How Online Doctoral Students Develop a Dissertation Problem Statement Problem Statement Conducting a supervised independent research project is a unique feature of completing a doctoral degree (Lovitts, 2008; Luse, Mennecke, & Townsend, 2012). Contrary to the commonly held belief of a 50% all-but-dissertation (ABD) rate, only approximately 20% of doctoral students are unable to complete the dissertation after finishing their coursework (Lovitts, 2008; Wendler et al., 2010). The challenge of the dissertation is not a new phenomenon in higher education, but what is new is the growing number of students who complete their academic programs online (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Kumar, Johnson, & Hardemon, 2013). Although many students are ultimately successful in defining the central argument for a doctoral capstone, how this process occurs in a distributed environment has not been well researched. Highlighted in the book on doctoral education by Walker, Golde, Jones, ConklinBueschel, and Hutchings (2009) is the need to develop more “pedagogies of research” (p. 151) to support teaching graduate students to be scholars. Although a modest body of scholarship exists on research training in traditional programs, emerging research suggests that the online environment offers some unique challenges and opportunities for doctoral students (Baltes, Hoffman-Kipp, Lynn, & Weltzer-Ward, 2010; Kumar et al., 2013; Lim, Dannels, & Watkins, 2008). Of the many aspects of a research project, development of the problem statement is arguably a key step because it provides the rationale for the entire dissertation (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Luse et al., 2012). 3
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of the process by which doctoral students in online programs arrive at a viable problem statement for their dissertations. To address this gap, the approach will use the mixed-methods paradigm and will be primarily qualitative. Assessments of the quality of problem statements will be used in conjunction with interviews to develop an understanding of students’ strategies for formulating problem statements.
Significance
This research will fill a gap in understanding by focusing specifically on development of problem statements by students in online doctoral programs. This project is unique because it addresses an underresearched area of higher education (Gardner & Barnes, 2014) among a group of learners that has expanded over the past decade (Bell, 2011). The results of this study will provide much-needed insights into the processes by which increasing numbers of new scholars work through the beginning phase of their research. Insights from this study should aid doctoral committees and academic programs in helping students to succeed in their final projects, thus supporting eventual degree attainment. Education has long been a force for social change by addressing inequities in society. Because a broad range of students attends online institutions, supporting their successful attainment of a terminal degree allows for increased diversity in the types of individuals in key academic and scholarly leadership positions.
Background
Selected articles relating to doctoral education and the process of learning to be a researcher are described here: 4 1. Baltes et al. (2010) and Bieschke (2006) provided information on research selfefficacy, which has been shown as a key predictor of the future research of doctoral students. 2. Gelso (2006), Holmes (2009), Hilliard (2013), and Kim and Karau (2009) provided different views of strategies to support the development of scholar practitioners during the capstone experience. 3. Ivankova and Stick (2006) and Kumar et al. (2013) offered models that align well with the possible methodologies used in this study and that involved online students. 4. Research by Lim et al. (2008) addressed the role of research courses in an online program. 5. Lovitts (2008), Gardner and Barnes (2014), and Werner and Rogers (2013) gave different views of the transition from student to researcher. 6. Articles focusing on the student experience of learning to conduct research include Ismail, Majid, and Ismail (2013); Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012); and Stubb, Pyhältö, and Lonka (2014).
Framework
The theoretical base for this study will be Perry’s (1970) theory of epistemological development. Because this theory addresses ways of knowing in adults, Perry’s theoretical work has been used extensively in all aspects of higher education, albeit more frequently with undergraduates than with doctoral students. The approach provides details on cognitive-structural changes that emerge as a result of development and learning. Further, subsequent research and application of Perry’s theory offer guidance on 5 ways to facilitate academic development, thus allowing for insight into the pedagogical challenge of the dissertation (Gardner, 2009).
Research Questions
1. RQ1–Qualitative: For students with a high-quality problem statement at the dissertation stage, what themes emerge in their reports of the process that they used to develop it? 2. RQ2–Quantitative: Based on objective ratings by doctoral faculty, are significant differences evident in the overall quality of problem statements as students progress through the dissertation process? Nature of the Study The nature of this study will be mixed-method with a qualitative focus. Qualitative research is consistent with understanding how students approach the work of creating a successful dissertation problem statement, which is the primary focus of this dissertation. Keeping the focus on how students make sense of their dissertation research should be consistent with Perry’s (1970) epistemological expectations at this point in their development (Gardner, 2009). To elucidate how a viable research problem emerges, objective ratings of student work products will be examined across time. This quantitative analysis should help pinpoint the amount of growth from the beginning to end of the project.
2. Possible Types and Sources of Data
1. Problem statements written at four key points in a doctoral student’s career: the premise, the prospectus, the proposal, and the dissertation writing stage.
2. Ratings of problem statements by an expert panel of doctoral faculty. 6
3. Interviews with a representative group of doctoral graduates who have successfully defended their dissertations and whose work was highly ranked by faculty.
4. A measure of epistemological development, consistent with Perry’s (1970) theory, as a possible covariate.
5. Interviews or surveys of doctoral faculty who have helped students to succeed, as a possible source for triangulation. 7
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013) Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Baltes, B., Hoffman-Kipp, P., Lynn, L., & Weltzer-Ward, L. (2010). Students’ research self-efficacy during online doctoral research courses. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3, 51–58. Bell, N. (2011). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2000 to 2010. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Bieschke, K. J. (2006). Research self-efficacy beliefs and research outcome expectations: Implications for developing scientifically minded psychologists. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 77–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072705281366 Gardner, S. K. (2009). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34, 1–127. Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2014). Advising and mentoring doctoral students: A handbook. San Bernardino, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Gelso, C. J. (2006). On the making of a scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, S, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.S.1.3 Hilliard, A. T. (2013). Advising doctorate candidates and candidates’ views during the dissertation process. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10, 7–13.