Doctoral Students’ Perceptions of the Similarities and Differences Between Student and Advisor Dissertation Evaluation Scores
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.552Keywords:
doctoral writing self-efficacy, dissertation feedback, doctoral advising, advisor-student alignmentAbstract
Doctoral students often experience discrepancies between their understanding of dissertation writing proficiency and the assessments provided by their advisors. The purpose of this single case study was to explore doctoral students’ perceptions regarding similarities and dissimilarities of their self-evaluation compared to their advisor’s evaluation, focusing on their self-ratings and advisor evaluations of dissertation drafts. Using a single case study approach, we analyzed self-evaluations, faculty assessments, and individual interviews with four participants in an online EdD program. Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory provided a framework for analyzing performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states in shaping students’ writing confidence. Findings indicate that misalignment often stems from differences in metacognitive awareness, overreliance on peer working groups (PWGs), and the perceived role of feedback. Participants who viewed feedback as a tool for iterative growth were more likely to align with advisor assessments. We suggest that structured self-evaluation rubrics, targeted advisor feedback, and peer collaboration can enhance doctoral students’ writing self-efficacy and dissertation progress. The study’s findings underscore the need for doctoral programs to implement structured feedback systems, enhance advisor training, and support peer collaboration to improve writing self-efficacy and dissertation alignment. Future research should explore scalable feedback strategies and the role of PWGs.
References
Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). “Tough love and tears”: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(4), 435–447, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559195
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Henderson, M., Esterhazy, R., Mahoney, P., & Molloy, E. (2024). Enhancing feedback practices within PhD supervision: A qualitative framework synthesis of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2307332
Breitenbach, E., Adler, K., & Pazdernik, V. (2022). Writing self-efficacy and performance among students in an online doctoral program. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITLHE.304080
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
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 508–536, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1
Capello, S. (2020). Leveraging PhD students to support EdD dissertation writing. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(3), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.110
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
Castello, M., Inesta, A., & Corcelles, M. (2013). Learning to write a research article: Ph.D. students’ transitions toward disciplinary writing regulation. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(4), 442–477. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201323634
Chien, S.-C., & Li, W.-Y. (2022). Problems of writing the doctoral dissertation discussion section: Advisors’ and their doctoral students’ perspectives from natural and applied sciences and social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101183
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Crumbo, G. B. (1999). Writing apprehension and the effects of “I think I can, I think I can” (Publication No. 9921965) [Doctoral Dissertation, Spalding University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/writing-apprehension-effects-i-think-can/docview/304566835/se-2?accountid=6741
de Kleijn, R. A., Mainhard, M. T., Meijer, P. C., Brekelmans, M., & Pilot, A. (2013). Master’s thesis projects: Student perceptions of supervisor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 1012–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.777690
Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2010). Progress feedback effects on students’ writing mastery goal, self-efficacy beliefs, and performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611003711393
Filipovic, J., & Jovanovic, A. (2016). Academic maturation and metacognitive strategies in academic research and production. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1442–1451, https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040623
Friedrich-Nel, H. S., & Mac Kinnon, J. L. (2015). Formative assessment in doctoral education. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 13(2), 1–14.
Gazza, E., Shellenbarger, T., & Hunker, D. (2013). Developing as a scholarly writer: the experience of students enrolled in a PhD in nursing program in the United States. Nurse Education Today, 33(3), 268–274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.019
Guerin, C. (2013). Rhizomatic research cultures, writing groups and academic researcher identities. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 137–150, https://doi.org/10.28945/1897
Inouye, K., & McAlpine, L. (2019). Developing academic identity: A review of the literature on doctoral writing and feedback. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.28945/4168
Kaul, C. R., Werse, N. R., Smith, J., Shelton, R. N., Jones Davis, B. K., Howell, L., Sanguras, L. Y., & Crocker Papadakis, L. K. (2024). Exploring doctoral writing self-efficacy and apprehension in a dissertation writing course. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 19, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.28945/5308
Kelly, S., & Gaytan, J. (2020). The effect of instructors’ immediate behaviors and clarity on student writing apprehension. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619868822
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701366001
Lehan, T., Hussey, H., & Mika, E. (2016). Reviewing the review: An assessment of dissertation reviewer feedback quality. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.13.1.4
Naidoo, K., Quaynor, L., & Shen, Y. (2023). Doctoral students’ experiences, self-efficacy, and sense of belonging related to academic writing in an online program. Education Sciences, 13(11), Article 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111097
Negretti, R. (2021). Searching for metacognitive generalities: Areas of convergence in learning to write for publication across doctoral students in science and engineering. Written Communication, 38(2), 167–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320984796
Nicol, D., & Kushwah, L. (2024). Shifting feedback agency to students by having them write their own feedback comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2265080
Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572–590, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598
Ondrusek, A. L. (2012). What the research reveals about graduate students’ writing skills: A literature review. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 176–188.
Perin, D. (2020). Reading, writing, and self-efficacy of low‐skilled postsecondary students. The Wiley handbook of adult literacy (pp. 237–260). Wiley & Sons.
Prins, F. J., de Kleijn, R., & Tartwijk, J. V. (2017). Students’ use of a rubric for research theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1085954
Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00037-0
Pritchard, M. (2018). Evaluation of thesis completion in a graduate blended learning program [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Rafi, M. S., & Moghees, A. (2023). Writing challenges, causes, and strategies to facilitate the doctoral dissertation‐writing process: A qualitative analysis. International Social Science Journal, 73(247), 139 –156. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12367
Schunk, D., & Gunn, T. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 238–244.
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(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.428
Spaulding, L. S., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.28945/1589
Teng, M. F., & Yue, M. (2022). Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning, 18(1), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5
Werse, N. R., Smith, J., Shelton, R. N., Sanguras, L. Y., Howell, L., Crocker Papadakis, L. K., & Jones, B. K. (2026). The Composition Resource Guide: Setting transparent standards for the dissertation in practice for students, faculty, and administration. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.545
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jess Smith, Ryann N. Shelton, Leanne Howell, Brenda K. Jones, Corina R. Kaul
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- 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.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- 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:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- 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.
