View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Program Evaluation of an Online Ed.D. In Learning Design and Technologies: Recent Graduates' Perspectives

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Program Evaluation of an Online Ed.D. In Learning Design and Technologies: Recent Graduates' Perspectives
Language: English
Authors: Ari, Fatih (ORCID 0000-0001-9512-1312), Vasconcelos, Lucas, Tang, Hengtao, Grant, Michael M., Arslan-Ari, Ismahan, Moore, Alison L.
Source: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. Jul 2022 66(4):699-709.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Program Evaluation, Online Courses, Doctoral Students, Instructional Design, Educational Technology, College Graduates, Student Attitudes, Student Satisfaction
Geographic Terms: South Carolina
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-022-00744-7
ISSN: 8756-3894
Abstract: The purpose of this paper was to explore the experiences of doctoral students in an Ed.D. program in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 35 students after their degree completion. Overall, the students were satisfied with the quality and the value of the doctoral education provided in our program. They believed that the doctoral coursework, the integration of the dissertation components into courses, the cohort model, and the faculty support throughout the program were amongst the most important factors for their success. The students also identified time management, workload, analyzing data and writing up the findings as the biggest challenges they experienced throughout different stages of their doctoral education. Based on our findings, we provide several implications for practice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1342444
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwETTu7RpV6P2oHzvaUcb9DOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNpnUgaFlNMy-FwDegIBEICBm1nCJt1lQAVNsQdu4c5OmgssM9V-nsLfTAcgjSC1JUosBj-TL1jiIDff79Te02f56ku0zm7GNxL6wOVmvZ9giNkaY3RUkDgsiavZt82N2EiTQs7UlmqTwsh4SAYUKssk2CRx1t4mP_xexesz0dTqxbxQcJumGnhp1UuplrrhgiHjJw1oEuXMb77ZIG78EP4PNqL_LU2uOpHSkR5d
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158081626;ttr01jul.22;2022Jul22.05:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158081626-1">Program Evaluation of an Online Ed.D. in Learning Design and Technologies: Recent Graduates' Perspectives </title> <p>The purpose of this paper was to explore the experiences of doctoral students in an Ed.D. program in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 35 students after their degree completion. Overall, the students were satisfied with the quality and the value of the doctoral education provided in our program. They believed that the doctoral coursework, the integration of the dissertation components into courses, the cohort model, and the faculty support throughout the program were amongst the most important factors for their success. The students also identified time management, workload, analyzing data and writing up the findings as the biggest challenges they experienced throughout different stages of their doctoral education. Based on our findings, we provide several implications for practice.</p> <p>Keywords: Online doctoral program; Practitioner-focused doctorate; Educational technology; Student perceptions; Student experiences; Program evaluation</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The number of practitioner-focused online doctoral programs in education has increased in recent years (Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). Because of the nature and student profiles of these programs, the doctoral education experience is quite different from traditional on-campus doctoral programs (Kumar & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]). Students who enroll in online doctoral programs are often full-time working adults with family responsibilities (Kumar & Coe, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). Hence, these students struggle with sustaining their motivation throughout their education (Roumell & Bolliger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]). In addition, these students usually perceive the online doctoral education experience comparable to their previous on-campus higher education experiences (Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]), resulting in a misunderstanding of the requirements and expectations from the doctoral program (Roumell & Bolliger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). Furthermore, finding a balance between work, family, and social life to fulfill the requirements of being an online doctoral student is challenging (Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are also contextual factors that contribute to online doctoral students' experiences. For example, each practitioner-focused doctoral program is designed around specific parameters (see, e.g., Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]), such as a target population; the needs and demands of the local context with institution-specific factors incorporating faculty background and expertise; a program's signature pedagogy, culture, and logistics; degree offering institution's focus (e.g., research vs. teaching); and primary delivery and communications method (e.g., asynchronous vs. synchronous) adhered by a program. For instance, most of the students in our program come from higher education and K-12 educational contexts, including teachers, technology coaches, library media specialists, and administrators. In our doctoral program, we use action research as our signature pedagogy, and those who work in corporate or other settings (e.g., government, military) usually experience challenges (e.g., getting permission to implement an innovation) with conducting action research in their local contexts (Dawson & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the number of practitioner-focused online doctoral programs in educational technology has been on the rise in the last decade (Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>]), empirical articles exploring the outcomes of these programs and doctoral students' experiences within these programs are limited. As each program offers a unique doctoral education experience, exploring students' perspectives and experiences, such as the challenges faced and suggestions for prospective students regarding the different aspects of an online doctoral degree (e.g., dissertation process), will not only contribute to the research base but also provide invaluable insights for online program faculty and doctoral students. Our goal with this paper is to highlight the experiences of recently graduated online doctoral students from the Learning Design and Technologies (LDT) program at the University of South Carolina. We explored the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are doctoral students' perceptions about different aspects of an online Ed.D. degree in LDT?</item> <p></p> <item> What challenges do doctoral students identify while pursuing an online Ed.D. degree in LDT?</item> <p></p> <item> Based on their experiences, what suggestions do doctoral students offer to complete an online Ed.D. degree successfully?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0158081626-3">Overview of Current Ed.D. Models</hd> <p>Due to the practical nature of the Ed.D., academic graduate programs focus on applying theory, principles, and knowledge to real-world settings (Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]; Perry & Zambo, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]). Students come to Ed.D. programs from various disciplines, and graduates become scholarly practitioners who usually pursue careers in K-12, higher education, or industry settings as leaders who can solve problems through systemic and systematic methods. Many Ed.D. programs are affiliated with the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), a consortium of institutions that explores best practices of the Ed.D. degree and experience (Perry & Zambo, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]). To date, many Ed.D. programs reside within the area of Educational Leadership and Curriculum Studies, with a subset targeting Educational Technology and Instructional Design (Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]). With the continued rise in online graduate education, new fully online Ed.D. programs are emerging and often involve at least one, if not several, on-campus meetings (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]; Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Admissions to Ed.D. programs accept students every semester, annually, or every two years. The majority are cohort-based (Kung & Logan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]), allowing students to engage in all program activities as a group (Barnett & Caffarella, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]; Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>]). Since the student body of these programs is generally working professionals, the coursework is structured to be completed part-time (Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). The first two years of the coursework focus on the foundational knowledge of the educational technology discipline, educational research, and usually an area of specialization (see, e.g., Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]; Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]). At the end of the second year, students take their qualifying or comprehensive exam, considered as "the culmination of students' learning in the first two years of the Ed.D. program" (Kumar & Antonenko, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>], p. 58). Students usually identify their problem of practice in the first year (Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]) even though they start working on their dissertation of practice (DiP) or capstone projects after the second year. In their dissertations, students are expected to implement research-based solutions to solve problems in their local contexts (Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]). The expected time to complete the program ranges from three to five years (Kung & Logan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-4">Essential Elements of the University of South Carolina Program</hd> <p>Action research and the DiP are signature pedagogies (Dawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]; Golde, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]) that have guided the design of our program. As such, action research and the DiP are prevalent within three essential elements of our program: (a) doctoral coursework, (b) mentoring and the DiP, and (c) a community of scholars.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-5">Doctoral Coursework</hd> <p>The doctoral education experience in our program is structured to be completed in four years. The coursework includes four types of online courses. Core courses are foundational knowledge across our college disciplines. For example, students take courses in curriculum studies and instructional systems design. Research courses afford experiences with qualitative and quantitative methods using an action research framework. These courses have been expanded in a recursive nature of revision to our program based on student feedback. We have worked with our educational research faculty to design a quantitative research methods course that accommodates action research as a framework and provides students with statistical analysis skills using open-source software JASP. Within our own program, we teach program-specific research courses in paradigms, goals and methods, qualitative research methods, and synthesizing research. In these research courses, our students develop the draft of their dissertation proposal. Technical courses are instructional design-related courses that develop expertise in the design, management, and implementation of teaching and learning processes and resources (see Grant, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>] for a description of how these courses are designed). Finally, dissertation preparation courses focus on the production of a somewhat traditional practice-based dissertation grounded in the work of Buss and Zambo ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]) at Arizona State University and Kumar and Dawson (e.g., Dawson & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]; Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]) at the University of Florida. At the beginning of their third year in the program, our students are assigned a dissertation chair and start to take dissertation preparation courses. Students following their regular schedule take four 15-week dissertation preparation courses in which they: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>) finalize and defend their dissertation proposal, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>) collect dissertation data, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>) analyze their data and write the findings chapter, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>) write the discussion chapter and defend their dissertation, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-6">Mentoring and Dissertation in Practice</hd> <p>Mentoring is essential in doctoral education (Arslan-Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]; Kumar et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). Due to the online nature of our program, we have designed specific structured mentoring and DiP experiences that might otherwise be informal. Atypical of doctoral programs, we embed DiP research components throughout a student's coursework, preventing the isolation and independence of conducting dissertation research without structure. Like the participants in Garcia and Yao's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]) study, we have found significant value in employing synchronous online sessions. In each of the courses that house DiP components, we require a synchronous online meeting with students. Sometimes these are in small groups, but often they are one-on-one. For example, in an early introductory course, students discuss possible problems of practice that would guide their dissertation research with a faculty member. These discussions consider the viability of problems along with the feasibility of data collection methods that guide students' further consideration. In another example, faculty members meet weekly with students for one-half to one hour in Microsoft Teams in a dissertation proposal course. This mirrors the onsite interactions doctoral students may traditionally experience. These synchronous meetings are one of the high-touch points within our program to help mentor students in research methods, clarify knowledge, articulate foundational theory, and discuss and negotiate decision-making about a student's research. By the time of writing this paper, we have seven full-time faculty members mentoring doctoral students, with 7–10 students per faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-7">Community of Scholars</hd> <p>We admit students three times a year: fall, spring, and summer. From the beginning of our program in Fall 2016, we felt it was essential to establish a community of scholars. Following the lead of other well-established Ed.D. programs, such as Morehead State University and the University of Florida, we planned cohorts of students to move through their program. Cohorts increase student retention and persistence to graduation (Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]) and build bonds among students that produce continuous support (Barnett & Caffarella, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]). We have emphasized the camaraderie and value of leaning into the cohort model to our students. We do this early on by (a) requiring a one-day on-campus orientation, which Barnett and Caffarella ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]) characterize as initial development activities, and (b) asking the students to develop a cohort name that reflects their identity and position in our program sequence. For example, early cohorts chose <emph>Zoolander</emph>, <emph>YOLO</emph>, and <emph>X(factor)</emph> as their cohort names. The cohorts create their own communications channels, such as through Facebook, group text messaging, and Group.me, to support one another. We also encourage cohorts, through email and virtual meetings, to communicate across cohorts to share experiences. For example, the oral comprehensive exam is a milestone for students. We have encouraged them to share their experiences across cohorts so that it becomes less intimidating and more transparent. We also encourage students to attend preceding cohorts' proposal and final DiP defenses. Cohorts are able to share resources, distribute expectations, and support one another.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-8">Methodology</hd> <p>To understand doctoral students' perceptions about different aspects of our program, the challenges they faced during their education, and the suggestions they could offer based on their experiences, we administered an online, end-of-program evaluation survey after students' final dissertation defenses. Data were collected from students who graduated between spring 2020 and summer 2021, encompassing five cohorts of students (n = 50). The evaluation survey included 111 Likert-type items focusing on the impact of the program (90 items), quality of faculty (14 items), program's overall value (3 items), and students' overall experience in the program (4 items). Several items related to program evaluation were adapted from Union University ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]). The other quantitative items were developed and reviewed for content validity by the program faculty. Sample quantitative items included "To what extent do you feel this program has impacted your knowledge and ability to synthesize existing theory and research to inform practice?", "To what extent do you feel this program has impacted your knowledge and ability to use research methods to solve problems for learning and instruction?", and "To what extent do you feel this program impacted your growth as a scholarly practitioner?" The survey also included 22 open-response items. Sample open-response items were "Overall, what contributed most significantly to your learning in our program? In other words, what are the important features to retain in our program?" and "What was the greatest barrier or stumbling block that has made it difficult for you during our program?" A total of 35 open-ended responses were collected for each one of the 22 open-ended items, resulting in 770 qualitative responses total. Participants' responses ranged from a sentence to a long paragraph. The evaluation survey did not include any demographic information that may identify an individual student. Using anonymity helped to gather participants' true voices. Although we sent reminder emails to encourage survey completion, 35 students completed the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-9">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158081626-10">Quantitative Findings</hd> <p>Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results are organized by the following subsections: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) overall experience in the program, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) impact of the program on students' competences, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) perceived value of the program and quality of faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-11">Overall Experience in the Program</hd> <p>The students were asked to rate their overall experience in the program on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (<emph>poor</emph>) to 4 (<emph>excellent</emph>). Overall, students' perceptions of their entire doctoral education experience were high (<emph>M</emph> = 3.54, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.66). Additionally, on a five-point scale, the students rated the level of challenge for the program (<emph>M</emph> = 3.40, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.65, where 1 = <emph>too easy</emph> and 5 = <emph>too difficult</emph>) and the pace of the program (<emph>M</emph> = 3.09, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.66, where 1 = <emph>too slow</emph> and 5 = <emph>too fast</emph>) as <emph>just right</emph>, and indicated that our program met their expectations to a large extent (<emph>M</emph> = 4.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.87, where 1 = <emph>not all</emph> and 5 = <emph>very well</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-12">Impact of the Program on Students' Competences</hd> <p>Students were asked, on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not at all</emph>) to 5 (<emph>to a very large extent</emph>), to rate the impact of the program on their knowledge and skills in the following areas: the field of educational technology, instructional design, learning environments, assessment and evaluation, diversity, theory, research, professional practices, and program impacts and reach. Overall, the mean score of students' responses indicated that the impact of the program on each of their competences was between 4 (<emph>to a large extent</emph>) and 5 (<emph>to a very large extent</emph>) (see Table 1). It is noteworthy that the impact on students' research competence was the highest with the smallest variation (<emph>M</emph> = 4.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.32), whilst the lowest was assessment and evaluation (<emph>M</emph> = 4.12, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.92). Particularly, the students' perceived impact of the program on their expertise relevant to assessment and evaluation tends to vary to the largest extent.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the impact of the program on each competency area (n = 35)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Competency Area</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Field of Educational Technology (5 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructional Design/Instructional Systems Design (5 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning Environments (7 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Assessment and Evaluation (8 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.92</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Diversity (3 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Theory (9 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Research (37 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Professional Practices (11 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Program Impacts and Reach (5 items)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0158081626-13">Perceived Value of the Program and Quality of Faculty</hd> <p>To gauge students' perceptions about the overall value of the program, we used three items on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (<emph>definitely no</emph>) to 4 (<emph>definitely yes</emph>). Overall, the students' ratings indicated that they would choose our program if they could start over again (<emph>M</emph> = 3.40, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.76), that the cost of our program was reasonable (<emph>M</emph> = 3.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.57), and that they would recommend our program to others (<emph>M</emph> = 3.57, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.69).</p> <p>In addition, the students rated the quality of the program faculty on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>very poor</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very good</emph>). Overall, students rated the quality of program faculty for each quality indicator very high (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive statistics for indicators of faculty quality (n = 35)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Quality Indicator</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Availability</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ability to address student needs</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic advising</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.60</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Administrative skill</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitude toward minorities</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.54</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitude toward women</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ensuring academic rigor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evidence of academic freedom</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.63</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Friendliness</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.40</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.93</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Knowledge of educational technology field</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Knowledge of research methods</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Leading dissertation research</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mentoring doctoral student learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Preparing scholarly practitioners</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0158081626-14">Qualitative Findings</hd> <p>Qualitative data were analyzed using inductive analysis through an open coding process (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref48">27</reflink>]). Two of the authors independently analyzed a randomly selected sample of the students' answers to all open-response items. Then, they compared their analyses, negotiated the discrepancies, and updated the coding scheme. Using the refined coding scheme, the same coders analyzed the remaining data, reached a consensus, and jointly crafted themes. Qualitative findings are presented according to the three questions we explored: students' perceptions about different aspects of the program, students' challenges during their doctoral education, and students' suggestions for the upcoming students and the program.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-15">Q1: Students' Perceptions About Different Aspects of the Program</hd> <p>Four themes emerged about students' perceptions of the doctoral program: courses focused on learning theories and research, integration of dissertation components into courses, cohort model leading to a sense of community, and continuous faculty support throughout the program.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-16">Courses Focused on Learning Theories and Research.</hd> <p>Most students felt that the courses offered in the doctoral program sufficiently exposed them to learning theories and research literature related to their problem of practice and research topic. These courses refreshed their knowledge and helped inform their professional practice, as this student explained: "A reintroduction to learning theory was a good refresher for being on the administration side of the educational system. I'm better able to coach teachers through lesson planning and design using principles from learning theory" (Student 7).</p> <p>Several students made comments about making informed decisions in their professional practice based on knowledge about theories and research literature. One student said that "knowledge of learning theory has helped to inform my thinking when developing curricula" (Student 1). Similarly, another student said that "becoming well-versed in learning theory and research literature has allowed me to speak with knowledge and insight when making decisions about curriculum" (Student 4). Overall, students felt better positioned to develop classroom innovations grounded on research literature and learning theories as this student explains:My understanding in learning theory has impacted all of the instructional decisions I make in my classroom. Furthermore, I have found myself consulting existing literature when looking to implement innovations in my classroom. Overall, both learning theory and research have increased my ability to ensure that the teaching and learning in my classroom have a strong foundation. (Student 2)</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-17">Integration of Dissertation Components into Courses.</hd> <p>Dissertation components (e.g., a research design matrix, literature review) are made into assignments embedded into several courses offered throughout the program. Students in the program found that having dissertation components and chapters embedded into various courses made dissertation writing less daunting. As one student explained, "I know many people who never finish their dissertations because it is such an overwhelming task. Having it spread out over the program made it much more accessible" (Student 5). It appears that working on individual sections of the dissertation and being able to return to those sections later for revisions lowered the challenge to students in the program. While one student explained that "the pace was excellent—working on each part of the dissertation as a process was very beneficial" (Student 12), another said that "the benefit of writing the dissertation along the way (instead of at the conclusion of coursework) is immeasurable" (Student 7).</p> <p>Dissertation writing embedded into coursework was also perceived as more meaningful: "the way the program has it organized to be completed within the research courses ... make it manageable and meaningful" (Student 6). Students appreciated being able to apply course content and readings into their own research writing, which they perceived as not common practice in other doctoral programs:I really liked working on... dissertation writing throughout this program. I heard from students in other programs, and all of their assignments and writings in theory and practice courses were abstract and hypothetical. I appreciated that I could complete those assignments in relation to my actual problem of practice and research questions. (Student 9)</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-18">Cohort Model Leading to a Sense of Community.</hd> <p>Students start experiencing the cohort model early in the program, as "relationships [are] built on the first day/F2F orientation" (Student 23). Students attend an in-person event where they meet up, discuss research interests, and choose a cohort name. The cohort model was an important factor leading to continuous peer support and student success in the program. A student commented, "I can definitely say that my writing group was the most significant factor in my success and learning in the program. The support, feedback, and motivation of that group was invaluable" (Student 2). Similarly, another student explained that peer support was instrumental throughout the program:One of the most beneficial parts... was my writing group and the connections we made and help we offered to each other. Making a connection with other people in the cohort was also beneficial, we all wanted each other to be successful in the program and process. (Student 6)</p> <p>Throughout the program courses, students are assigned to different small writing groups to provide peer feedback on assignments and dissertation writing. Students end up working with most (if not all) members in their cohort. The process of reviewing and exchanging feedback with peers who had different research topics and methods expands students' growth in the program as this student says: "collaboration with my colleagues from study groups to research reviews supported my learning in this program greatly. It also provided me exposure to other research topics and professional environments that I would not have otherwise had access to" (Student 24). Ultimately, the cohort model led to a sense of community, as evidenced in these two comments: "our online, and eventually text and google hangout community, was strong" (Student 10), and "I think the investment in creating a community of scholars is one of the most important aspects of this program" (Student 2).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-19">Continuous Faculty Support Throughout the Program.</hd> <p>Most students seemed very pleased with the continuous faculty support provided to them. Some of them applauded the dissertation chair's availability for regular meetings: "I met frequently with my dissertation chair - he answered all of my questions and gave great suggestions" (Student 27). Another student saw program faculty as "accessible and approachable. The professors in this program don't feel they are above their students and care about their students" (Student 15).</p> <p>Faculty support alleviated students' anxiety or lack of confidence about doing educational research as this excerpt shows: "This program certainly helped with my feelings about research. Some professors I had helped me feel very prepared to write my dissertation and throughout the whole process" (Student 26). Continuous faculty support also reflected on students' ability to overcome personal challenges during the program as this student explained:I literally underwent every single major life change a person can during this program, and... I had a teacher to turn to who made me feel validated and encouraged (and supported), and all that gave me the ability to push through this program. (Student 32)</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-20">Q2: Students' Challenges During Their Doctoral Education</hd> <p>Three themes regarding the challenges students faced during their doctoral education emerged from the analysis of the end-of-program survey: time management, the workload, and data analysis and writing up the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-21">Time Management.</hd> <p>Students found balancing work, school, and family while pursuing a doctoral degree very challenging. For instance, one student wrote, "My greatest barrier was just finding the time to get things accomplished and balancing my school life with my work life and family life" (Student 15). Another student noted how family life created challenges, as shown in "Raising a family during the program made it difficult to manage at times" (Student 2). Emphasizing the importance of consistency for assignment deadlines across different courses, a student with a full-time job commented:This program was difficult to complete at times. I was grateful for most assignments being due on Sundays, which gave more time during the week to complete as much as possible.... Time to complete some things were the most challenging. (Student 30)</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-22">Workload.</hd> <p>Students indicated that the workload was not distributed evenly across semesters and they felt overwhelmed at times with the amount of work required at different stages of their doctoral education. For instance, one student found some semesters "very demanding and other classes ... super easy" (Student 33). Parallel to their schedule, another student noted:There were some courses that were very manageable when working full time, and others that weren't..... Certain times of the year in education are busier than others, and although it's possible the classes had similar workloads it didn't always feel this way. (Student 1)</p> <p>Our program was initially designed on an 8-week schedule so that students take one course at a time. This usually holds for fall and spring semesters before students start working on their dissertations; however, in summer, students take two courses which usually intersect for about four weeks. The qualitative data showed how challenging it was for students to take two courses together. One student wrote, "Taking two concurrent summer courses was challenging at times, because of the amount of work and the truncated timetable. This is not a flaw, just a challenge that was different from the rest of [the] program" (Student 35). In addition, several students emphasized that the workload in summer semesters was intense, especially for those who are not K-12 teachers and/or have to work during the summer: "If you are not a teacher with the summer off, the months of June-Aug will be beyond intense" (Student 23).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-23">Data Analysis and Writing Up the Findings.</hd> <p>Students reported that analyzing data and writing up the findings were the most challenging processes for dissertation writing. They generally indicated the narrow timeline for data analysis and interpretation as the main causes for this challenge. One student emphasized, "Final writing of Chaps. 4 and 5 were the hardest" (Student 18). Another student explained how challenging it was to complete the discussion chapter in a short amount of time: "We were given four weeks to complete Chap. 5 in our last term. That was unfathomable and I worked through the night every other day" (Student 20).</p> <p>When asked about what hindered their learning the most, students emphasized their feeling of being inadequately trained for analyzing dissertation data and writing up the findings. For instance, one student noted, "The class we had [statistics course] was to [too] general and did not prepare us ... to report the findings" (Student 16). Due to the small sample sizes in their studies, some students ended up running nonparametric statistics. One of those students reported that "I would have liked to have learned about Chi-square, ... Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, etc., so when I had to face my own data analysis in my dissertation, I would have been more prepared" (Student 28). Related to the challenges of qualitative data analysis, one student mentioned, "I think this [coding] is one of the more difficult areas for students when writing up findings. .... so more practice there [with coding] might make students feel a little more confident when they conduct their analysis" (Student 15).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-24">Q3: Students' Suggestions for a Successful Doctoral Education</hd> <p>Students' suggestions were organized under two themes: suggestions for upcoming students and suggestions for the program.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-25">Suggestions for Upcoming Students.</hd> <p>Students emphasized the support of their cohort members to successfully complete this journey, as shown in "work constantly with your Cohort members" (Student 16) and "forge ties with your cohort members for support" (Student 35). They also suggested upcoming cohorts to "get to know your cohort members early" because "everyone has different strengths ... and reviewing each other's work helps" (Student 4). As students had ample opportunities to work with their cohort members during their doctoral education, some of them felt like a "cohort family .... who will support you and help work through the process" (Student 11). Peer support was an important part of the doctoral education experience for many of our graduates: "I cannot imagine having to do this without support and feedback from my writing group" (Student 11).</p> <p>Another suggestion for upcoming students was to invest effort in annotated bibliography assignments, which helps students get acquainted with empirical research related to their dissertation topic and build a solid theoretical foundation for their studies. Even though some students put the effort into these early annotated bibliographies, many complete them just to fulfill the assignment requirements and end up with a list of references not quite useful for their research. Some of our students suggested: "to really invest in the annotated bibliographies completed towards the beginning of the program. You will use them and refer to them more than you could ever know!" (Student 2), and to "do a thorough job on your annotated bibliography, it will serve you well and help you as you navigate the literature review" (Student 6).</p> <p>Additionally, our students suggested that their peers recognize their dissertation idea will "evolve greatly for many people, even while during data collection" (Student 24). In the first course students take in our program, they identify three problems of practice in their local context, and usually one of these problems evolves into their dissertation topic later. Although some students navigate through the changes with ease, some struggle with refining their topics based on feedback received at different stages. Many students have a topic that they have their "heart set on at the beginning of the program," but it may not necessarily be "what you end up researching" (Student 3). Hence, students think that the upcoming cohorts "need to be adaptable" because "It [dissertation process] is a marathon, not a sprint, your design, scope, sequence, and pretty much everything about your research will be at a very different place than when you started" (Student 1). Therefore, students need to "view many revisions as polishing" (Student 19) and "avoid getting emotionally attached to a topic or idea" (Student 35).</p> <p>At the end of our program, students completing their degrees see the continued organization, self-motivation, and commitment as the key for their success. For instance, one student suggested that upcoming students "need to be self-motivated and well-organized to be successful" (Student 11). Another student suggested, "choose a topic you are willing to commit to for a long time" to sustain motivation throughout the program (Student 30). One student suggested using a reference manager for organization: "Maintain EVERYTHING [<emph>emphasis in original</emph>] in [a reference manager] from Day One. Identify your [problem of practice] ASAP and then mold every assignment around that topic keeping all articles in [a reference manager] along the way" (Student 18). Others indicated that staying committed along the way is crucial for success. For example, students commented: "Need to stay committed. It is a journey as much as a destination" (Student 4) and "If I started again, I would look at the dissertation process as more recursive, and spend more time each semester [revising it]" (Student 15).</p> <p>Lastly, our newly graduated students recommended regularly allocating time for research. For instance, one student noted, "Budget your time. Block out time each week to devote to your research" (Student 11). Others pointed out that students should "create a protected time" (Student 14) and "work daily on your dissertation" (Student 16). Emphasizing the time spent on qualitative coding, one student wrote, "Coding takes so much time. Prepare yourself for this" (Student 26). As experienced by many doctoral students, the dissertation process requires them to continuously work on their research. In this student's words, "Keep plugging away on your dissertation even during breaks and summer, even when no one is checking" (Student 28).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-26">Suggestions for the Program.</hd> <p>Students suggested that the program offer more research and statistics courses to provide additional opportunities for practicing qualitative and quantitative methods. From a quantitative standpoint, students would have liked additional practice on "how to interpret different types of non-parametric statistics, and how to report findings" (Student 16), "how to write Likert scale questions" (Student 31), and how to conduct "post-hoc/ANOVA, ANCOVA data analyses" (Student 21). From a qualitative perspective, students believed that more "practice in coding and interview question writing" (Student 19) would be helpful. Additionally, students expect that additional practice on qualitative coding would have made them "feel more confident later and the process would have maybe gone a little faster" (Student 15) when analyzing and writing up qualitative findings. With regards to course scheduling, having "1–2 courses about analyzing data (qual and quan) RIGHT before we analyze data" would be more beneficial because students "felt very unprepared for this [data analysis]" since it was "over a year when it came time to do it" (Student 26).</p> <p>Additionally, our students suggested offering courses that entail "actually integrating technology into the curriculum. Rather than classes that focused on specific technology applications" (Student 9) as they found some of the technologies used in these courses "redundant and outdated" (Student 11). One student noted, "We should be ... pushed in our thinking about it [technology] and how it affects students/learners. Some of the information felt like it would have been great in 2012 or before. Technology changes rapidly" (Student 27). This same student also emphasized that the technology skills such as using a word processor should be connected to more meaningful learning activities, as shown in "If we are going to learn formatting with Word, time would have been better spent learning to apply the formatting to our dissertation" (Student 27).</p> <p>Another suggestion for our program was to offer more opportunities for synchronous interactions in and outside the courses. In all the program courses, our faculty hold weekly synchronous meetings. Additionally, in the dissertation preparation courses, we meet with each doctoral mentee weekly. Yet, some students found these opportunities insufficient. They expect to have more "interaction with the professors around content and learning. Something that gets us [the students] closer to the face-to-face class discussion" (Student 9), which would allow them to have "More personal communication. Less reading of documents" (Student 29). As students get involved in data analysis and write-up processes, they think it would be beneficial to "have mini check in sessions to get feedback from an additional professor" which would offer "some additional perspective, or help" (Student 10). Also, students suggested our program to offer more in-person workdays to "work with others ... on analysis techniques" (Student 2) or "provide some of that 'words of wisdom' time at a different part of the year when we [the students] are all engaged in the work" (Student 10). Although we invite students from previous cohorts to our orientation for the new cohorts each semester, a student suggested "a yearly 'retreat' or 'in-person residency' where individuals can come together in person, ... [which] would strengthen the cohorts' [relationships]" (Student 24).</p> <p>Students also provided suggestions regarding the formation of their dissertation committee and how it could function to better support their dissertation process. Students suggested that it would be more efficient if they worked with their dissertation chair "from the inception of your research" (Student 10) so that the dissertation chair "could follow you all the way through" (Student 22). They also pointed out that the committee could be involved with their research "earlier in the process" (Student 26) so they can "provide feedback to students during the Chap. 4 and Chap. 5" (Student 20). Students in our program meet their dissertation committee twice (i.e., proposal defense and final defense), which is a little over a year apart. Receiving the committee feedback at the dissertation defense, especially if it requires significant revisions, could make students become "fearful of their [committee] feedback" (Student 26).</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-27">Discussion and Conclusion</hd> <p>Overall, the students were satisfied with the quality of doctoral education they received in our program. They believed the doctoral coursework had prepared them to be scholarly practitioners as they have already started to make theory-informed decisions to improve practice and their local contexts. The integration of the dissertation components into courses lowered the ceiling so they could complete the degree while working full time. The cohort model fostered a community of scholars who supported each other academically, socially, and emotionally. Also, faculty support throughout the program was an essential factor for student success.</p> <p>The students also identified challenges as they went through different stages of their doctoral education. Time management was the most referenced challenge, considering that many of the students were working full time and had family responsibilities. The students also indicated that the workload across some courses, such as research courses that include dissertation components, could possibly create challenges, especially when taken during the summer semester. Lastly, for many students, analyzing data and writing up the findings were the hardest stages of dissertation writing as they either felt that they were inadequately prepared for certain methods (e.g., nonparametric tests) or that they needed to refresh their knowledge and skills immediately before data analysis and write up.</p> <p>Considering that a vast majority of students pursuing a practitioner-focused doctoral degree are part-time students who are professionals with extensive knowledge and experience in their practice (e.g., teaching, administration) but with limited or no knowledge and skills in educational research, these findings are not surprising. One thing that was not anticipated in our findings is the suggestion for more synchronous interactions with faculty. In every course students take from our program, we offer weekly synchronous office hours; in the dissertation preparation courses we meet synchronously with each student every week; and at different stages of their doctoral education, we offer synchronous workshops (e.g., APA workshop, qualitative data analysis workshop). Although we think that our program offers sufficient opportunities for synchronous interaction, this suggestion should be further explored to better understand the type of interactions our students look for.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-28">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Based on the findings, we offer the following implications for prospective students who consider pursuing an online practitioner-focused doctoral degree and for programs looking for ways to improve students' experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-29">Implications for Students</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Organization, self-motivation, and commitment contribute to student success (Kumar & Coe, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). Choosing a dissertation topic that is interesting to the student helps sustain motivation throughout their doctoral education journey.</item> <p></p> <item> Allocating time to work daily on the dissertation is essential for success.</item> <p></p> <item> Establishing relationships with cohort members early in the process contributes to student success.</item> <p></p> <item> Establishing writing routines helps with the dissertation writing process. Although this can be achieved individually, virtual writing meetings/camps with cohort members may help establish a routine and encourage students who tend to procrastinate (Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> The dissertation idea may change due to many factors, such as changing jobs. Students should be adaptable to changes.</item> <p></p> <item> Research assignments (e.g., annotated bibliography) given early in a doctoral program aim to help students get acquainted with the research around their topic. Students should not complete these assignments just to fulfill the course requirements, but they should invest effort to build a solid background in their area of interests.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0158081626-30">Implications for Programs and Faculty</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Adopt a cohort model, which fosters peer support academically, socially, and emotionally as well as persistence to graduation (Barnett & Caffarella, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]; Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> Balance the sequence and workload of courses to provide the most efficient learning trajectory for students as time is crucial for working adults (Fuller et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]). For instance, summer semesters may be busy for those working outside of K-12 settings.</item> <p></p> <item> Consider adding an adequate number and a variety of research and statistics courses to train students with data analysis and write up (Fuller et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]). Specifically, most practitioner research studies have small sample sizes; therefore, the data collected would possibly violate the normality assumption of parametric tests (Field, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>]). Training students on nonparametric statistics prior to data analysis would be valuable.</item> <p></p> <item> When advising students to choose a dissertation topic, consider that students might change positions or jobs, so guide them to settle on a topic that is flexible enough to be revamped across different contexts.</item> <p></p> <item> Organize yearly retreats or in-person opportunities for student interactions such as data analysis workshops, gatherings at conferences, etc.</item> <p></p> <item> Offer students ample opportunities to interact with faculty and peers synchronously in the courses to support their commitment and sense of belongingness.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0158081626-31">Conclusions</hd> <p>Exploring students' perspectives and experiences within a doctoral program not only offers insights for prospective students but also helps doctoral programs to determine the impact and quality of the education they provide and to identify the areas for improvement (Kumar & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). Hence, with this paper our goal was to evaluate the impact and quality of our program through the eyes of recently graduated doctoral students. For students, the findings emphasize the value of the cohort model, integration of dissertation components in the doctoral coursework, and the necessity of managing time effectively and being organized and fully committed throughout their doctoral education. For practitioner-focused doctoral programs, findings point to equipping doctoral students with skills and knowledge in educational research and statistical methods, and offering students sufficient opportunities, virtually and in-person, to interact with faculty and peers. Hence, assessing doctoral students' experiences constantly at different stages of their educational experience is essentials.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-32">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158081626-33">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. </p> <hd id="AN0158081626-34">Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals</hd> <p>Data were collected using an anonymous end-of-program evaluation survey. The anonymity was guaranteed by not collecting any demographic information that could identify individual participants. Quantitative results were presented in an aggregated format (e.g., mean). When presenting qualitative findings, each participant was assigned a random number (e.g., Student 10). </p> <hd id="AN0158081626-35">Informed Consent</hd> <p>As the data were collected as part of a program evaluation, the completion of the end-of-program evaluation survey was optional. Only those who wished to provide feedback completed the surveys. Anonymity was guaranteed within the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0158081626-36">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0158081626-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Arslan-Ari I, Ari F, Grant MM, Morris WS. Action research experiences for scholarly practitioners in an online education doctorate program: Design, reality, and lessons learned. TechTrends. 2018; 62; 5: 441-449. 10.1007/s11528-018-0308-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arslan-Ari, I, Ari, F, Grant, M. M, Vasconcelos, L, Tang, H, & Morris, W. S. (2020). Becoming action researchers: Crafting the curriculum and learning experiences for scholarly practitioners in educational technology. In E. Romero-Hall (Ed.), Research methods in learning design and technology (pp. 78–93). Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, B. G, & Caffarella, R. S. (1992). The use of cohorts: A powerful way for addressing issues of diversity in preparation programs [Conference presentation]. University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED354627.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Buss, R. R, & Zambo, D. (2014). A practical guide for students and faculty in CPED-influenced programs working on an action research dissertation in practice. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dawson, K, Cavanaugh, C, Sessums, C, Black, E. W, & Kumar, S. (2011). Designing a professional practice doctoral degree in educational technology: Signature pedagogies, implications and recommendations. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 25(3). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/767/1317">http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/767/1317</ulink>. Accessed 10 Sep 2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dawson, K, & Kumar, S. (2014). An analysis of professional practice Ed.D. dissertations in educational technology. TechTrends, 58(4), 62–72</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dawson, K, & Kumar, S. (2016). Guiding principles for quality professional practice dissertations. In V. A. Storey & K. A. Hesbol (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods (pp.133–145). IGI Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0445-0.ch009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref55" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Field, A. (2015). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref53" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fuller JS, Risner ME, Lowder L, Hart M, Bachenheimer B. Graduates' reflections on an online doctorate in educational technology. TechTrends. 2014; 58; 4: 73-80. 10.1007/s11528-014-0771-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia CE, Yao CW. The role of an online first-year seminar in higher education doctoral students' scholarly development. Internet and Higher Education. 2019; 42; May: 44-52. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golde CM. Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for the preparation of education researchers?. Educational Researcher. 2007; 36; 6: 344-351. 10.3102/0013189X07308301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant MM. Asynchronous online course designs: Articulating theory, best practices, and techniques for everyday doctoral education. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice. 2021; 6; 3: 35-46. 10.5195/ie.2021.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones G, Warren SJ, Ennis-Cole D, Knezek G, Lin L, Norris C. Transforming the doctorate from residential to online: A distributed PhD learning technologies. TechTrends. 2014; 58; 4: 19-26. 10.1007/s11528-014-0765-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar S, Antonenko P. Connecting practice, theory and method: Supporting professional doctoral students in developing conceptual frameworks. TechTrends. 2014; 58; 4: 54-61. 10.1007/s11528-014-0769-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar S, Coe C. Mentoring and student support in online doctoral programs. American Journal of Distance Education. 2017; 31; 2: 128-142. 10.1080/08923647.2017.1300464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, S, & Dawson, K. (2012). Theory to practice: Implementation and initial impact of an online doctoral program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1). Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/kumar%5fdawson.html">www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/kumar%5fdawson.html</ulink>. Accessed 1 Sep 2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar S, Dawson K. Exploring the impact of a professional practice education doctorate in educational environments. Studies in Continued Education. 2013; 35; 2: 165-178. 10.1080/0158037X.2012.736380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar S, Dawson K. The impact factor: Measuring student professional growth in an online doctoral program. TechTrends. 2014; 58; 4: 89-97. 10.1007/s11528-014-0773-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, S, & Dawson, K. (2018). An online doctorate for researching professionals: Program design, implementation, and evaluation. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992077.01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, S, & Johnson, M. (2019). Online mentoring of dissertations: The role of structure and support. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1337736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, S, Johnson, M, & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a distance: Students' perceptions of online mentoring in a doctoral program. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 27(1). Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835">www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kung MK, Logan TL. An overview of online and hybrid doctoral degree programs in educational technology. TechTrends. 2014; 58; 4: 16-18. 10.1007/s11528-014-0764-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei S, Gorelick D, Short K, Smallwood L, Wright-Porter K. Academic cohorts: Benefits and drawbacks of being a member of a community of learners. Education. 2011; 131; 3: 497-504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, J, Covrig, D, Freed, S, De Oliveira, B, Ongo, M, & Newman, I. (2019). Strategies to assist distance doctoral students in completing their dissertations. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4532</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry JA, Zambo D. Themed section of impacting education focused on CPED's principle. Journal on Transforming Professional Practice. 2018; 3; 2: 17-23. 10.5195/ie.2018.89</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roumell EA, Bolliger DU. Experiences of faculty with doctoral student supervision in programs delivered via distance. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 2017; 65; 2: 82-93. 10.1080/07377363.2017.1320179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Union University. (n.d.). Academic program review: Departmental questionnaire. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.uu.edu/dept/provost/institutionalresearch/AcademicProgramReview0707.doc">http://www.uu.edu/dept/provost/institutionalresearch/AcademicProgramReview0707.doc</ulink>. Accessed 15 Jan 2020</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Fatih Ari; Lucas Vasconcelos; Hengtao Tang; Michael M. Grant; Ismahan Arslan-Ari and Alison L. Moore</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref48"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1342444
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Program Evaluation of an Online Ed.D. In Learning Design and Technologies: Recent Graduates' Perspectives
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ari%2C+Fatih%22">Ari, Fatih</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9512-1312">0000-0001-9512-1312</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vasconcelos%2C+Lucas%22">Vasconcelos, Lucas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tang%2C+Hengtao%22">Tang, Hengtao</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grant%2C+Michael+M%2E%22">Grant, Michael M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arslan-Ari%2C+Ismahan%22">Arslan-Ari, Ismahan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moore%2C+Alison+L%2E%22">Moore, Alison L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. Jul 2022 66(4):699-709.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Students%22">Doctoral Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Graduates%22">College Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Satisfaction%22">Student Satisfaction</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Carolina%22">South Carolina</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11528-022-00744-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-3894
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this paper was to explore the experiences of doctoral students in an Ed.D. program in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 35 students after their degree completion. Overall, the students were satisfied with the quality and the value of the doctoral education provided in our program. They believed that the doctoral coursework, the integration of the dissertation components into courses, the cohort model, and the faculty support throughout the program were amongst the most important factors for their success. The students also identified time management, workload, analyzing data and writing up the findings as the biggest challenges they experienced throughout different stages of their doctoral education. Based on our findings, we provide several implications for practice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1342444
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1342444
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11528-022-00744-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 699
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Carolina
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Program Evaluation of an Online Ed.D. In Learning Design and Technologies: Recent Graduates' Perspectives
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ari, Fatih
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vasconcelos, Lucas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tang, Hengtao
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Grant, Michael M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arslan-Ari, Ismahan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moore, Alison L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-3894
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 66
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1