A Review of Dissertations from an Online Asynchronous Learning Design and Technologies Educational Doctoral Program

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.406

Keywords:

dissertation in practice, educational doctoral program, online program, educational technology

Abstract

Practitioner-focused educational doctoral programs have grown substantially in recent years. Dissertations in Practice (DiPs), which are the culminating research report and evaluation method in these programs, differ from traditional PhD dissertations in their focus on addressing a problem of practice and on connecting theories with practice. As part of our ongoing program evaluation, we reviewed DiPs from doctoral students who graduated from an online asynchronous Educational Doctoral program in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. Findings revealed that most students chose a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, adopted a mixed methods research design, reported an action research intervention implemented with populations in K-12 schools, used surveys and interviews as data sources, and analyzed data with descriptive/inferential statistics and thematic analysis. Implications for the program curriculum are discussed.

References

Akojie, P., Entrekin, F., Bacon, D., & Kanai, T. (2019). Qualitative meta-data analysis: Perceptions and experiences of online doctoral students. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 3(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/5814

Amrein-Beardsley, A., Zambo, D., Moore, D. W., Buss, R. R., Perry, N. J., Painter, S. R., ... & Puckett, K. S. (2012). Graduates respond to an innovative educational doctorate program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 98–122.

Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Losada, J. L., Sánchez-Algarra, P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name?. Quality & Quantity, 52, 2757–2770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0700-2

Archer, L. A., & Hsiao, Y. H. (2023). Examining the frequency and implementation of validation techniques: A content analysis of EdD dissertations in educational leadership. Journal of Global Education and Research, 7(2), 166–182. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.7.2.1261

Ari, F., Vasconcelos, L., Tang, H., Grant, M., Arslan-Ari, I., & Moore, A. (2022). Program evaluation of an online EdD in Learning Design and Technologies: Recent graduates’ perspectives. Tech Trends, 66, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00744-7

Arslan-Ari, I., Ari, F., Grant, M. M., & Morris, W. S. (2018). Action research experiences for scholarly practitioners in an online education doctorate program: Design, reality, and lessons learned. Tech Trends, 62, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0308-3

Arslan-Ari, I., Ari, F., Grant, M. M., Vasconcelos, L., Tang, H., & Morris, W. S. (2020). Becoming action researchers: Crafting the curriculum and learning experiences for scholarly practitioners in educational technology. In E. Romero-Hall (Ed.), Research Methods in Learning Design and Technology (pp. 78-93). Routledge.

Bargal, D. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407313407

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.

Bender, S., Rubel, D. J., & Dykeman, C. (2018). An interpretive phenomenological analysis of doctoral counselor education students’ experience of receiving cybersupervision. Journal of Counselor Preparation & Supervision, 11(1), Article 7. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol11/iss1/7/

Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012) Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667961

Buss, R. (2018). Using action research as a signature pedagogy to develop EdD students’ inquiry as practice abilities. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.46

Buss, R. R., & Zambo, D. (2016). A practical guide for students and faculty in CPED-influenced programs working on an action research dissertation in practice. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.

Byrnes, D., Uribe-Flórez, L. J., Trespalacios, J., & Chilson, J. (2019). Doctoral e-mentoring: Current practices and effective strategies. Online Learning, 23(1), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1446

Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate (2009). Working principles for the professional practice doctorate in education. https://cped.memberclicks.net/the-framework

Chan, E., Heaton, R. M., Swidler, S. A., & Wunder, S. (2013). Examining CPED cohort dissertations: A window into the Learning of EdD students. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 266–285.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Czerniawski, G. (2022). Power, positionality and practitioner research: Schoolteachers’ experiences of professional doctorates in education. British Educational Research Journal, 49, 1372–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3902

Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2014). An analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations in educational technology. TechTrends, 58(4), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0770-5

Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2016). Guiding principles for quality professional practice dissertations. In V. Storey, & K. Hesbol (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods (pp. 133-145). IGI Global.

Durak, G., Yünkül, E., Cankaya, S., Akpinar, S., Erten, E., Inam, N., ... & Tastekin, E. (2016). Content analysis of master theses and dissertations based on action research. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(12), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i12.1906

Firestone, W. A., Perry, J. A., Leland, A. S., & McKeon, R. T. (2021). Teaching research and data use in the education doctorate. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119872231

Foster, H. A., Chesnut, S., Thomas, J., & Robinson, C. (2023). Differentiating the EdD and the PhD in higher education: A survey of characteristics and trends. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.288

Gillham, J. C., Williams, N. V., Rife, G., & Parker, K. K. (2019). Problems of practice: A document analysis of education doctorate dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2019.85

Grant, M. M. (2021). Asynchronous online course designs: Articulating theory, best practices, and techniques for everyday doctoral education. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(3), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.191

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation. Sage.

Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 181–195.

Ivankova, N. V., Herbey, I. I., & Roussel, L. A. (2018). Theory and practice of using mixed methods in translational research: A cross-disciplinary perspective. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a24

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26

Kozikoğlu, İ., & Senemoğlu, N. (2015). The content analysis of dissertations completed in the field of curriculum and instruction (2009-2014). Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 40(182). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4784

Kumar, S., & Antonenko, P. (2014). Connecting practice, theory and method: Supporting professional doctoral students in developing conceptual frameworks. TechTrends, 58, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0769-y

Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Pollard, R., & Jeter, G. (2022). Analyzing theories, conceptual frameworks, and research methods in EdD dissertations. TechTrends, 66(4), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00739-4

Kumar, S., Roumell, E. A., & Bolliger, D. U. (2023). Faculty perceptions of e-mentoring doctoral dissertations: Challenges, strategies, and institutional support. American Journal of Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2023.2213137

Lee, H., Chang, H., & Bryan, L. (2020). Doctoral students’ learning success in online-based leadership programs: Intersection with technological and relational factors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4462

Lowenstein, R. & Barbee, D. E. (1990). The new technology: Agent of transformation. US Department of Labor, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED329248.pdf

Ma, V. W., Dana, N. F., Adams, A., & Kennedy, B. L. (2018). Understanding the problem of practice: An analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.50

McChesney, K. & Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1590811

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543447

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002) Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge Falmer.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE.

Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (5th ed.). Sage.

Mills, G. E. (2018). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.

Montelongo, R. (2019). Less than/more than: Issues associated with high-impact online teaching and learning. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 9(1), 68–79.

Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the PhD versus EdD dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20152407

Newman, I. & Covrig, D. M. (2013). Writer’s forum — Building consistency between title, problem statement, purpose, & research questions to improve the quality of research plans and reports. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 25(1), 70–79.

Nolan, S. A., & Heinzen, T. E. (2012). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.

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

Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. The Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590102400108

Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Educational Technology Publications.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Scarpena, K. R. (2016). Women in online doctoral programs: An inductive exploration of academic and non-academic factors influencing college choice (Publication No. 10251435) [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Shan, Y. (2021). Philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. Philosophy Compass, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12804

Strom, K., & Porfilio, B. (2019). Critical hybrid pedagogies: A self-study inquiry into faculty practices in a blended educational leadership EdD program. E-learning and Digital Media, 16(1), 1–14.

Studebaker, B., & Curtis, H. (2021) Building community in an online doctoral program. Christian Higher Education, 20(1-2), 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2020.1852133

Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Vaughan, M., & Burnaford, G. (2015). Action research in graduate teacher education: A review of the literature 2000–2015. Educational Action Research, 24(2), 280–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1062408

Vaughn, M. (2019). The body of literature on action research in education. In C. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (pp. 53-74). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Walker, D. W., & Haley-Mize, S. (2012). Content analysis of PhD and EdD dissertations in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411431168

Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/3001968

Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9171-7

Zambo, D. (2014). Theory in the service of practice: Theories in action research dissertations written by students in education doctorate programs. Educational Action Research, 22(4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2014.918902

Zambo, R., Zambo, D., Buss, R. R., Perry, J. A., & Williams, T. R. (2014). Seven years after the call: Students’ and graduates’ perceptions of the re-envisioned EdD Innovative Higher Education, 39, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9262-3

Downloads

Published

2024-05-01

How to Cite

Vasconcelos, L., Grant, M. M., Tang, H., Ari, F., Arslan-Ari, I., & Qian, Y. (2024). A Review of Dissertations from an Online Asynchronous Learning Design and Technologies Educational Doctoral Program. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 9(2), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.406

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024): Regular Issue

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Lucas Vasconcelos, Michael M. Grant, Hengtao Tang, Fatih Ari, Ismahan Arslan-Ari, Yingxiao Qian

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.