Week 3 question 2

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.assignmentgeeks.org. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

   we discussed analyzing research and how to identify the scope of the problem presented in the literature. Critically analyzing the research helps doctoral learners develop writing skills and terminology related to dissertation topics.

Recapping how to narrow down scholarly research aligned to a dissertation topic how are you able to identify terminology that is consistent with specific design methods; qualitative or quantitative?


use attached article for source to provide cited reference 

document 1 of 1
Full Text | Scholarly Journal

Developing Practitioner-Scholar Doctoral Candidates as Critical Writers

Klocko, Barbara A; Marshall, Sarah M; Davidson, Jillian F.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice; West Palm Beach Vol. 15, Iss. 4, (Aug 2015): 21-31.


In this study, we sought to understand how students perceived the dissertation as practitioner-scholars and part-
time doctoral students in advanced doctoral programs in educational leadership. The results indicated that the
expectations associated with scholarly writing present major hurdles for doctoral students, and the dissertation
process can be lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. Doctoral faculty members are often called upon to
advise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. We found that
the essential part in this process is supporting practitioner students as they transform into doctoral level writers.

Full Text

In this study, we sought to understand how students perceived the dissertation as practitioner-scholars and part-
time doctoral students in advanced doctoral programs in educational leadership. The results indicated that the
expectations associated with scholarly writing present major hurdles for doctoral students, and the dissertation
process can be lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. Doctoral faculty members are often called upon to
advise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. We found that
the essential part in this process is supporting practitioner students as they transform into doctoral level writers.

In the realm of academia, writing skills are imperative to creating a lasting career, putting truth to the adage of
publish or perish (Ferguson, 2009). Since publications are commonly associated with academic prestige, it is fitting
that researching and writing a dissertation is the culminating activity for doctoral candidates (Kucan, 2011). In our
research and experience, we found that the dissertation process is lengthy, filled with anxiety, stress, and doubt. In
particular, the expectations associated with scholarly writing presented significant challenges to success for doctoral

For practitioner-scholars, there are additional stressors to completing coursework and the culminating dissertation.
Graduate students who are also full-time practitioners must carefully pilot the balance between graduate school,
employment and life (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Manalo, 2006; Nielson & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek,
2012). Additionally, the need to alternate between the mindset of a practitioner and that of a scholar impacts both
the writing process and the framework with which one embraces inquiry (Labaree, 2003; Ondrusek, 2012).
Doctoral faculty members, and particularly doctoral dissertation advisers, are often called upon to instruct and
advise students as they balance their personal and professional demands with those of the academy. One key part
in this process is supporting practitioner students as they redefine their identity as doctoral level writers.


In 2013, we undertook a study designed to review the writing challenges experienced by doctoral candidates in an
educational leadership department at a Midwestern university. Our original study was written in response to the
literature base about the stresses facing practitioner-scholars as they advance through doctoral programs (Belcher,
2009; Ferguson, 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2008; Nielsen & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011 ); the

concerns for the quality of scholarly presentation by doctoral candidates (Boote & Beile, 2005; Casanave &
Hubbard, 1992; Kamler & Thomson, 2008) and the possibilities that exist for educational leadership faculty to
provide assistance to students with expanded roles and responsibilities not normally associated with doctoral
candidacy (Manalo, 2006; Wang & Li, 2011).

According to Boote and Beile (2005), a lack of quality research in the field of education can be attributed to the
standards of educational doctoral programs. Graduate level discourse requires writers to “integrate disparate ideas,
synthesize perspectives, and extend theory” (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007, p. 809). These concepts, which are
uncommon in undergraduate coursework, are elusive to practitionerstudents who approach writing assignments
from their perspective within their area of expertise.

Becoming a critical writer necessitates the development of a research lens with a focus on critical inquiry. When
analyzing an issue, the researcher’s position can be contrary to that of a practitioner and therefore practitioner-
doctoral students must be encouraged to separate from their professional identity in the workplace in order to
assess the underlying factors at play in education (Labaree, 2003). In essence, doctoral students must detach from
their pragmatism and subsequent practitioner beliefs in order to develop a worldview with an unbiased lens to
productively conduct objective research.


The importance of scholarly communication is well documented and understood as an influence to one’s research
output, which directly impacts a future academic career (Boote & Beile, 2005; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000; Ferguson,
2009). Nevertheless, the education of doctoral students on the writing process is neither a common practice in
higher education nor represented in the body of literature (Ferguson, 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2006). Since the
1970s, the need for doctoral writing research has been noted and continues still today (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007;
Manalo, 2006).

Doctoral Level Writing Dispositions

Two underlying stressors experienced by doctoral students when approaching writing include unclear expectations
of writing assignments and underdeveloped writing skills (Ferguson, 2009). Since undergraduate faculty have
different writing expectations than graduate programs, students do not have the opportunity to learn the
grammatical skills necessary to write at an academic level beyond the doctoral program (Kucan, 2011). When
students experience doubt about their ability to complete quality work, the result can be lower scores on their
writing submissions (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011).

Emotional Response to Feedback and Critique

During the course of doctoral studies, students receive varied feedback from peers and professors on writing
projects. Due to low self-confidence of writing skills, students are unsure how to move forward with the feedback
while maintaining their voice (Cafarella & Barnett, 1997; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Furthermore, critiques can be
viewed as personal attacks instead of assistance towards a better product (Nielson & Rocco, 2002). Wang and Li,
(2011) noted:

Feedback in doctoral research is a social practice embedded in supervisory relationships. This demands attention to
the interpersonal aspect of feedback, focusing not only on the what, that is, the text, but also on the how, that is,
the way in which feedback is given and received. (p. 102)

Overall, the process of editing is not understood by some graduate students; instead of using feedback to
reevaluate the overall strength of the piece, attention is often paid to correcting minutiae such as spelling and
grammar (Ondrusek, 2012).

Writing Efficiency

For practitioner-students, time management can be viewed as an insurmountable hurdle in the writing process
(Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Nielson and Rocco (2002) noted that many doctoral students are responsible not only
for their studies but also a career or family. Accordingly, the age of students in educational doctoral students is
higher than other fields (Labaree, 2003). Thus, making research and writing a priority amongst life’s many other
duties and responsibilities can prove difficult for practitionerscholars (Belcher, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007;
Manalo, 2006; Nielson & Rocco, 2002; Ondrusek, 2012). The issue of time is more about making the most of
limited time resources and prioritizing coursework amongst life’s other requirements.

Researcher View of Writing

Developing a researcher lens can be challenging for practitioner-students because “writing for their chosen
disciplines requires them to make major adjustments in how they view knowledge, learning, written expression,
and themselves before they reach a comfort level in scholarly writing” (Ondrusek, 2012, p. 180). By changing
viewpoints and ways of approaching inquiry, a level of dissonance ensues as doctoral students vacate their work-life
perspective for that of academia (Boote & Beile, 2005; Labaree, 2003). Less likely to be changed by their program
in a transformative way through the research process, many educational doctoral students do not plan to join the
academy and publish original research but desire to work in advanced practitioner roles in education (Labaree,
2003). The role of inquiry is therefore viewed as a by-product of advanced coursework versus a separate goal.


Issues of time management, doctoral level writing expectations, feedback and critique, and cognitive dissonance
between practitioner and scholar worldviews compound with the pressures of coursework and elicit feelings of
anxiety and a lack of confidence which can prove overwhelming in the dissertation writing process (Cafarella &
Barnett, 2000; Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Ferguson, 2009; Ondrusek, 2012; Nielson & Rocco, 2002). Figure 1
provides a conceptual model of the four stressors we examined in this study.

Often, doctoral students have past academic successes which have created high expectations for their work. It is
understandable then when they receive constructive feedback and lower grades in their doctoral level coursework,
why self-imposed anxiety may result (Caffarella & Barnett, 1997; Ondrusek, 2012; Wang & Li, 2011). Additionally,
students can become frustrated when the feedback is limited, contradictory or of low-quality since they are unable
to clearly identify their missteps (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). However, not all work produces the same emotional
responses. Belcher (2009) noted graduate students experience intense pressure surrounding academic writing
which can cause doubt, depression, or guilt and result in a lack of writing progress. Nielson and Rocco (2002)
explained “the more important the writing, the greater the apprehension” (p. 313). Students experience increased
anxiety in proportion to the importance of the assignment in their courses building to the ultimate project of
dissertation writing. To that end, the purpose of this study was to ascertain doctoral students’ beliefs regarding
critical writing skills and the extent to which professors can alleviate or contribute to student dissertation anxiety.
The research questions that inform this study included: 1) What helps or hinders practitioner students in their
academic writing process? 2) What areas do students feel they need more instruction? 3) What institutional or
curricular changes can be made to increase the number of practitioner students completing the doctoral program?


In this mixed-methods study, we systematically examined the beliefs of practitioner-scholars who had advanced in
a doctoral program in a Midwestern state regarding their critical writing expectations and stressors. We conducted
this exploratory study in 2013 to measure differing trends and adjust curricular practices and expectations
accordingly. Specifically we were interested in whether students felt that doctoral level coursework addressing
remedial writing skills would be beneficial to themselves or their peers. We designed a survey with both
quantitative and qualitative inquiry in mind. Consequently, the researchers were able to facilitate analysis by
calculating numerical averages as well as extracting emerging themes to provide a holistic interpretation of this
problem under examination.


Advanced doctoral students and graduates were invited to participate in this electronic survey. Eligible participants
completed their doctoral core coursework from 2006 to 2013 in a doctoral program in educational leadership at a
Midwestern state (n=97). Participants are part-time doctoral students who maintain full-time employment within an
educational setting. Most serve as administrators or faculty. Participants (n=47) consented to participate and
completed the online questionnaire administered through Survey Monkey®. This is not a longitudinal study and we
only sought to determine generalities based on the behaviors and attitudes of students and graduates as a cohort,
not as individuals through this research design. The sample size supports a 48% confidence level as ascertained by
the responses received by the researchers. Thus, we present a representative sample from the surveys to
adequately make generalizations about the perceptions of doctoral candidates in a Midwestern state regarding
critical writing skills and associated stress.


In order to establish construct validity of this survey, the variables were aligned with the literature base of scholarly
writing, the stress of doctoral candidates as defined in the literature, and the descriptors based on the experiences
that we had as researchers and professors. Thus, the researchers determined that the survey instrument measured
the theoretical constructs the instrument was designed to measure- doctoral students’ beliefs regarding critical
writing skills and the extent to which professors can alleviate or contribute to student dissertation anxiety. Since we
studied an array of variables that may be associated with doctoral candidate stress and writing under the multiple
constructs of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, we anticipated a wide degree of variation in the response. Thus,
there was a low but acceptable level of internal consistency (.59 Cronbach alpha) among the variables.


The final reporting of these data is presented as a descriptive narrative. While generalizable findings may appear,
this research is not seeking universals that exist free of context. Timely feedback from instructors, thinking
critically, and having a strong working vocabulary were essential elements for success indicated by these doctoral
candidates as shown in Table 1. We also found that respondents did not agree that technology resources were
essential to their writing acumen. However, candidates highly valued the supports provided through the university
library in securing literature, but seldom used the intensive writing support offered by the campus writing center.

Peer review provided interesting results in this study. When asked whether peer editing and review are helpful,
45% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Conversely 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed
and 24% of the respondents appeared ambivalent regarding peer editing and review. When asked how often they
asked a peer to review and comment on their writing, one third of the respondents reported almost never, and only
one respondent (2.22%) reported almost daily as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

The overall mean score of 2.4 suggests that students seek peer support once in a while, perhaps one occurrence
per week as shown in Table 2. These data generate questions regarding why doctoral students value peer review,
and yet seldom take advantage of this support.

This finding also corresponded with reports that 54% of the respondents answered N/A when queried about the
helpfulness of the writing center, suggesting that they had no experience or had never taken advantage of the
writing support offered by the university as shown in Figure 3. The writing center offers support for editing and
development of student manuscripts, and a mere 13% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was a
helpful support. It is interesting to note that 67% of the respondents indicated that they agree that doctoral level
class time should be used to teach writing skills and yet they do not avail themselves of peer review, nor did they
report problematic behaviors in their writing.

When asked to describe the challenges they face in developing their writing expertise, the respondents consistently
identified time and anxiety, over developing writing expertise. However the mean response indicates that students
schedule sustained blocks of uninterrupted time, more than two hours two to three times weekly as shown in Table
2. In looking at the distribution, it appears that they are prioritizing their writing time, but students still are
distraught over the time requirements of scholarly writing. If these practitioner students are indeed regularly

scheduling more than two hours for writing daily (15%), four to five times weekly (28%), two to three times
weekly (28%), or even once a week (24%), time should not pose a barrier to the completion of their dissertation.

As self-reported data from a small population, the qualitative results of this study posed interesting findings that
may inform faculty. The qualitative data were organized around four key themes entitled: time, feedback and clear
expectations, anxiety, and writing mechanics.


The first major finding related to effective use of time. According to the data, students are scheduling time to
complete their writing assignments yet they experience high levels of anxiety about the amount of writing required
in their doctoral program. If adequate time is being set aside, the efficient use of this allocated time is called into
question (Belcher, 2009). According to one participant, “I need long chunks of time in my schedule. I need to
immerse my brain in my material.” Students set aside sufficient time to complete quality assignments yet failed to
effectively utilize their time. Stress pertaining to writing and project completion lead to anxiety as a stumbling block
to writing. As one participant commented, “I fear not writing well. I struggle with writer’s block.” If students felt
more capable to do the writing assignments by improving their writing and researching skills, anxiety could be
lessened and the amount of time allocated for the projects would be sufficient. As one other participant added, “I
am challenged by organization. I never feel that I know enough about a topic to come up with a decent outline.”

Participants offered suggestions for lessoning anxiety associated with writing and time management. These
suggestions included meeting regularly with their advisor and/or faculty members for regular feedback, writing
strategies and encouragement. Participants in this study recognized the vital roles that faculty play in developing
students’ doctoral level writing skills but also in building their confidence. Second, participants recommended the
inclusion of organization tools to assist them in mapping out a timeline for completion, developing milestones
toward achieving their writing goals, and for learning how to locate and abstract literature. Third, participants also
identified the positive impact of peer editing or peer writing groups. By receiving additional feedback from their
peers, students were able to obtain another perspective on their writing from a less-intimidating peer.

Feedback and Clear Expectations

The second key theme that emerged from the participants was the need to have clear, faculty expectations and
consistent, constructive feedback. Additionally, the expectations and feedback should be consistent across faculty.
For example, one faculty member would have high expectations for the proper incorporation of and citation of
literature and the next would devalue these elements and emphasize grammar and organization. The contradictory
feedback between instructors was confusing and frustrating for participants. In the words of one participant, “The
expectations for each professor and paper have not always been clear. It would be beneficial for there to be ground
rules within the department for grading and paper component expectations.” The need for faculty consensus on
grammar, citations, organizational preferences, and other writing elements were frequently sought by participants.

Additionally, participants noted incompatibility between student and faculty expectations on writing assignments. As
one participant stated, “It seems each professor has a different hang up on writing…it seems a common rubric
would help… please stay consistent.” Ironically the quantitative data supported clearly explained scholarly writing
expectations on assignments, while the qualitative data spoke to a clear disconnect between student and instructor
expectations on writing assignments. In an effort to ensure uniform, realistic expectations that are consistent
between faculty and students, detailed rubrics with specific assessment criteria were recommended.


Another theme that emerged from the qualitative data surrounded student anxieties surrounding the writing
process. At times the emotional response to the assignment would appear as writer’s block, paralyzing even to the
most seasoned writers, leading to a student’s inability to complete quality, timely assignments. An additional
contributing factor to their writing anxiety included receiving participant’s responses to constructive feedback.
Rather than appreciate faculty feedback, participants commented on how the feedback only contributed to their

feelings of writing. One student in particular discussed his struggle after completing the comprehensive exam
process, “After comps, I had an extremely difficult time getting my confidence back. The first time I had to write I
sat at the computer for an hour and couldn’t get a word down. That had never happened to me before.” Rather
than recognize the constructive nature of faculty feedback, participants felt critiqued and their confidence shaken.

Participants offered strategies for reducing the anxiety associated with writing. These recommendations included
the implementation of peer review or peer writing groups where students could offer support, encouragement and
constructive feedback to one another. By supporting one another through the obstacles associated with writing,
participants recognized that they were not alone in their challenges and could learn from one another.

Additionally, faculty become critical in building writing skills and self-assurance in students. As per our participants,
faculty should consider providing practice examples of quality writing. Additionally, one participant commented on
how much she appreciated a faculty member who shared a recent review she received from a journal. The faculty
member received extensive feedback and planned to revise and resubmit the article. The student commented
knowing that a faculty member received feedback on her writing validated the idea that everyone’s writing could be
improved. Students recommended creating a culture of demystifying the feedback process and welcoming the
feedback as a way to improve their writing rather than the feedback serving as an indication of their lack of
understanding of scholarly writing. Additionally, participants reinforced the need for positive, reinforcing feedback to
help offset some of the harsher constructive feedback. For the doctoral students, knowing what they are doing
correctly was just as important as understanding the improvements which needed to be made by providing a boost
to their confidence level. As one participant stated, “when a faculty member wrote ‘that is doctoral level writing’ on
my paper, I was ecstatic. This one comment really boosted my confidence.”

Writing Mechanics

The fourth theme that emerged from the qualitative literature relates to the overall mechanics of writing. Students
noted that they struggled with the fundamentals of writing including proper citations, grammar, verb-tense and
passive voice. Since participants were practitioner-scholars with full-time jobs, their work settings did not often
require academic type writing. As a result, participants recognized the need for remediation in the fundamentals of
writing, citing and basic literature searches.

Participants recommended faculty administer and review practice tests related to writing basics. They also endorsed
allowing students to rewrite papers or submit drafts prior to the deadline. These opportunities would allow them to
improve their writing with each draft. Respondents suggested current students use the university writing center, if
that center has individuals qualified to assess and provide feedback for doctoral-level writing. Understanding that
the dissertation is a major hurdle to completion, students recommended course assignments be created to
specifically demystify the dissertation process and allow them to prepare for the dissertation (Cuthbert & Spark,
2008). Students did recommend additional writing support but most agreed that writing seminars or APA
workshops should be optional as not everyone needed remediation in this area.


As the findings from this study indicated, practitioner doctoral students struggle with efficiently using writing time,
ways to organize their writing projects, and high levels of emotional stress related to producing writing for critique.
Proactively addressing these challenges and infusing strategies for overcoming these barriers throughout a doctoral
program are vital to student writing success. As early as program orientation, writing strategies should be taught
and then reinforced throughout the doctoral program. By focusing on the process of writing and critiquing to
develop academic writing skills at the beginning phase of doctoral studies, a culture of improvement is established
during the initial socialization of a doctoral program (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). Training topics should include
establishing writing timelines, how to search the literature, concept mapping and outlining projects, proper citation
and a review of common grammatical mistakes. As evidenced in our findings, despite being doctoral students, most
students needed intentional instruction and practice related to basic scholarly writing. By emphasizing quality
writing throughout a doctoral program, faculty and students alike have shared expectations for what it means to be
a member of the learning body.

Additionally, peer review can be a helpful tool in doctoral writing, but students must first be educated on how to
provide meaningful and constructive feedback. Peer evaluation helps create a culture of ongoing feedback and
insights about what feedback means, how to emotionally respond, and what to do with the feedback. Since
everyone in the writing group follows the same processes and is then critiqued, receiving feedback becomes de-
stigmatized (Cafarella & Barnett, 2000). This is an important process which can reduce some of the anxiety
associated with writing over time when students frequently take part in peer review assignments or group writings
(Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cafarella & Barnett, 2000).

Lastly, faculty members can help by defining writing expectations and holding individual student conferences.
Departmental consensus on writing expectations and priorities is imperative for student success in learning the
elements of scholarly writing. Clear expectations, detailed rubrics, and specific feedback (Belcher, 2009) are aids in
advancing student’s writing skills. When student’s skills improve and their efficacy increases, they are more likely to
view themselves as capable of completing a dissertation and have the motivation to complete. If improving student
writing and reducing writing anxiety are departmental priorities, faculty must collectively discuss expectations and
implement the necessary changes. Furthermore, students should be encouraged to meet with course instructors
and advisors to receive feedback on their writing and suggestions for approaching writing assignments. By regularly
discussing writing projects with advisors, students will build writing confidence and improve their writing skills
(Cafarella & Barnett, 2000).

This study was intentionally limited to one doctoral program with students who work full-time as educational
leaders. This study is unique because of the lens of practitioner-scholars and their perspectives on scholarly writing.
Based on the findings from this survey, areas for future research include identifying ways to embrace the diversity
of perspectives brought to doctoral programs by practitioners while prioritizing doctoral level writing. Moreover,
further studies could examine how institutions can strike a balance between creating an environment built to
provide students with academic success while still providing opportunities for transformative learning. Additionally,
we have determined that additional research is warranted regarding the role of the student in the dissertation
writing process.


The ability to write critically is an essential component to becoming a member of the academic community and,
therefore, doctoral programs conclude with the ultimate writing task; a dissertation. For many practitioner-
students, the writing skills they bring to the classroom are reflections of their undergraduate courses or workplace
experiences and do not meet the expectations of doctoral programs. This gap between skills and expectations,
when not met during the initial stages of a doctoral program, leads to doubt, anxiety and stress. For practitioner-
scholars managing multiple responsibilities on top of their coursework, the emotional duress can result in late
assignments, lower scores, and even discontinuation of the program. From our research, we have learned there are
changes which can be made by students and faculty to bridge the skills gap, create consistency and transparency,
and build a program focused on scholarly expression.


Belcher, W.L. (2009). Writing Your Journal Article in 12 weeks: A Guide to academic publishing success. Los
Angeles: Sage.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review
in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (1997). Teaching doctoral students writing: Negotiating the borders between the
world of practice and doctoral study. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the University Council for
Educational Administration, Orlando, FL.

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance
of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.

Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty
perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33-49.

Cuthbert, D., & Spark, C. (2008). Getting a GRIP; Examining the outcomes of a pilot program to support graduate
research students in writing for publication. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 77-88.

Ferguson, T. (2009). The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 33(2), 285-297.

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative pedagogies for
doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 507-514.

Kucan, L. (2011). Approximating the practice of writing the dissertation literature review. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 50(3), 229-240.

Labaree, D.F. (2003). The Peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4),

Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (December, 2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology,
27(6), 807-822.

Manalo, E. (2006). The usefulness of an intensive preparatory course for EAL thesis writers. Journal of Research in
International Education, 5(2), 215-230.

Nielsen, S. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2002). Joining the conversation: Graduate students’ perceptions of writing for
publication. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Adult Education Research Conference. Raleigh, NC.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 471830).

Ondrusek, A. L. (2012). What the Research Reveals about Graduate Students’ Writing Skills: A Literature Review.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 176-188.

Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do ‘vs.’ guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international
doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101-112.

Barbara A. Klocko

Central Michigan University

Sarah M. Marshall

Central Michigan University

Jillian F. Davidson

Central Michigan University

Copyright North American Business Press Aug 2015


Subject Studies;
Student writing;
Graduate studies;
Educational leadership;
Graduate students;
Scholarly communication;
Dissertations & theses

Title Developing Practitioner-Scholar Doctoral Candidates as Critical Writers
Author Klocko, Barbara A; Marshall, Sarah M; Davidson, Jillian F
Publication title Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice; West Palm Beach
Volume 15
Issue 4
Pages 21-31
Number of pages 11
Publication year 2015
Publication date Aug 2015
Publisher North American Business Press
Place of publication West Palm Beach
Country of publication United States, West Palm Beach
Publication subject Education–Higher Education
ISSN 21583595
Source type Scholarly Journal
Language of publication English
Document type Feature
Document feature References; Tables; Graphs; Diagrams
ProQuest document ID 1726783985
Document URL https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-


Copyright Copyright North American Business Press Aug 2015
Last updated 2016-10-08
Database ProQuest One Academic

Database copyright © 2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions


Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper