Doctoral Program Design Based on Technology-Based Situated Learning and Mentoring: A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time Doctoral Students

Q2 Social Sciences International Journal of Doctoral Studies Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.28945/4598
Shaoan Zhang, Chengcheng Li, M. Carroll, P. Schrader
{"title":"Doctoral Program Design Based on Technology-Based Situated Learning and Mentoring: A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time Doctoral Students","authors":"Shaoan Zhang, Chengcheng Li, M. Carroll, P. Schrader","doi":"10.28945/4598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose Most programs are designed with full-time doctoral students’ characteristics and needs in mind; few programs consider the unique needs of part-time doctoral students, including time restrictions, experiences during the program, identity development, and different professional aspirations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students in their scholarly development, and how technology may serve as a communication and organization tool for individual and program support. Background Built on the application of communities of practice, information and communication technology, and situated learning theory, this study sought to evaluate the potential differences among full-time and part-time doctoral students associated with their scholarly development in a traditional doctoral program at a large research-intensive university. Methodology This study used independent samples t-test to evaluate the potential differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students in their scholarly development. Data were collected from 98 doctoral students via a survey. This A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time Doctoral Students 394 study also employed two hypothetical cases that described the issues and solutions related to the program pursuant to scholarly development, which further illustrated the quantitative results and provided more meaningful discussions and suggestions. Contribution This study provided insights into part-time doctoral students’ scholarly development and provided suggestions for designing doctoral programs and differentiated mentoring for both full-time and part-time doctoral students. Further, additional multifaceted mentoring approaches including peer mentoring and e-mentoring were evaluated. Findings Significant differences were found in four aspects of doctoral students’ scholarly development: the opportunities to do research related to grants with faculty, support for scholarly work in addition to advisor’s support, involvement in the teaching/supervision activities, and goals for scholarly development. Recommendations for Practitioners Program designers, faculty, and especially mentors should appreciate the differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students. Potential program redesigns should include judicious applications of technology as essential components to address limited accessibility and opportunities for parttime students. An Individual Development Plan (IDP) should be used to mentor doctoral students to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring regarding academic goals, actions, and related roles and responsibilities. Recommendations for Researchers Future research can further evaluate and develop the instrument to better measure more domains of doctoral students’ scholarly development. Additionally, qualitative methods may be used to further provide the emic description of the process of part-time students’ engagement with the program, mentors, and peers. Impact on Society With consideration of the unique needs of part-time students and the application of technology-based learning community, opportunities are provided for mentors and doctoral students to engage in scholarship and develop a sense of belonging to their doctoral program. Future Research Future research can examine the differences between male and female doctoral students, different race groups, and disciplines.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":"393-414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Aim/Purpose Most programs are designed with full-time doctoral students’ characteristics and needs in mind; few programs consider the unique needs of part-time doctoral students, including time restrictions, experiences during the program, identity development, and different professional aspirations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students in their scholarly development, and how technology may serve as a communication and organization tool for individual and program support. Background Built on the application of communities of practice, information and communication technology, and situated learning theory, this study sought to evaluate the potential differences among full-time and part-time doctoral students associated with their scholarly development in a traditional doctoral program at a large research-intensive university. Methodology This study used independent samples t-test to evaluate the potential differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students in their scholarly development. Data were collected from 98 doctoral students via a survey. This A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time Doctoral Students 394 study also employed two hypothetical cases that described the issues and solutions related to the program pursuant to scholarly development, which further illustrated the quantitative results and provided more meaningful discussions and suggestions. Contribution This study provided insights into part-time doctoral students’ scholarly development and provided suggestions for designing doctoral programs and differentiated mentoring for both full-time and part-time doctoral students. Further, additional multifaceted mentoring approaches including peer mentoring and e-mentoring were evaluated. Findings Significant differences were found in four aspects of doctoral students’ scholarly development: the opportunities to do research related to grants with faculty, support for scholarly work in addition to advisor’s support, involvement in the teaching/supervision activities, and goals for scholarly development. Recommendations for Practitioners Program designers, faculty, and especially mentors should appreciate the differences between part-time and full-time doctoral students. Potential program redesigns should include judicious applications of technology as essential components to address limited accessibility and opportunities for parttime students. An Individual Development Plan (IDP) should be used to mentor doctoral students to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring regarding academic goals, actions, and related roles and responsibilities. Recommendations for Researchers Future research can further evaluate and develop the instrument to better measure more domains of doctoral students’ scholarly development. Additionally, qualitative methods may be used to further provide the emic description of the process of part-time students’ engagement with the program, mentors, and peers. Impact on Society With consideration of the unique needs of part-time students and the application of technology-based learning community, opportunities are provided for mentors and doctoral students to engage in scholarship and develop a sense of belonging to their doctoral program. Future Research Future research can examine the differences between male and female doctoral students, different race groups, and disciplines.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于技术情境学习与指导的博士课程设计:非全日制与全日制博士生的比较
大多数项目都是考虑到全日制博士生的特点和需求而设计的;很少有项目考虑到兼职博士生的独特需求,包括时间限制、项目期间的经历、身份发展和不同的职业抱负。本研究的目的是评估非全日制和全日制博士生在学术发展上的潜在差异,以及技术如何作为个人和项目支持的沟通和组织工具。本研究以实践社群、资讯与通讯科技及情境学习理论为基础,试图评估一所大型研究型大学传统博士课程中全日制与非全日制博士生在学术发展方面的潜在差异。本研究采用独立样本t检验来评估非全日制博士生与全日制博士生在学术发展方面的潜在差异。通过调查收集了98名博士生的数据。本研究还采用了两个假设案例,描述了根据学术发展与项目相关的问题和解决方案,进一步说明了定量结果,并提供了更有意义的讨论和建议。本研究为非全日制博士生的学术发展提供了启示,并为全日制和非全日制博士生的博士点设计和差异化指导提供了建议。此外,我们还评估了其他多方面的指导方法,包括同伴指导和电子指导。研究结果在博士生学术发展的四个方面存在显著差异:与教师一起做研究的机会、在导师支持的基础上对学术工作的支持、参与教学/指导活动、学术发展目标。项目设计者,教师,特别是导师应该了解兼职和全职博士生之间的差异。潜在的课程重新设计应该包括明智地应用技术作为基本组成部分,以解决兼职学生有限的可及性和机会。个人发展计划(IDP)应用于指导博士生,以提高指导在学术目标,行动和相关角色和责任方面的有效性。未来的研究可以进一步评估和开发仪器,以更好地衡量博士生学术发展的更多领域。此外,定性方法可以用来进一步提供兼职学生参与项目、导师和同伴的过程的主题描述。考虑到非全日制学生的独特需求和基于技术的学习社区的应用,为导师和博士生提供参与奖学金的机会,并培养他们对博士项目的归属感。未来的研究未来的研究可以考察男女博士生、不同种族群体和学科之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Doctoral Studies
International Journal of Doctoral Studies Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process What Does It Mean To Be a Resilient Student? An Explorative Study of Doctoral Students’ Resilience and Coping Strategies Using Grounded Theory as the Analytic Lens PhD by Prospective Publication in Australian Business Schools: Provocations from a Collaborative Autoethnography Mitigating Ceiling Effects in a Longitudinal Study of Doctoral Engineering Student Stress and Persistence Into the Challenges of Aligning Key Sections of Doctoral Dissertations: Cognitive Analysis, Pedagogical Tools, and Instrument Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1