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