1 Prospectus Administrators Perception on the Knowledge of Educational Needs for Special Education Students Doctor of Education – Administrator Leadership Dissertation 2 Administrators Perception on the Knowledge of Educational Needs for Special Education Students Problem Statement The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the perception of educational leaders of their knowledge of needs for students with special education needs. The problem, that the focus of this intended study, is administrators in Southeast Texas region have little training on special educator classroom roles and evidence based practices. There is little to no research on the specific proficiencies that are fundamental for principals to be effective special education leaders (Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Cusson, 2010; Roberts & Guerra, 2017). With the increased number of children with disabilities, delivery of special education has become a complex issue that needs to be immediately addressed. Education is essentially about supporting every student to develop in all areas of their lives. However, children with special needs require extra attention to understand their needs and equip them with the right knowledge that can benefit them in their academics and future life (Cusson, M. (2010). This is not always the case due to the different perceptions that school administrators hold in relation to special education. In 2007 a study conducted the results of which indicated that administrators do not have adequate knowledge of special education laws and regulations (Bateman, Gervais, Wysocki, & Cline, 2017). Therefore, the perception of administrators knowledge of special education designated children is a phenomenon of interest that should be studied to understand factors that should be taken into consideration in the provision of special education to students with special needs. The findings from the articles reviewed reveal that students with disabilities have diverse learning needs, which calls for educational leaders to implement quality programs that can assure academic success for such students (Christensen, Robertson, Williamson & Hunter, 2013). Such 3 students must be handled with utmost consideration and inclusion in every aspect to allow them gain as much as other students. Education for students with special educational needs recognizes the need to have a variety of instructional provision to address these needs, including full-time enrolment in the normal classes in mainstream institutions as well as full-time enrolment in special needs schools. Children with special needs need extra attention in terms of teaching methods, curriculum adaptation, and availability of teaching and learning materials, assessment systems, assistive technology, as well as resources and funds for more assistance in adapting the school environment. Educational leaders must have a positive and comprehensive perception of the education needs for such students to cultivate an inclusive atmosphere that will enable them learn effectively (Roberts & Guerra Jr, 2017). From the literature reviewed, it is apparent that the studies focused more on identifying the perceptions and competencies of educational administrators as it relates to delivery of special education to students with disabilities. Little has been done to explore how the competencies can be implemented to improve delivery of special education to students with disabilities and dispel the common misperceptions of principals on special education knowledge (Pierson & Howell, 2013 Shogren, McCart, Lyon, & Sailor, 2015; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, 2014). Purpose The purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate the perceptions of school administrators about their knowledge of special education, in general, and examine areas of improvement during their educational leadership/administration preparation programs. School administrators play a distinctive role in the delivery of special education service within the school (Schulze & Boscardin, 2018). Interviews in conjunction with state wide data will be used 4 to gather strategies to promote an effective special education curriculum during administrator preparation programs. Significance Understanding the perception of educational leaders in relation to the educational needs for students with disabilities is important in the recognition and implementation of quality programs and creation of conducive environments that can facilitate delivery of appropriate knowledge in a convenient manner to students with special needs. This will help to address the phenomenon of principle’s perception on special education knowledge and facilitate proper, supportive and quality learning for students with special needs. The phenomena fits well with the constructivist epistemology and ontology that students with disabilities need special programs to facilitate their learning, the existing programs in educational institutions are not always inclusive of the needs of students with special needs (Lynch, 2012). The chosen setting for schools in Texas is appropriate for the phenomena of interest because, Texas school has 8.8 percent of student population as having special needs with the national average for each state being around 13% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The possible sources of data would be the school principals, public school records and information from surveys. Many educational administrators have a challenge in modifying the programs to fit the learning needs of all students (Roberts & Guerra, 2017). Since most principals lack the course work and field experience needed to lead and produce learning environments that highlight academic success for special education student, school administrators should have fundamental knowledge and skills to perform essential special education tasks (Dipaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Principals often believe that students with special needs can learn under the same environments as the regular education students and such 5 biases in their perceptions lead to implementation of programs that are not all-inclusive for special education students (Schulze & Boscardin, 2018). Background Literature Selected articles relating to administrators perceptions on their knowledge of special education and the role of special education training during administrators preparation are described here: 1. Bateman et al. (2017) and Christensen (2013) provided research on if principals were provided with enough comprehensive knowledge as related to special education during leadership preparation programs, 2. Lynch (2012) provided suggestions for principal preparation programs to better prepare principals for the role and responsibilities of being leaders to students with disabilities. 3. Roberts & Guerra (2017) provided areas that principals felt they needed additional support and content in regards to special education laws. 4. Schulze & Boscardin (2018) provided the effects of school principals with and without special education background and demographic variable on the perceptions of leadership styles. 6 Reference Bateman, D., Gervais, A., Wysocki, T. A., & Cline, J. L. (2017). Special education competencies for principals. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 48–56. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=eue&AN=122350924&site=ehost-live&scope=site Christensen, J., Roberston, J.S., Williamson, R., & Hunter, W.C. (2013). Preparing educational leaders for special education success: Principals’ perspective. The Researcher, 25(1), 94107 Cusson, M. M. (2010). Empirically based components related to students with disabilities in tier I research institutions’ educational administration preparation programs. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/25921/cusson.pdf?sequence=1 Dipaola, M. & Walther-Thomas, C. National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, A. V., & Florida Univ., G. C. on P. S. in S. E. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=eric&AN=ED477115&site=eds-live&scope=site Lynch, J. (2012). Responsibilities of today’s principal: Implications for principal preparation programs and principals certification policies. Rural Special Education Quaterly, 31(2). 40-47. 7 McLeskey, J., Waldron, N., & Redd, L. (2014). A case study of a highly effective inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 48,59-70. National Center for Education Statistics, (2015). Data First. Retrieved from http://www.data-first.org/data/how-many-students-with-disabilities-are-in-our-schools/ Pazey, B.L.,& Cole, H.A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243-271, DOI: 10.1177/0013161X12463934 Pierson, M. R., & Howell, E. J. (2013). Two high schools and the road to full inclusion: A comparison study. Improving Schools, 16,223-231. Roberts, M. m., & Guerra Jr., F. f. (2017). Principals' perceptions of their knowledge in special education. Current issues in education, 20(1), 1-17. Schulze, R. R., & Boscardin, M. L. (2018). Leadership perceptions of principals with and without special education backgrounds. Journal of school leadership, 28(1), 4-30. Shogren, K. McCart, A. Lyon, K. & Sailor, W. (2015). All means all: Building knowledge for inclusive schoolwide transformation. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities, 40(3), 173 – 191. DOI: 10.1177/1540796915586191 Walden University EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus Guide EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page ii What’s New in 2017 The 2017 edition of the EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus Guide contains additional material to support prospectus development. What has not changed are the basic expectations for the content of the prospectus and how it will be evaluated and approved. Specific new items in this guide include • updated discussion of the prospectus process in My Doctoral Research (MyDR); • added clarity in the outline annotations regarding EdD capstone options; • enhanced formatting for better presentation, including a title page update; • an updated sample prospectus to include capstone type on the title page; and • the sample prospectus as captured in the Design Alignment Tool (DAT) and mention of the DAT tutorial, which are both available on the EdD Page of the Center for Research Quality’s website (CRQ). EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page iii Contents What’s New in 2017 ............................................................................................................................................ iii The Prospectus....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Completing the Prospectus ........................................................................................................................... 1 My Doctoral Research (MyDR) .................................................................................................................... 2 An Annotated Outline .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Sample Prospectus ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Quality Indicators .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Doctoral Study Prospectus Rubric .......................................................................................................... 17 Ten Tips for Writing a Quality Prospectus ............................................................................................... 19 Sample Prospectus in the Design Alignment Tool (DAT) ................................................................... 21 EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page iv The Prospectus The EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus Guide is a brief document that provides preliminary information about your capstone research. It is used in two ways: • It serves as an agreed-upon plan for developing the proposal that is evaluated to ensure a doctoral-level project. • It serves as a step toward confirming membership of your doctoral study committee, those who will work with you on completing the doctoral study. Completing the Prospectus The EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus Guide consists of several brief sections, which are detailed in the annotated outline. Your goal for the prospectus is to create a plan for developing your doctoral study proposal. Therefore, you need to have some detailed information for the prospectus, but you do not need to know all the specific details of the study that you will ultimately conduct. For example, you may identify intelligence as a variable of the study, but at this point, you do not yet need to identify the instrument that you plan to use to measure the variable. Also, because every research project is unique and because this outline is general, you may be asked to include additional information in your prospectus to help assure your committee that you are headed in the right direction. For example, feasibility will be one criterion for evaluating your prospectus, and if you are considering a unique sample group, your committee may ask that you explore that aspect in more detail before moving forward. The EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus should follow the guidelines in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) and be saved as either a .doc, .docx, or .rtf file. As you work on the document, please also review the tools available on the CRQ website, specifically the Design Alignment Tool, the Doctoral Capstone Research Guide, as well as the quality indicators included in this guide. The prospectus course supports prospectus development, and you will work with your chair and second member to complete the document. Keep in mind that prospectus development is an iterative process and that you will receive feedback on working drafts, as will happen with the proposal and final study. When your supervisory committee members agree that your prospectus meets all the quality indicators discussed herein, they will endorse it for review by your EdD Program Director or designee. After final approval of the prospectus from both your committee EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 1 members and the Program Director or designee, you will start working on your proposal. This entire approval process will occur in My Doctoral Research (MyDR). My Doctoral Research (MyDR) If you have not done so already, you should familiarize yourself with the MyDR system and other resources on the Center for Research Quality website. There are job aids, submission guides, and FAQs to support you with operating the MyDR system. The MyDR system was designed to assist you and your committee in navigating your doctoral research journey, from the very beginning through the final approval. The various landing pages in MyDR will be used to track your progress and will serve as a central location for resources to support that progress. The TaskStream element of the MyDR system is used to establish a process flow tool in which you exchange and store faculty evaluations and feedback of your work as you progress along the journey. You will be entered into the MyDR system when both your chair and second member are assigned. At that point, you will be able to access MyDR from the homepage of your prospectus course shell and, later, when you move into the capstone course. The first document that you will submit for approval in MyDR will be your prospectus. EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 2 An Annotated Outline The Prospectus document includes a title page (p. 1) followed by pages containing the required elements in the prospectus. Please use the Prospectus template that is available on the Writing Center website. Title Page The recommended title length is 12 words or fewer and should include the topic, the variables and relationship between them, and the most critical keywords. Double-space the title if it is more than one line of type and center it under the word “Prospectus.” Please note that your study title will likely change as the project evolves. Include your name, your program of study and specialization, your capstone type (dissertation or project study), and Student ID number—double-spaced and centered under the title. Title Start with “Prospectus” and a colon, and then include the title as it appears on the title page. Double-space if it is more than one line of type and center it at the top of the page. Problem Statement Provide a one- to two-paragraph statement that is the result of a review of research findings and current practice that contains the following information: 1. A logical argument for the need to address an identified gap in practice; the problem must be clearly identified. 2. Preliminary evidence that provides justification that this problem is meaningful to both the local setting (project study) as well as to the education profession and discipline (dissertation and project study); provide three to five key citations that highlight the relevance and currency of the problem to your specialization. Purpose Present a concise, one-paragraph statement on the overall purpose or intention of the study, which serves as the connection between the problem being addressed and the focus of the study. • In quantitative studies, state what needs be studied by describing two or more factors (variables) and a conjectured relationship among them related to the identified gap in practice or problem. EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 3 • • In qualitative studies, describe the need for increased understanding about the issue to be studied, based on the identified gap or problem. In mixed-methods studies, with both quantitative and qualitative aspects, clarify how the two approaches will be used together to inform the study. Significance Provide one or two paragraphs, informed by the topic in the problem statement, that describe the following: 1. How will this study contribute to filling the gap in practice identified in the problem statement: What original contribution will this study make to your specialization field (dissertations)? What original contribution will this study make to your specialization field and in the local setting (project study)? 2. How will this research support professional education practice or allow practical application in the specialization field (dissertation) and at the local site (project study): Who benefits from your findings (dissertation) and/or project deliverable (project study)? How might the potential findings lead to positive social change? Background Literature Provide a representative list of scholarship and research findings that support and clarify the main assertions in the problem statement, highlighting their relationship to the topic, for example, “this variable was studied with a similar sample by Smith (2017) and Johnson (2016)” or “Jones’s (2017) examination of campus leaders showed similar trends.” Some of these resources may have already been mentioned in the first sections of the prospectus and can be included here as well. Citations provided within the prospectus document should include approximately 15 recent (within the past 5 years) peer-reviewed journal sources, presented in APA sixth edition format, as well as any evidence provided to support the existence of the local problem. Framework In one paragraph, describe the theoretical and/or conceptual framework in the scholarly literature that will ground the study, providing citations. Base this description on the problem, purpose, and background of your study. This theoretical or conceptual framework informs, and is informed by, the research question(s) and helps to identify research design decisions, such as the method of inquiry and/or data collection and analysis. Research Question(s) List the question or a series of related questions that are informed by the study purpose, which will lead to the development of what needs to be done in this study and how it will be accomplished. A research question informs the research design by providing a foundation for EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 4 • generation of hypotheses in quantitative studies, • questions necessary to build the design structure for qualitative studies, and a • process by which different methods will work together in mixed studies. Research Methodology and Design The EdD program supports two types of capstones. The prospectus serves as the guide for all capstone types. The dissertation capstone follows a more traditional research capstone format to address a gap in practice supported by research literature, and does not require a local setting. The project study capstone contains two components: (a) research and (b) a practical project or deliverable to address a local problem. For the project study, the research component must be completed first and must be used to inform the project component. The four genres of the most successfully developed projects are (a) program evaluation, (b) curriculum development, (c) professional development, and (d) policy development. Understanding the nature of the problem leads to the most appropriate research methods to acquire the information to guide development of either capstone approach. For example, policy development is often the result of a qualitative policy analysis that is indicated by the lack of a tenable policy in the local setting. This type of alignment is one of the quality indicators. For all EdD capstone types, provide a concise paragraph that discusses the approach that will be used to address the research question(s) and how this approach aligns with the problem statement. The subheadings and examples of study design are as follows: • Quantitative—such as quasi-experimental (e.g., repeated measures or causalcomparative studies) or nonexperimental (e.g., correlational or predictive studies) designs. • Qualitative—such as case study, narrative analysis, historical or document analysis, phenomenological study, ethnography, and grounded theory. • Mixed methods, primarily quantitative—for sequential, concurrent, or transformative studies, with the main focus on quantitative methods. • Mixed methods, primarily qualitative—for sequential, concurrent, or transformative studies, with the main focus on qualitative methods. Possible Types and Sources of Information or Data Provide a list of possible types and sources of data that could be used to address the proposed research question(s), such as test scores from college students, surveys of employees, observations of a phenomenon, interviews with practitioners, historical documents from state records, de-identified school records, or information from a federal database. Sources of information that support and clarify the problem belong in the Background Literature section. If you are thinking about collecting data on a sensitive topic or from a vulnerable population, an early consultation with IRB (IRB@waldenu.edu) during your prospectus writing process is recommended to gain ethics guidance that you can incorporate into your subsequent EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 5 proposal drafts and research planning. Find more information on the IRB Guides and FAQs page. Possible Analytical Strategies (Optional) Offer some possible ways to organize and analyze the results obtained by the research strategies detailed previously. A few examples of possible analytical strategies include multiple regression, content analysis, and meta-analysis. Keep in mind that data analysis approaches are generally decided after the research question and data collection approach are settled, so your strategy here may evolve and change as you develop your proposal. Other Information (Optional) Include any other relevant information, such as challenges or barriers that may need to be addressed when conducting this study. You may provide any concerns related to feasibility or potential risks and burdens placed on research participants under this heading. References On a new page, list your references formatted in the correct style (sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, modeled at the end of this guide) for all citations within the EdD Doctoral Study Prospectus. EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 6 Sample Prospectus EdD Prospectus Guide, 2017 Page 7 Prospectus How Online Doctoral Students Develop a Doctoral Study Problem Statement Alpha B. Gamma Name of EdD Program – Name of EdD Specialization Project Study A00000000 Prospectus: How Online Doctoral Students Develop a Doctoral Study 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 doctoral capstone after finishing their coursework (Lovitts, 2008; Wendler et al., 2010). The challenge of the doctoral research study 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 doctoral study (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Luse et al., 2012). The site for this study is an online doctoral program that is experiencing high rates of ABD students. Currently, 35% of doctoral students in the online EdD program are unable to complete the doctoral capstone (Study Site, 2015). The program administration has information suggesting that the problem relates to the development of problem statements (S. Manziel, personal communication, December 15, 2016). Purpose The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of the process by which doctoral students in an online program at the university under study arrive at a viable problem statement for their doctoral studies. To address the study problem, 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 study will address a local problem by focusing specifically on development of problem statements by students in the online doctoral program. 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 for the study university 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 the academic program in helping students to succeed in their final capstones, 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 the online institution that is the focus of this study, 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 Literature Selected articles relating to doctoral education and the process of learning to be a researcher are described here: 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 environment. 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 experiences 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 framework 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 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 ways to facilitate academic development, thus allowing for insight into the pedagogical challenge of the doctoral study (Gardner, 2009). Research Questions 1. RQ1–Qualitative: For students with a high-quality problem statement at the doctoral study 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 doctoral study process? Research Methodology and Design 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 doctoral study problem statement, which is the primary focus of this doctoral study. Keeping the focus on how students make sense of their doctoral study 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 beginning to end of the project, and it may possibly support the development of a research course curriculum related to defining research problems. Possible Types and Sources of Information or Data 1. Problem statements written at four key points in a doctoral student’s career: the premise, the prospectus, the proposal, and the doctoral study writing stage. 2. Ratings of problem statements by an expert panel of doctoral faculty. 3. Interviews with a representative group of doctoral graduates who have successfully defended their doctoral studies 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 members who have helped students to succeed, as a possible source for triangulation. References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/survey_report/2007-online-nation-five-years-growthonline-learning/ 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 selfefficacy during online doctoral research courses. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(3), 51–58. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1072587.pdf 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(1), 77–91. doi:10.1177/1069072705281366 Gardner, S. K. (2009). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(6), 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. doi: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(1), 7–13. Holmes, B. D. (2009). Re-envisioning the Doctoral Study stage of doctoral study: Traditional mistakes with non-traditional learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(8), 9–13. Ismail, H. M., Majid, F. A., & Ismail, I. S. (2013). “It’s complicated” relationship: Research students’ perspective on doctoral supervision. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90(10), 165–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078 Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93–135. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4 Kim, K., & Karau, S. J. (2009). Working environment and the research productivity of doctoral students in management. Journal of Education for Business, 85(2), 101–106. doi:10.1080/08832320903258535 Kumar, S., Johnson, M., & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a distance: Students’ perceptions of online mentoring in a doctoral program. The Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835/1481 Lim, J. H., Dannels, S. A., & Watkins, R. (2008). Qualitative investigation of doctoral students’ learning experiences in online research methods courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 223–236. Lovitts, B. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0006 Luse, A., Mennecke, B. E., & Townsend, A. M. (2012). Selecting a research topic: A framework for doctoral students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 143–152. Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=scm_pubs Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Spaulding, L. S., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 199–219. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume7/IJDSv7p199-219Spaulding334.pdf Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2014). Conceptions of research: The doctoral student experiences in three domains. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251–264. Study Site. (2014). Study Site EdD Program. Retrieved from http://StudySiteEdDProgramPage.edu Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Conklin-Bueschel, A., & Hutchings, P. (2009). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wendler, C., Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., Millett, C., Rock, J., Bell, N., & McAllister, P. (2010). The path forward: The future of graduate education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.fgereport.org/rsc/pdf/CFGE_report.pdf Werner, T. P., & Rogers, K. S. (2013). Scholar-craftsmanship question-type, epistemology, culture of inquiry, and personality-type in dissertations research design. Adult Learning, 24(4), 159–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1045159513499549 Quality Indicators Nine key indicators have been identified to assure the overall quality of the EdD doctoral study at this point in its development. Supervisory committee members will use these indicators to give ongoing feedback and to document their final evaluation of the Doctoral Study Prospectus in MyDR. Students should use these indicators to guide development of the prospectus. Doctoral Study Prospectus Rubric A Doctoral Study Prospectus shows the potential of leading to a doctoral-quality doctoral study only if the answer to all of the following standards is either “Target” or “Acceptable” on the rubric. 1. Complete? Does the prospectus contain all the required elements? Refer to the annotated outline to see the required parts of the Doctoral Study Prospectus document. 2. Meaningful? Has a meaningful problem or gap in practice been identified? In other words, is addressing this problem the logical next step, building on what is already known, and does it stay within the student’s area of professional practice (i.e., topics that the program coursework covers)? 3. Justified? Is evidence presented that this problem is significant to the local site as well as the discipline and/or professional field? The prospectus should provide relevant statistics and evidence, documentable discrepancies, and other scholarly facts that point to the significance and urgency of the problem. The problem must be an authentic “puzzle” that needs solving, not merely a topic that the researcher finds interesting. 4. Grounded? Is the problem framed to enable the researcher to either build on or counter the previously published findings on the topic? For most fields, grounding involves articulating the problem within the context of a theoretical base or conceptual framework. The essential requirement is that the problem is framed such that the new findings will have implications for the previous findings. EdD Prospectus Page 17 5. Original? Does this project have potential to make an original contribution toward addressing a gap in practice? Addressing the problem should result in an original contribution to the field. 6. Impact? Does this project have potential to affect positive social change? As described in the Significance section (see annotated outline), the anticipated findings and project should have potential to support the mission of Walden University to promote positive social change. 7. Feasible? Can a systematic method of inquiry be used to address the problem? The tentative methodology demonstrates that the researcher has considered the options for inquiry, selected an approach that has potential to address the problem, and considered potential risks and burdens placed on research participants. 8. Aligned? Do the various aspects of the prospectus align overall? The research methodology and design should align with the problem, research questions, and tentative approaches to inquiry. 9. Objective? Is the topic approached in an objective manner? The framing of the problem should not reveal bias or present a foregone conclusion. Even if the researcher has a strong opinion on the expected findings, the researcher must maximize scholarly objectivity by framing the problem in the context of a systematic inquiry that permits multiple possible conclusions. Self-Check Item on Partner Site Masking Walden capstones typically mask the identity of the partner organization. The methodological and ethical reasons for this practice as well as criteria for exceptions are outlined in Guidance on Masking Partner Organizations in Walden Capstones. If you perceive that your partner organization’s identity would be impossible to mask or if there is a strong rationale for naming the organization in your capstone, the program director must review your request for an exception. If granted, that exception will need to be confirmed by the IRB during the ethics review process. The IRB will also ensure that your consent form(s) and/or site agreement(s) permit naming the organization. EdD Prospectus Page 18 Ten Tips for Writing a Quality Prospectus Prospectuses tend to be as unique as the students writing them, so specific strategies are hard to offer. Based on a recent institutional analysis, the following general tips are provided to support successful approval: Students should ask themselves the following questions. 1. Is it complete? One of the most common reasons that a prospectus is sent back is one of the simplest to fix: Some pieces are missing. You should ask yourself, “Did I effectively respond to every item on the annotated outline?” 2. Is it well written? Your prospectus is the first time that your scholarly writing style is on full display for your committee. The prospectus needs to be a preview of what they can expect when they agree to work with you. Certainly, if your writing is unclear, your supervisory committee will have a difficult time ascertaining whether you have met the quality indicators. If you need added support with your writing, now is the time to find it. You have several resources available to help improve your writing skills. The Walden Writing Center offers webinars and multimedia resources, as well as a paper review service for the prospectus document. Additionally, the Academic Skills Center offers courses to support student skill development. If you need refreshers and support with key research concepts, the Center for Research Quality site has additional resources. 3. Are the parts and sections aligned? Of all the quality indicators, alignment tends to be one of the more challenging because it transcends the content in the prospectus. Some examples of misalignment are as follows: research on children has been reviewed when the study is concerned with adults, the intended sample group does not seem appropriate to provide information to answer the research question, and the study is labeled as qualitative even though the intention is to draw inferences from a statistical test of group differences. Importantly, all the parts need to align, not just some. There is a Design Alignment Tool and supporting tutorial on the EdD page of the Center for Research Quality to assist with overall design alignment. 4. Is the topic relevant to my discipline and program of study? Doctoral students are encouraged to explore scholarship from a variety of disciplines as they formulate their questions. When choosing their actual research topic, however, they need to be especially careful to not go beyond their own disciplinary program of study area. If you have questions about the topic appropriateness for your specialization, please reach out to your specialization Program Director. One of your tasks is to contribute new knowledge to your specialization field with your research. EdD Prospectus Page 19 5. Did I answer the “So what?” question? Too often, what is obvious to the student is not always captured in what is written in the prospectus. Ironically, one area that seems to get neglected is the social change statement, because the writer assumes that the reader understands the full impact of the situation and how this research will have potential for a positive impact. Make sure you are clear on why so many people, including your committee and your participants, will need to invest their time in this project. 6. Is the prospectus presented in an objective manner? Students are encouraged to develop a deep understanding of the problem and the people affected by it. When coupled with experiences gained through one’s work as a practitioner, however, it is tempting to lose sight of researcher objectivity. It is certainly acceptable to have a hypothesis based on your understanding of the research literature, but you should not suggest an answer before you have started the study (“I want to prove this point”) or offer solutions before the study has been completed (“I know what needs to happen here”). You must avoid bringing your biases into your research. 7. Did I do my “homework”? Although the prospectus sets the stage for a more in-depth examination of a research topic, students are still expected to conduct a preliminary literature review. Be careful to not equate “Here’s a gap in the research” with “I haven’t looked at the research.” Students are sometimes shocked at how much research has already been done on a topic, after they start digging into it, even if more research is eventually needed. You may find that you need to revise your research questions slightly once you see the results of other research on your topic. 8. Have I identified a research question? A common mistake that new researchers make is to confuse the broader educational problem with the research question that will be the focus of the doctoral study because the two are related. Much is often known about the scope and nature of the educational problem (e.g., incident rates, outcomes), but less information may be available on how to address the educational problem, or it would not be a problem. What is often lacking in the situation is some piece of information or understanding that can be used to address the problem. That question or gap in practice is what your research will address. 9. Is my topic too broad? Most doctoral students have overly ambitious research goals at the beginning, and we rarely have to ask someone to “do more.” Usually, the struggle is to identify a focused, doable question that fits within the expectations of a doctoral study. Exploring the existing research literature for similar studies is one way to see how other researchers have shaped their questions. Keep in mind that a tightly conceived, well-executed study of one robust research question is better than a study that tries to answer a bunch of tangentially related questions with a variety of methods. EdD Prospectus Page 20 10. Have you considered the feasibility of the study? The prospectus is a plan to develop the proposal, and the proposal is where many key research decisions are finalized. Still, it is never too early to start thinking about the feasibility of conducting the study, which is why it is one of the quality indicators. Like all the indicators, feasibility is a quality that you will revisit as the project evolves. At the prospectus stage, you need to show your supervisory committee that you are considering your choices in light of previous scholarship and what you have learned about the research process in your courses. EdD Prospectus Page 21 Sample Prospectus in the Design Alignment Tool Study Problem and Purpose (Must align with all rows.) Completing the doctoral study phase of doctoral education appears to be challenging, particularly for online students. The study site has 35% of students not completing (ABD), and the issue occurs at problem development stage. The purpose of this study is to provide information on the types of strategies that successful online doctoral students use to define their problem statement. Research Questions Data Collection Tools Data Points Yielded Data Source Data Analysis List each research question (RQ) in a separate row below. List which instrument(s) are used to collect the data that will address each RQ. List which specific List which questions/variables/scales persons/artifacts/records of the instrument will will provide the data. address each RQ. Briefly describe the specific statistical or qualitative analyses that will address each RQ. RQ 1: Qualitative: For students with a highquality problem statement at the doctoral study stage, what themes emerge in their reports of the process that they used to develop it? Doctoral Graduate Interview Protocol List the specific interview questions here (once the interview protocol is developed and validated). Open coding and thematic analysis is planned. [The analysis may change as you move forward in the process.] RQ 2: Quantitative: Based on objective ratings by doctoral faculty, what are the differences in the overall quality of problem statements as students progress through the doctoral study process? Interview Protocol or Survey for Doctoral Faculty [as a possible source for triangulation] Problem Statement Quality Rating Scale; [A measure of epistemological development, consistent with Perry’s (1970) theory, as a possible covariate.] Total quality rating from the problem statement quality rating scale. Representative group of doctoral graduates who have successfully defended their doctoral studies and whose work was highly ranked by faculty members will be the data source. Doctoral faculty members are the data source. Problem statements written at four key points in a doctoral student’s career—the premise, the prospectus, the proposal, and the doctoral study writing stage—will be evaluated by an expert panel of doctoral faculty members. Repeated-measures analysis of variance is planned. [The analysis may change as you move forward in the process.]
Purchase answer to see full attachment