transition from doctoral student to independent scholar
Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457 Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5% Writer Classification: PhD competent Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours Revision: Permitted Sources: 4-6 Course Level: Masters/University College Guarantee Status: 96-99% Instructions
transition from doctoral student to independent scholar
We write papers for students
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.
Get Help Now!DORIN DOCUMENTS:
- Baker & Pifer; “The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to
independent scholar”
Purpose of Study (Theme): “To explore the connections among developmental relationships, learning, and identity development” (7), relying on framework that brings together developmental network theory and sociocultural perspectives of learning.” Will explore whether and how students’ relationships within and outside of the academic community influence the development of their professional identities. Explore the “social nature of identity development in doctoral education” (7).
The role of relationships: purposes and outcomes (8) (AND VARIOUS SUB-SECTIONS)
In this paper, we highlight three themes related to the role of relationships in the identity development process and preparation for academic practice. The three themes are:
(1) general support and advice,
(2) identity development as student (e.g., scholar in training), and
(3) identity development for academic practice (scholar).
Stage 2: Transition from dependent to independent scholar. Stage 1 (academic success, coursework), Stage 2 ( begin dissertation process), Stage 3 (completion of dissertation). Identity development critical in Stage 2. “The transition to any new professional role, including that of
doctoral student,requires the acquisition of new skills and competencies, and the development of new relationships while altering existing ones” (6). “identities emerge through network processes” (7). “The breadth and interconnectedness of social influences on learning and identity
development acknowledged in sociocultural and network theories illuminate a limitation of prior research on doctoral education, which generally accounts for the importance of interpersonal relationships in doctoral student success exclusively by examining the student-advisor dyad “(7).
However, must also consider there is “evidence that students’ networks of relationships within and outside of the academic community are important to persistence and professional success. Additional research has confirmed their findings that a variety of relationships beyond the
student-advisor dyad are important for persistence and success in doctoral education, such as relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues” (7).
Stage 1 is characterized by coursework, due dates, syllabi, and consistent interactions with faculty, peers, and administrators. Having recently completed this stage, participants struggled with the lack of structure that characterizes Stage 2.
Lack of structure:
Isolation: “Because students were no longer in the classroom in Stage 2, their interactions with community members were greatly reduced or even non-existent” (9). “next. Relationships both in and out of the academic community became paramount for helping students deal with the
isolation associated with Stage 2” (9). (ETC. …. FOR VARIOUS SUB-SECTIONS UNDER SUB-HEADINGS)
- Gardner, “Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education: Perspectives of Faculty in Seven Disciplines”
“This conceptualization therefore uses disciplinary culture and context as a guiding framework to understand how success is defined in doctoral education in the seven dif-ferent disciplines studied. This study was guided by the question: How does disciplinary context and culture
influence understandings of success in doctoral education?” (388).
“In doctoral education, the study of success is also prevalent. To be sure, understanding doctoral student success is particularly important as only 50% of those students who enter doctoral education actually complete the degree” (383 – establishes importance of being able to define,
secure “success”). Factors that affect: GPA for coursework, retention (persistence in enrollment), degree completion, professional and attitudinal competencies (unquantifiable measure). Under this all is involvement of faculty members with the doctoral student, who serve as “teachers,
advisors, committee members, mentors, role models, and future colleagues” (386). How they define “success” is best way to “structure programs, services, and experiences for this success”(386).
“An important caveat must be made, however: The doctoral education experience is not monolithic. Doctoral education is experienced differently within and among different disciplines. Disciplines have their own particular qualities, cultures, codes of conduct, values, and distinctive
intellectual tasks” (386).
“Questions focused on the faculty mem-ber’s experiences as advisors to doctoral students and specifically asked them to identify the characteristics of students whom they considered successful and unsuccessful” (389).
“From the analysis of the interviews conducted, it was evident that disci-plinary culture and context greatly influenced the faculty members’ concep-tualizations of success in doctoral education” (391).
“Analysis of the faculty members’ comments made it evident that both disciplinary and institutional contexts significantly influence how they understand and articulate success for their doctoral students” (398).
SAMPLE POOL SIGNIFICANT: “Taken together, the responses from the faculty members in these seven departments represent not only disciplinary but institutional views of success. It is therefore important to consider that much of the research conducted on doctoral education has
been based on what occurs in the most prestigious and elite U.S. institutions (e.g., Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Nerad & Cerny, 1993; Nettles & Millett, 2006). This is not to say that such studies are unimportant or invalid but rather that they do not paint a complete picture of doctoral
education in the United States.Therefore, by not considering the voices of those within these lesser-ranked institutions, the literature has failed to address the holistic nature and institutional diversity of doctoral education in this country” (400).
“Fourth, this institu-tion’s completion rates were quite different from those cited in national studies (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008), meriting further exploration of the intersection between discipline and institutional setting. With these understandings of success in doctoral
education, higher education may be better able to structure for success among all of its students in the future” (402).
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow transition from doctoral student to independent scholar transition from doctoral student to independent scholar
