a word down. That had never happened to me before.” Rather
\nthan recognize the constructive nature of faculty feedback, participants felt critiqued and their confidence shaken.
\nParticipants offered strategies for reducing the anxiety associated with writing. These recommendations included
\nthe implementation of peer review or peer writing groups where students could offer support, encouragement and
\nconstructive feedback to one another. By supporting one another through the obstacles associated with writing,
\nparticipants recognized that they were not alone in their challenges and could learn from one another.
\nAdditionally, faculty become critical in building writing skills and self-assurance in students. As per our participants,
\nfaculty should consider providing practice examples of quality writing. Additionally, one participant commented on
\nhow much she appreciated a faculty member who shared a recent review she received from a journal. The faculty
\nmember received extensive feedback and planned to revise and resubmit the article. The student commented
\nknowing that a faculty member received feedback on her writing validated the idea that everyone’s writing could be
\nimproved. Students recommended creating a culture of demystifying the feedback process and welcoming the
\nfeedback as a way to improve their writing rather than the feedback serving as an indication of their lack of
\nunderstanding of scholarly writing. Additionally, participants reinforced the need for positive, reinforcing feedback to
\nhelp offset some of the harsher constructive feedback. For the doctoral students, knowing what they are doing
\ncorrectly was just as important as understanding the improvements which needed to be made by providing a boost
\nto their confidence level. As one participant stated, “when a faculty member wrote ‘that is doctoral level writing’ on
\nmy paper, I was ecstatic. This one comment really boosted my confidence.”
\nWriting Mechanics
\nThe fourth theme that emerged from the qualitative literature relates to the overall mechanics of writing. Students
\nnoted that they struggled with the fundamentals of writing including proper citations, grammar, verb-tense and
\npassive voice. Since participants were practitioner-scholars with full-time jobs, their work settings did not often
\nrequire academic type writing. As a result, participants recognized the need for remediation in the fundamentals of
\nwriting, citing and basic literature searches.
\nParticipants recommended faculty administer and review practice tests related to writing basics. They also endorsed
\nallowing students to rewrite papers or submit drafts prior to the deadline. These opportunities would allow them to
\nimprove their writing with each draft. Respondents suggested current students use the university writing center, if
\nthat center has individuals qualified to assess and provide feedback for doctoral-level writing. Understanding that
\nthe dissertation is a major hurdle to completion, students recommended course assignments be created to
\nspecifically demystify the dissertation process and allow them to prepare for the dissertation (Cuthbert & Spark,
\n2008). Students did recommend additional writing support but most agreed that writing seminars or Help write my thesis – APA
\nworkshops should be optional as not everyone needed remediation in this area.
\nIMPLICATIONS
\nAs the findings from this study indicated, practitioner doctoral students struggle with efficiently using writing time,
\nways to organize their writing projects, and high levels of emotional stress related to producing writing for critique.
\nProactively addressing these challenges and infusing strategies for overcoming these barriers throughout a doctoral
\nprogram are vital to student writing success. As early as program orientation, writing strategies should be taught
\nand then reinforced throughout the doctoral program. By focusing on the process of writing and critiquing to
\ndevelop academic writing skills at the beginning phase of doctoral studies, a culture of improvement is established
\nduring the initial socialization of a doctoral program (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Training topics should include
\nestablishing writing timelines, how to search the literature, concept mapping and outlining projects, proper citation
\nand a review of common grammatical mistakes. As evidenced in our findings, despite being doctoral students, most
\nstudents needed intentional instruction and practice related to basic scholarly writing. By emphasizing quality
\nwriting throughout a doctoral program, faculty and students alike have shared expectations for what it means to be
\na member of the learning body.
\nAdditionally, peer review can be a helpful tool in doctoral writing, but students must first be educated on how to
\nprovide meaningful and constructive feedback. Peer evaluation helps create a culture of ongoing feedback and
\ninsights about what feedback means, how to emotionally respond, and what to do with the feedback. Since
\neveryone in the writing group follows the same processes and is then critiqued, receiving feedback becomes destigmatized (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). This is an important process which can reduce some of the anxiety
\nassociated with writing over time when students frequently take part in peer review assignments or group writings
\n(Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000).
\nLastly, faculty members can help by defining writing expectations and holding individual student conferences.
\nDepartmental consensus on writing expectations and priorities is imperative for student success in learning the
\nelements of scholarly writing. Clear expectations, detailed rubrics, and specific feedback (Belcher, 2009) are aids in
\nadvancing student’s writing skills. When student’s skills improve and their efficacy increases, they are more likely to
\nview themselves as capable of completing a dissertation and have the motivation to complete. If improving student
\nwriting and reducing writing anxiety are departmental priorities, faculty must collectively discuss expectations and
\nimplement the necessary changes. Furthermore, students should be encouraged to meet with course instructors
\nand advisors to receive feedback on their writing and suggestions for approaching writing assignments. By regularly
\ndiscussing writing projects with advisors, students will build writing confidence and improve their writing skills
\n(Cafarella & Barnett, 2000).
\nThis study was intentionally limited to one doctoral program with students who work full-time as educational
\nleaders. This study is unique because of the lens of practitioner-scholars and their perspectives on scholarly writing.
\nBased on the findings from this survey, areas for future research include identifying ways to embrace the diversity
\nof perspectives brought to doctoral programs by practitioners while prioritizing doctoral level writing. Moreover,
\nfurther studies could examine how institutions can strike a balance between creating an environment built to
\nprovide students with academic success while still providing opportunities for transformative learning. Additionally,
\nwe have determined that additional research is warranted regarding the role of the student in the dissertation
\nwriting process.
\nSUMMARY
\nThe ability to write critically is an essential component to becoming a member of the academic community and,
\ntherefore, doctoral programs conclude with the ultimate writing task; a dissertation. For many practitionerstudents, the writing skills they bring to the classroom are reflections of their undergraduate courses or workplace
\nexperiences and do not meet the expectations of doctoral programs. This gap between skills and expectations,
\nwhen not met during the initial stages of a doctoral program, leads to doubt, anxiety and stress. For practitionerscholars managing multiple responsibilities on top of their coursework, the emotional duress can result in late
\nassignments, lower scores, and even discontinuation of the program. From our research, we have learned there are
\nchanges which can be made by students and faculty to bridge the skills gap, create consistency and transparency,
\nand build a program focused on scholarly expression.
\nReferences
\nREFERENCES
\nBelcher, W.L. (2009). Writing Your Journal Article in 12 weeks: A Guide to academic publishing success. Los
\nAngeles: Sage.
\nBoote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review
\nin research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.
\nCaffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (1997). Teaching doctoral students writing: Negotiating the borders between the
\nworld of practice and doctoral study. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the University Council for
\nEducational Administration, Orlando, FL.
\nCaffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance
\nof giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.
\nCasanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty
\nperceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33-49.
\nCuthbert, D., & Spark, C. (2008). Getting a GRIP; Examining the outcomes of a pilot program to support graduate
\nresearch students in writing for publication. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 77-88.
\nFerguson, T. (2009). The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography
\nin Higher Education, 33(2), 285-297.
\nKamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge
\nKamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative pedagogies for
\ndoctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 507-514.
\nKucan, L. (2011). Approximating the practice of writing the dissertation literature review. Literacy Research and
\nInstruction, 50(3), 229-240.
\nLabaree, D.F. (2003). The Peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4),
\n13-22.
\nLavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (December, 2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology,
\n27(6), 807-822.
\nManalo, E. (2006). The usefulness of an intensive preparatory course for EAL thesis writers. Journal of Research in
\nInternational Education, 5(2), 215-230.
\nNielsen, S. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2002). Joining the conversation: Graduate students’ perceptions of writing for
\npublication. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Adult Education Research Conference. Raleigh, NC.
\n(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 471830).
\nOndrusek, A. L. (2012). What the Research Reveals about Graduate Students’ Writing Skills: A Literature Review.
\nJournal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 176-188.
\nWang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do ‘vs.’ guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international
\ndoctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101-112.
\nAuthorAffiliation
\nBarbara A. Klocko
\nCentral Michigan University
\nSarah M. Marshall
\nCentral Michigan University
\nJillian F. Davidson
\nCentral Michigan University
\nCopyright North American Business Press Aug 2015
\nDetails
\nSubject Studies;
\nStudent writing;
\nScholars;
\nEducation;
\nGraduate studies;
\nResearch;
\nLearning;
\nAdvisors;
\nSuccess;
\nAnxieties;
\nCareers;
\nEducational leadership;
\nGraduate students;
\nFeedback;
\nQuality;
\nResearchers;
\nScholarly communication;
\nDissertations & theses
\nTitle Developing Practitioner-Scholar Doctoral Candidates as Critical Homework help – Writers
\nAuthor Klocko, Barbara A; Marshall, Sarah M; Davidson, Jillian F
\nPublication title Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice; West Palm Beach
\nVolume 15
\nIssue 4
\nPages 21-31
\nNumber of pages 11
\nPublication year 2015
\nPublication date Aug 2015
\nPublisher North American Business Press
\nPlace of publication West Palm Beach
\nCountry of publication United States, West Palm Beach
\nPublication subject Education–Higher Education
\nISSN 21583595
\nSource type Scholarly Journal
\nLanguage of publication English
\nDocument type Feature
\nDocument feature References; Tables; Graphs; Diagrams
\nProQuest document ID 1726783985
\nDocument URL https:\/\/lopes.idm.oclc.org\/login?url=https:\/\/www.proquest.com\/scholarlyjournals\/developing-practitioner-scholar-doctoral\/docview\/1726783985\/se-2?
\naccountid=7374
\nCopyright Copyright North American Business Press Aug 2015
\nLast updated 2016-10-08
\nDatabase ProQuest One Academic
\nDatabase copyright \u00a9 2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
document 1 of 1 Full Text | Scholarly Journal Developing Practitioner-Scholar Doctoral Candidates as Critical Homework help – Writers Klocko, Barbara A; Marshall, Sarah M; Davidson, Jillian F. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1942],"tags":[1960,1944,1959,1837],"class_list":["post-6407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-write-my-psychology-papers","tag-psychology-dissertation-writing-service","tag-write-my-psychology-research-paper","tag-psych-research-paper-sample","tag-psychology-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}