Collaborative Advising

How Faculty Advisors and Writing Center Professionals Help Online EdD Students Thrive Throughout the Dissertation Process

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.428

Keywords:

dissertation writing, doctoral education, dissertation advising, graduate student success, problem of practice dissertation

Abstract

This article describes a novel approach of integrating writing center professionals into online EdD dissertation committees to enhance student success and writing proficiency. Departing from the traditional “master-apprentice” model of doctoral studies, the study explores the rationale behind restructuring dissertation committees to better align with evolving programmatic outcomes and the diverse career trajectories of doctoral students. Drawing on existing scholarship and theoretical foundations, it clarifies the ambiguity surrounding the roles of committee members beyond the dissertation advisor and advocates for a coalition of experts approach to dissertation committees. We describe the establishment and functions of a Research and Writing Development Center (RWDC), highlighting its role in supporting students throughout the dissertation process. Emphasizing close collaboration between faculty advisors and RWDC professionals, the article shares the successful relationship forged to provide comprehensive feedback and guidance to scholarly practitioners writing dissertations of practice. Programmatic overviews and outcomes underscore the efficacy of this collaborative advising model in enhancing student completion rates and addressing the evolving landscape of EdD programs. This study offers valuable insight into reimagining dissertation committees to foster the holistic development of scholarly practitioners in EdD programs.

References

Aliotta, M. (2018). Mastering academic writing in the sciences: A step-by-step guide. CRC Press.

Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD dissertation from the PhD straight jacket. Education Faculty Articles and Research, 46(2), 10–13.

Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07313288

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Behm, R. (1989). Ethical issues in peer tutoring: A defense of collaborative learning. The Writing Center Journal, 10(1), 3–12.

Bell, D. J., Foster, S. L., & Cone, J. D. (2019). Dissertation and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (3rd d.). American Psychological Association.

Belzer, A., & Ryan, S. (2013). Defining the problem of practice dissertation: Where’s the practice, what’s the problem? Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 195–207.

Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516.

Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L, (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton University Press.

Buss, Buss, R. R., & Allen, J. G. (2020). Leader scholar communities: Supporting EdD students’ dissertation in practice efforts. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(3), 1–7.

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Cassuto, L. (2013, July). Ph.D. attrition: How much is too much? The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Clark, I. L. (1988). Collaboration and ethics in writing center pedagogy. The Writing Center Journal, 9(1), 3–12.

Cockrell, C. N., & Shelley, K. (2011). The relationship between academic support systems and intended persistence in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.4.e

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project.

Creighton, L., Creighton, T., & Parks, D. (2010). Mentoring to degree completion: Expanding the horizons of doctoral protégés. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260903448342

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school. Falmer.

Gardner, S. K. (2007). “I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54(5), 723–740.

Gruba, P., & Zobel, J. (2017). How to write your first thesis. Springer.

Healy, D. (1993). A defense of dualism: The writing center and the classroom. The Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 16–29.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum.

Janesick, V. J. (2021). Reflection on why we need methodologists on dissertation committees. Research in the Schools, 27(1), 67–72.

Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135–147.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.

Lively, C. L., Blevins, B., Talbert, S., & Cooper, S. (2021). Building community in online professional practice doctoral programs. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.187

Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Stylus.

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.

Lueck, A. J., & Boehm, B. (2019). Beginning at the end: Reimagining the dissertation committee, reimagining careers. Composition Studies, 47(1), 135–153.

Lunsford, L. (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678974

Lyons, W., Scroggins, D., & Rule, P. B. (1990). The mentor in graduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 15(3), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012331377400

Mirick, R. G., Davis, A., & Wladkowski, S. P. (2020). Social work dissertation committee chairs’ perceptions of their role. Journal of Social Work Education, 56(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1642273

Nobles, H. (2019). Going professional: Writing centers’ challenges and possibilities in working with emerging online professional graduate student programs. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 43(7–8), 18–25.

Oltman, G. A., Surface, J. L., & Keiser, K. A. (2019). Prepare to chair: Leading the dissertation and thesis process. Rowman & Littlefield.

Perry, J. A. (2013). Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate: The education doctorate—a degree for our time. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 113–126.

Perry, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path. Information Age.

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Crow, R. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice: A guide for faculty, committee members, and their students. Myers Education Press.

Petre, M., & Rugg, G. (2011). The unwritten rules of PhD research (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Pritchard, M. (2018). Evaluation of thesis completion in a graduate blended learning program [EdD Dissertation, University of Southern California]. ProQuest.

Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Corwin.

Summers, S. (2016). Building expertise: The toolkit in UCLA’s graduate writing center. The Writing Center Journal, 35(2), 117–145.

VanAlstyne, J. S. (1999). Professional and technical writing strategies: Communicating in technology and science (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041

Werse, N. R. (2021). Practical and transferable: The quest to design online writing instruction for mentoring professional doctoral students. In L. Gray-Rosendale & S. Rosendale (Eds.), Go online! Reconfiguring writing courses for the new, virtual world. Peter Lang.

West, I. J. y, Gokalp, G., Peña, E., Fisther, L., & Gupton, J. (2011). Exploring effective support practices for doctoral students’ degree completion. College Studies, 45, 310–323.

Wiest, L., & Treacy, A. (2021). The role of non-chair committee members in doctoral dissertations. National Teaching & Learning Forum, 30(6), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30300

Downloads

Published

2024-10-31

How to Cite

Smith, J., Werse, N. R., Shelton, R. N., Jones Davis, B. K., Kaul, C. R., & Howell, L. (2024). Collaborative Advising: How Faculty Advisors and Writing Center Professionals Help Online EdD Students Thrive Throughout the Dissertation Process. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 9(4), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.428

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 4 (2024): Regular Issue

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Jess Smith, Nicholas R. Werse, Ryann N. Shelton, Brenda K. Jones Davis, Corina R. Kaul, Leanne Howell

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.